4
$\begingroup$

The problem is to show that the largest order statistic $x_{(n)}$ is sufficient for $\theta$ where $X \sim \frac{1}{\theta}\mathbb{I}_{x \in (0, \theta)}$ is a uniform distribution.

I believe I have proved the result, but my argument cannot make sense, due to the consequences. Here's my argument:

The likelihood of a random sample of size $n$ is, for $\theta >0$, $$L(\theta) = \bigg(\frac{1}{\theta} \bigg)\bigg(\frac{1}{\theta} \bigg) \cdots \bigg(\frac{1}{\theta} \bigg) = \frac{1}{\theta^n},$$ which factors into a product of a function of $\theta$ and $\hat\theta$, and a function of the sample $x_i$ for any statistic $\hat\theta$. Therefore, by the Fisher-Neyman Factorization Theorem, any statistic is sufficient for $\theta$. In particular, the largest order statistic $x_{(n)}$ is sufficient for $\theta$.

It seems to me like any statistic should be sufficient for $\theta$. Of course, "any" statistic includes a constant, so my argument must be wrong. I'm not sure why, though. Can anyone enlighten me?

Thanks

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The likelihood, when applied to the parameter $\theta$, is supposed to be a number, but on the right hand side of your equation you have written a function (namely, a multiple of $\mathbb{I}_{(0,\theta)}$). That can't possibly be correct, can it? Has there perhaps been a typographical omission? $\endgroup$ – whuber Mar 31 '15 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ Hey, I'm a big fan of some of your posts! Of course, you're right. I edited $\mathbb{I}_{(0, \theta)}$ into the post after I posted it, thinking I needed some condition on $\theta$. I should just write that $\theta > 0$. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – user795305 Mar 31 '15 at 22:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK, but why aren't you evaluating $\mathbb{I}_{(0,\theta)}(x_i)$ for each observation $x_i$? Why do the $x_i$ simply disappear? I believe this is where your respondent Julius has been trying to direct your attention. $\endgroup$ – whuber Mar 31 '15 at 22:53
  • $\begingroup$ Juluis' recent edit and your post has made the problem clear. I was ignoring the domain of the pdf of the uniform distribution $X$! Thank you for the help. $\endgroup$ – user795305 Mar 31 '15 at 22:55
6
$\begingroup$

The problem is in the way you wrote the likelihood function. Suppose that we observe $x_{(n)}=2$, where $x_{(n)}$ is the $n$th ordered value of the sample $x_1,\dots,x_n$. Then what is $L(1)$? According to your formula it would be 1, but $\theta$ being 1 is not likely at all since we observe a draw from $U(0,\theta)$ that is higher than 1. Therefore, $L(1)=0$.

That is, for $\theta$ to be feasible, i.e. to have a positive likelihood, we cannot observe $x_{(n)}>\theta$ drawn from $U(0,\theta)$. In other words, by recalling that the density function of $U(0,\theta)$ actually is $f(x)=\frac1\theta 1_{(0,\theta)}(x)$, we get

$$L(\theta)=\frac1\theta1_{(0,\theta)}(x_1)\dots \frac1\theta1_{(0,\theta)}(x_n)=\frac{1}{\theta^n}1_{(0,\theta)}(\max\{x_1,\dots,x_2\})=\frac{1}{\theta^n}1_{(0,\theta)}(x_{(n)}),$$

in which case not any statistic is sufficient.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, it seems like my likelihood definitely is wrong. I don't see why yours is right, though. Where does the $x_{(n)}$ term come from? $\endgroup$ – user795305 Mar 31 '15 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ Let me update the answer. $\endgroup$ – Julius Vainora Mar 31 '15 at 22:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.