Skip to main content
added 396 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8

Exercise. Let $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ be i.i.d.r.v.'s from $N(\theta,1),$ where $\theta$ is unknown.Show the statistic $T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $ is sufficient for $\theta$.


The answer as following:

Suppose that we transform variables $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ to $Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n}$ with the help of an orthogonal transformation so that $Y_{1}$ is $N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1), Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. $N(\theta,1)$ and $Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are independent. We take $$y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x},$$ and ,for $$k=2,\cdots,n,\quad y_{k}=\left [(k-1)x_{k}-(x_1+\cdot+x_{k-1}) \right ]/\sqrt{k(k-1)}.$$

And then, the author said

the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$ given $\bar{X}$, does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1},$ is independent of $\theta.$

I don't understand why the equivalence between them holds. How to prove it rigorously?


I know that the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$

Since

$$f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\exp \left [-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$ $$f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left [ -\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$

$$f(y_{1},\cdots,y_{n}|y_{1})=\frac{f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})}{f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})}=(2\pi)^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}\right ]$$ is independent of $\theta.$


Applying Fisher–Neyman factorization theorem and change of variables formula,the equivalence is obvious.But the author gave this exercise before introducing the factorization theorem,there must be some other ways to get the equivalence.


Every (measurable) set $A$$\mathcal{S}$ in $\mathbf{R}^{n}, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in A|\bar{X}=t]$$\mathbf{R}^{n}, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in \mathcal{S}|\bar{X}=t]$ is independent of $\theta$ a.s. $\mathbf{y}=Q_{n}\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}=Q_{n}^{T}\mathbf{y}$ and $Q_{n}Q_{n}^{T}=I_{n},y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x}.$$Q_{n}^{T}Q_{n}=I_{n},y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x}.$ Then $$\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in A|\bar{X}=t]=\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(Y_1,\cdots, Y_n)^{'}\in Q_{n}^{T}A|Y_{1}=\sqrt{n}t].$$$$\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in\mathcal{S}|\bar{X}=t]=\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(Y_1,\cdots, Y_n)^{'}\in Q_{n}^{T}(\mathcal{S})|Y_{1}=\sqrt{n}t].$$

Exercise. Let $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ be i.i.d.r.v.'s from $N(\theta,1),$ where $\theta$ is unknown.Show the statistic $T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $ is sufficient for $\theta$.


The answer as following:

Suppose that we transform variables $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ to $Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n}$ with the help of an orthogonal transformation so that $Y_{1}$ is $N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1), Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. $N(\theta,1)$ and $Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are independent. We take $$y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x},$$ and ,for $$k=2,\cdots,n,\quad y_{k}=\left [(k-1)x_{k}-(x_1+\cdot+x_{k-1}) \right ]/\sqrt{k(k-1)}.$$

And then, the author said

the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$ given $\bar{X}$, does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1},$ is independent of $\theta.$

I don't understand why the equivalence between them holds. How to prove it rigorously?


I know that the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$

Since

$$f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\exp \left [-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$ $$f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left [ -\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$

$$f(y_{1},\cdots,y_{n}|y_{1})=\frac{f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})}{f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})}=(2\pi)^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}\right ]$$ is independent of $\theta.$


Applying Fisher–Neyman factorization theorem and change of variables formula,the equivalence is obvious.But the author gave this exercise before introducing the factorization theorem,there must be some other ways to get the equivalence.


Every (measurable) set $A$ in $\mathbf{R}^{n}, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in A|\bar{X}=t]$ is independent of $\theta$ a.s. $\mathbf{y}=Q_{n}\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}=Q_{n}^{T}\mathbf{y}$ and $Q_{n}Q_{n}^{T}=I_{n},y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x}.$ Then $$\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in A|\bar{X}=t]=\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(Y_1,\cdots, Y_n)^{'}\in Q_{n}^{T}A|Y_{1}=\sqrt{n}t].$$

Exercise. Let $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ be i.i.d.r.v.'s from $N(\theta,1),$ where $\theta$ is unknown.Show the statistic $T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $ is sufficient for $\theta$.


The answer as following:

Suppose that we transform variables $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ to $Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n}$ with the help of an orthogonal transformation so that $Y_{1}$ is $N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1), Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. $N(\theta,1)$ and $Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are independent. We take $$y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x},$$ and ,for $$k=2,\cdots,n,\quad y_{k}=\left [(k-1)x_{k}-(x_1+\cdot+x_{k-1}) \right ]/\sqrt{k(k-1)}.$$

And then, the author said

the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$ given $\bar{X}$, does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1},$ is independent of $\theta.$

I don't understand why the equivalence between them holds. How to prove it rigorously?


I know that the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$

Since

$$f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\exp \left [-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$ $$f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left [ -\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$

$$f(y_{1},\cdots,y_{n}|y_{1})=\frac{f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})}{f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})}=(2\pi)^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}\right ]$$ is independent of $\theta.$


Applying Fisher–Neyman factorization theorem and change of variables formula,the equivalence is obvious.But the author gave this exercise before introducing the factorization theorem,there must be some other ways to get the equivalence.


Every (measurable) set $\mathcal{S}$ in $\mathbf{R}^{n}, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in \mathcal{S}|\bar{X}=t]$ is independent of $\theta$ a.s. $\mathbf{y}=Q_{n}\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}=Q_{n}^{T}\mathbf{y}$ and $Q_{n}^{T}Q_{n}=I_{n},y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x}.$ Then $$\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in\mathcal{S}|\bar{X}=t]=\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(Y_1,\cdots, Y_n)^{'}\in Q_{n}^{T}(\mathcal{S})|Y_{1}=\sqrt{n}t].$$

added 396 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8

Exercise. Let $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ be i.i.d.r.v.'s from $N(\theta,1),$ where $\theta$ is unknown.Show the statistic $T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $ is sufficient for $\theta$.


The answer as following:

Suppose that we transform variables $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ to $Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n}$ with the help of an orthogonal transformation so that $Y_{1}$ is $N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1), Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. $N(\theta,1)$ and $Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are independent. We take $$y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x},$$ and ,for $$k=2,\cdots,n,\quad y_{k}=\left [(k-1)x_{k}-(x_1+\cdot+x_{k-1}) \right ]/\sqrt{k(k-1)}.$$

And then, the author said

the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$ given $\bar{X}$, does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1},$ is independent of $\theta.$

I don't understand why the equivalence between them holds. How to prove it rigorously?


I know that the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$

Since

$$f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\exp \left [-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$ $$f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left [ -\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$

$$f(y_{1},\cdots,y_{n}|y_{1})=\frac{f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})}{f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})}=(2\pi)^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}\right ]$$ is independent of $\theta.$


Applying Fisher–Neyman factorization theorem and change of variables formula,the equivalence is obvious.But the author gave this exercise before introducing the factorization theorem,there must be some other ways to get the equivalence.


Every (measurable) set $A$ in $\mathbf{R}^{n}, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in A|\bar{X}=t]$ is independent of $\theta$ a.s. $\mathbf{y}=Q_{n}\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}=Q_{n}^{T}\mathbf{y}$ and $Q_{n}Q_{n}^{T}=I_{n},y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x}.$ Then $$\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in A|\bar{X}=t]=\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(Y_1,\cdots, Y_n)^{'}\in Q_{n}^{T}A|Y_{1}=\sqrt{n}t].$$

Exercise. Let $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ be i.i.d.r.v.'s from $N(\theta,1),$ where $\theta$ is unknown.Show the statistic $T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $ is sufficient for $\theta$.


The answer as following:

Suppose that we transform variables $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ to $Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n}$ with the help of an orthogonal transformation so that $Y_{1}$ is $N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1), Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. $N(\theta,1)$ and $Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are independent. We take $$y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x},$$ and ,for $$k=2,\cdots,n,\quad y_{k}=\left [(k-1)x_{k}-(x_1+\cdot+x_{k-1}) \right ]/\sqrt{k(k-1)}.$$

And then, the author said

the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$ given $\bar{X}$, does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1},$ is independent of $\theta.$

I don't understand why the equivalence between them holds. How to prove it rigorously?


I know that the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$

Since

$$f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\exp \left [-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$ $$f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left [ -\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$

$$f(y_{1},\cdots,y_{n}|y_{1})=\frac{f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})}{f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})}=(2\pi)^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}\right ]$$ is independent of $\theta.$


Applying Fisher–Neyman factorization theorem and change of variables formula,the equivalence is obvious.But the author gave this exercise before introducing the factorization theorem,there must be some other ways to get the equivalence.

Exercise. Let $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ be i.i.d.r.v.'s from $N(\theta,1),$ where $\theta$ is unknown.Show the statistic $T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $ is sufficient for $\theta$.


The answer as following:

Suppose that we transform variables $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ to $Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n}$ with the help of an orthogonal transformation so that $Y_{1}$ is $N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1), Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. $N(\theta,1)$ and $Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are independent. We take $$y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x},$$ and ,for $$k=2,\cdots,n,\quad y_{k}=\left [(k-1)x_{k}-(x_1+\cdot+x_{k-1}) \right ]/\sqrt{k(k-1)}.$$

And then, the author said

the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$ given $\bar{X}$, does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1},$ is independent of $\theta.$

I don't understand why the equivalence between them holds. How to prove it rigorously?


I know that the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$

Since

$$f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\exp \left [-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$ $$f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left [ -\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$

$$f(y_{1},\cdots,y_{n}|y_{1})=\frac{f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})}{f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})}=(2\pi)^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}\right ]$$ is independent of $\theta.$


Applying Fisher–Neyman factorization theorem and change of variables formula,the equivalence is obvious.But the author gave this exercise before introducing the factorization theorem,there must be some other ways to get the equivalence.


Every (measurable) set $A$ in $\mathbf{R}^{n}, \mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in A|\bar{X}=t]$ is independent of $\theta$ a.s. $\mathbf{y}=Q_{n}\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}=Q_{n}^{T}\mathbf{y}$ and $Q_{n}Q_{n}^{T}=I_{n},y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x}.$ Then $$\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(X_1,\cdots, X_n)^{'}\in A|\bar{X}=t]=\mathbb{P}_{\theta}[(Y_1,\cdots, Y_n)^{'}\in Q_{n}^{T}A|Y_{1}=\sqrt{n}t].$$

deleted 1 character in body
Source Link
User1865345
  • 10.3k
  • 12
  • 23
  • 40

Exercise. Let $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ be i.i.d.r.v.'s from $N(\theta,1),$ where $\theta$ is unknown.Show the statistic $T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n},X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $$T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $ is sufficient for $\theta$.


The answer as following:

Suppose that we transform variables $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ to $Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n}$ with the help of an orthogonal transformation so that $Y_{1}$ is $N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1),Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$$N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1), Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. $N(\theta,1)$,and and $Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are independent. We take $$y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x},$$ and ,for $$k=2,\cdots,n,\quad y_{k}=\left [(k-1)x_{k}-(x_1+\cdot+x_{k-1}) \right ]/\sqrt{k(k-1)}.$$

And then, the author said that "the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$,given $\bar{X}$,does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the contional distrbution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$"

the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$ given $\bar{X}$, does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1},$ is independent of $\theta.$

I don't understand why the equivalence between them holds. How to prove it rigorously?


I know that the contional distrbutionconditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$

Since

$$f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\exp \left [-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$ $$f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left [ -\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$

$$f(y_{1},\cdots,y_{n}|y_{1})=\frac{f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})}{f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})}=(2\pi)^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}\right ]$$ is independent of $\theta.$


Applying Fisher–Neyman factorization theorem and change of variables formula,the equivalence is obvious.But the author gave this exercise before introducing the factorization theorem,there must be some other ways to get the equivalence.

Exercise. Let $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ be i.i.d.r.v.'s from $N(\theta,1),$ where $\theta$ is unknown.Show the statistic $T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n},X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $ is sufficient for $\theta$.


The answer as following:

Suppose that we transform variables $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ to $Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n}$ with the help of an orthogonal transformation so that $Y_{1}$ is $N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1),Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. $N(\theta,1)$,and $Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are independent. We take $$y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x},$$ and ,for $$k=2,\cdots,n,\quad y_{k}=\left [(k-1)x_{k}-(x_1+\cdot+x_{k-1}) \right ]/\sqrt{k(k-1)}.$$

And then, the author said that "the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$,given $\bar{X}$,does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the contional distrbution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$" I don't understand why the equivalence between them holds. How to prove it rigorously?


I know that the contional distrbution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$

Since

$$f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\exp \left [-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$ $$f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left [ -\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$

$$f(y_{1},\cdots,y_{n}|y_{1})=\frac{f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})}{f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})}=(2\pi)^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}\right ]$$ is independent of $\theta.$


Applying Fisher–Neyman factorization theorem and change of variables formula,the equivalence is obvious.But the author gave this exercise before introducing the factorization theorem,there must be some other ways to get the equivalence.

Exercise. Let $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ be i.i.d.r.v.'s from $N(\theta,1),$ where $\theta$ is unknown.Show the statistic $T(\mathbf{X})=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}/n=\bar{X} $ is sufficient for $\theta$.


The answer as following:

Suppose that we transform variables $X_1,\cdots,X_{n}$ to $Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n}$ with the help of an orthogonal transformation so that $Y_{1}$ is $N(\sqrt{n}\theta,1), Y_{2},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are i.i.d. $N(\theta,1)$ and $Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{n}$ are independent. We take $$y_{1}=\sqrt{n}\bar{x},$$ and ,for $$k=2,\cdots,n,\quad y_{k}=\left [(k-1)x_{k}-(x_1+\cdot+x_{k-1}) \right ]/\sqrt{k(k-1)}.$$

And then, the author said

the conditional distribution of $\mathbf{X}=(X_{1},\cdots,X_{n})$ given $\bar{X}$, does not depend on $\theta$ ${\color{Red}{\text{is equivalent to}}}$ the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1},$ is independent of $\theta.$

I don't understand why the equivalence between them holds. How to prove it rigorously?


I know that the conditional distribution of $(Y_1,\cdots,Y_{n})$,given $Y_{1}$,is independent of $\theta.$

Since

$$f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\exp \left [-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$ $$f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left [ -\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}-\sqrt{n}\theta)^{2} \right ];$$

$$f(y_{1},\cdots,y_{n}|y_{1})=\frac{f_{\theta}(y_1,\cdots,y_{n})}{f_{Y_{1}}(y_{1})}=(2\pi)^{-\frac{n-1}{n}}\exp \left [ -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=2}^{n}y^{2}_{i}\right ]$$ is independent of $\theta.$


Applying Fisher–Neyman factorization theorem and change of variables formula,the equivalence is obvious.But the author gave this exercise before introducing the factorization theorem,there must be some other ways to get the equivalence.

added 4 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
edited title
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
added 261 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
added 10 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
deleted 217 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
deleted 217 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
edited title
Link
Sycorax
  • 94.1k
  • 23
  • 236
  • 390
Loading
deleted 217 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
added 127 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
deleted 112 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
edited tags
Link
User1865345
  • 10.3k
  • 12
  • 23
  • 40
Loading
added 6 characters in body
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading
Source Link
Elisa
  • 330
  • 1
  • 8
Loading