I am currently studying sufficiency statistics. My notes say the following:
A statistic $T(\mathbf{Y})$ is sufficient for $\theta$ if, and only if, for all $\theta \in \Theta$, $$L(\theta; \mathbf{y}) = g(T(\mathbf{y}), \theta) \cdot h(\mathbf{y}),$$ where the function $g(\cdot)$ depends on $\theta$ and the statistic $T(\mathbf{Y})$, while the function $h(\cdot)$ does not contain $\theta$.
Sufficient statistics are not unique:
Any one-to-one transformation of a sufficient statistic is again a sufficient statistic.Sufficiency depends on the model:
- Let $Y_1, \dots, Y_n$ be a sample from $N(\mu, \sigma^2)$, where $\sigma^2 > 0$ is known. The only unknown parameter is $\mu = E[Y]$. $T(\mathbf{Y}) = \sum_{i = 1}^n Y_i$ or $T(\mathbf{Y}) = \bar{Y}$ are sufficient statistics for $\mu$.
- Let $Y_1, \dots, Y_n$ be a sample from a $\text{Uniform}[ \mu - 1, \mu + 1]$ distribution. The only unknown parameter is $\mu = E[Y]$. In this case, $T(\mathbf{Y}) = \sum_{i = 1}^n Y_i$ or $T(\mathbf{Y}) = \bar{Y}$ are not sufficient statistics for $\mu$.
I don't understand why $T(\mathbf{Y}) = \sum_{i = 1}^n Y_i$ or $T(\mathbf{Y}) = \bar{Y}$ are sufficient statistics for $\mu$ for the normally distributed case but $T(\mathbf{Y}) = \sum_{i = 1}^n Y_i$ or $T(\mathbf{Y}) = \bar{Y}$ are not sufficient statistics for $\mu$ in the uniformly distributed case. I know that the unique characteristic of the uniform distribution is that its density is the same everywhere in the distribution, unlike the normal distribution, so I strongly suspect that this has something to do with it; although, as I said, I'm not sure precisely why.
An accompanying example for the uniformly distributed case is as follows:
Example
Let $Y_1, \dots, Y_n$ be an i.i.d. $U[\mu - 1, \mu + 1]$. It has the density $$f_\mu (y) = \begin{cases} 1/2 & \text{if} \ \mu - 1 \le y \le \mu + 1 \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}, \end{cases}$$ where $\mu \in \Theta = \mathbb{R} = (-\infty, \infty)$. The likelihood is given by $$\begin{align} L(\mu; \mathbf{y}) = \prod_{i = 1}^n f_{\mu} (y_i) &= \begin{cases} 1/2^n & \text{if} \ \mu - 1 \le y \le \mu + 1 \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \\ &= \begin{cases} 1/2^n & \text{if} \ \mu - 1 \le y_{(1)} \le \dots \le y_{(n)} \le \mu + 1 \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \\ &= \begin{cases} 1/2^n & \text{if} \ y_{(n)} - 1 \le \mu \le y_{(1)} + 1 \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases} \end{align}$$ here $(y_{(1)} \le \dots \le y_{(n)})$ is the order statistic of $(y_1, \dots, y_n)$.
The only part of this example that is unclear to me is the last case:
$$\begin{cases} 1/2^n & \text{if} \ y_{(n)} - 1 \le \mu \le y_{(1)} + 1 \\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$
Specifically, I don't understand where $\ y_{(n)} - 1 \le \mu \le y_{(1)} + 1$ came from; the equivalence of the algebra to the two cases that came before it are not clear to me.
I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify this.