Let $f_X$ be a joint density function that comes from an $s$-parameter exponential family with sufficient statistics $(T_1, T_2, \dots, T_s)$ so that the density $f_X$ can be expressed as

$$f_{X|\theta}(x) = h(x) \exp \left(\sum_{i=1}^s T_i(x)\eta_i(\theta) - A(\theta) \right)$$

I have two questions:

  1. Expressed in this form, is it correct to say the statistics $T_1,\dots,T_s$ are jointly sufficient, as opposed to independently sufficient?

  2. Based on them being jointly sufficient, is it correct to say any unbiased estimator $\tau (X)$ such that $E[\tau(X)|T_i,T_j] = \theta_k$, for some $i,j,k$, must be UMVUE of $\theta_k \in \theta$?

I'm trying to understand the difference between being sufficient, and jointly sufficient

  • 2
    1. Yes , and 2. You'll need joint completeness of $(T_i,T_j)$ alongside sufficiency for the conditional mean to be UMVUE. – StubbornAtom Sep 20 at 2:06
  • 1
    The first part is easy to solve. You can express $\sum_{i=1}^s T_i(x) \eta_i(\theta)$ as $\eta^T(\theta) T(x)$ where $T(x) = [T_1(x),\ldots,T_s(x)]^T$ and $\eta(\theta) = [\eta_1(\theta),\ldots,\eta_s(\theta)]^T$. Thus, $T(x)$ is sufficient which implies jointly sufficient in this case. – Maxtron Sep 20 at 2:07
up vote 3 down vote accepted

For exponential families, under the conditions that (a) the components $T_i(\cdot)$ are linearly independent [minimal representation of the exponential family] and (b) the parameter space Θ contains an open set in $\mathbb{R}^s$, the statistic $T(X)$ is also complete, which implies that the estimator $$\mathbb{E}_\theta[\tau(X)|T(X)]$$is UMVUE for estimating $\mathbb{E}_\theta[\tau(X)]$ by Lehmann-Scheffe. In the special case when$$\mathbb{E}_\theta[\tau(X)|T(X)]=\mathbb{E}_\theta[\tau(X)|T_i(X),T_j(X)]$$the later is (obviously) complete, but there is no reason in general for a sub-vector of $T(X)$ to be sufficient, hence for the expression $\mathbb{E}_\theta[\tau(X)|T_i(X),T_j(X)]$ to be independent from $\theta$.

As a remark, I never use the term jointly sufficient in my courses. As I find it unhelpful. A vector statistic $S(X)$ is sufficient or not, as a whole, and it may be that some non-bijective transforms of $S(X)$ are also sufficient, in which case $S$ is not minimal (and not complete). Similarly, I am keeping away from defining sufficiency for some component of the vector $\theta$, as this leads to paradoxes, as shown by e.g. Basu (1977).

  • 1
    Wow looks like those are presentation slides of your lectures. Neat! – StubbornAtom Sep 20 at 5:57

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.