4
$\begingroup$

The Casella Berger (2002) solutions manual says that the minimal sufficient statistic for

$$f(x) = e^{-(x-\theta)}e^{-e^{-(x-\theta)}}, \qquad x\in \mathbb{R}$$

are the order statistics $(X_{(1)},\dots,X_{(n)})$. This confuses me because it can be written as

$$f(x) = e^{\theta}e^{-x}e^{-e^\theta{e^{-x}}}$$

Which seems to be in the form of a full-rank exponential family, with complete sufficient statistic $T(X) = \sum_i e^{-X_i}$, and hence $T(X)$ is minimal sufficient by Bahadur's theorem. $T(X)$ seems to achieve a much greater reduction in the data aswell, so that the order statistics cannot be minimal sufficient?

I wonder if there is a property of the PDF I am missing that means it's not actually exponential family?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I think you're right. The full location-scale family Gumbel is not exponential family but the location-family with scale=1 as here would be. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Jun 8 at 3:26
0
$\begingroup$

Indeed it is clear from the density of $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ that $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n e^{-X_i}$ is a minimal complete sufficient statistic for $\theta$ as the pdf is a member of a regular full-rank exponential family as you say:

\begin{align} f_{\theta}(x_1,\cdots,x_n)&=e^{-\sum\limits_{i=1}^n x_i+n\theta}\exp\left(-\sum_{i=1}^n e^{-(x_i-\theta)}\right) \\&=\exp\left(-e^{\theta}\sum_{i=1}^n e^{-x_i}+n\theta\right)e^{-\sum\limits_{i=1}^nx_i}\quad\small\text{ for all }(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in\mathbb R^n\,,\,\theta\in\mathbb R \end{align}

The vector of order statistics is just sufficient, not minimal sufficient

$\endgroup$

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.