6
$\begingroup$

I am trying to prove that

There is no UMVUE for $\theta$ for the distribution $\text{Unif}\{\theta-1, \theta, \theta+1\}$, $\theta$ is an integer.

Here is what I have attempted.

I am trying to use the theorem 1.7 from Lehmann and Casella's book but I got stuck.

The theorem says

Let $X$ have a distribution $\mathbb{P}_\theta$, $\theta\in\Theta$, let $\delta$ be an estimator so that $\mathbb{E}_\theta\delta^2<\infty$, and let $\mathcal{U}$ denote the set of all unbiased estimator of zero, which also satisfy $\mathbb{E}_\theta U^2<\infty,\forall U\in\mathcal{U}$. Then $\delta$ is a UMVUE for its expectation $g(\theta)=\mathbb{E}(\delta)$ if and only if $$\mathbb{E}_\theta(\delta U)=0,\forall U\in\mathcal{U}\text{ and }\theta\in\Theta.$$

Suppose $\{X\}_{i=1}^n\overset{i.i.d}{\sim}\text{Unif}\{\theta-1, \theta, \theta+1\}$. Thus, $$\mathbb{P}(X=\theta-1)=\mathbb{P}(X=\theta)=\mathbb{P}(X=\theta+1)=1/3$$.

All the unbiased estimator of $0$ is of the form $$\mathcal{U}=\{a\mathbb{1}_{(X=\theta-1)}+b\mathbb{1}_{(X=\theta)}+c\mathbb{1}_{(X=\theta+1)},\text{ }\forall a,b,c\in\mathbb{R},a+b+c=1\}$$ This is because $\forall U\in\mathcal{U}$, we have $\mathbb{E}(U)=1/3(a+b+c)=0.$

Also, notice $$\mathbb{E}(X)=\theta$$

I was trying to use the theorem, but I do not know how to proceed further.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your set $\mathcal U$ is not made of estimators since the expressions involve $\theta$. $\endgroup$
    – Xi'an
    Jan 25, 2021 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ Ha, that's right. I probably need $X_{(n)}-X_{(1)}$ to get the unbiased estimator of zero. Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Tan
    Jan 25, 2021 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ Not sure if this helps but there is no complete sufficient statistic in this model: stats.stackexchange.com/q/61990/119261. $\endgroup$ May 5, 2021 at 15:55

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Let's approach this from first principles.

An estimator $t$ assigns some guess of $\theta$ to any possible outcome $X.$ Since the possible outcomes are integers, write this guess as $t_i$ when $X=i$ for any integer $i.$

We are hoping to find estimators that tend to be close to $\theta$ when $\theta$ is the parameter. Clearly, when $i$ is observed the possible values of $\theta$ are limited (for sure) to the set $\{i+1,i,i-1\}.$ Thus, a good estimator is likely to guess $\theta$ is close to the observation $i.$ Let us therefore express $t$ in terms of how far it departs from the observation; namely, let

$$t_i = i + \delta_i.$$

When $\theta$ is the parameter, the outcomes $\theta-1,$ $\theta,$ and $\theta+1$ have equal probabilities of $1/3$ and all other integers have zero probability. Consequently,

  1. The expectation of $t$ when $\theta$ is the parameter is $$E(t\mid \theta=i) = \frac{1}{3}\left(t_{i-1} + t_i + t_{i+1}\right) = i + \frac{1}{3}\left(\delta_{i-1} + \delta_i + \delta_{i+1}\right).$$ Because $t$ must be unbiased, this quantity equals $i$ no matter what $i$ might be, showing that for all $i,$ $$\delta_{i-1} + \delta_{i} + \delta_{i+1}=0.$$ Already this is a huge restriction, because if we specify (say) $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1,$ this relation recursively requires $\delta_{-1} = \delta_2 = -(\delta_0 + \delta_1),$ *etc., thereby completely determining the estimator.

  2. The variance of $t$ is $$\operatorname{Var}(t\mid \theta=i) = \frac{1}{3}\left((t_{i-1}-i)^2 + (t_i-i)^2 + (t_{i+1}-i)^2\right) \\= \frac{1}{3}\left((\delta_{i-1}-1)^2 + \delta_i^2 + (\delta_{i+1}+1)^2\right).$$ Among all unbiased estimators, this must have the smallest variance for all $i.$

It is a straightforward exercise in algebra (or Calculus, using a Lagrange multiplier) to show that for a specific $i,$ a minimum of $(2)$ can be obtained subject to the constraint $(1)$ and implies $\delta_{i-1}=\delta_i=\delta_{i+1}.$ Since this must hold for all $i,$ clearly the $\delta_i$ are all equal, whence they must all equal $0$ (because $\delta_1 = \delta_2 = -(\delta_0+\delta_1) = -2\delta_1$ has the unique solution $\delta_1=0,$ etc.).

Consequently, if an UMVUE exists, its variance is a constant given by $(2),$ equal to $2/3.$ Unfortunately, there are unbiased estimators that achieve smaller variances for specific values of $\theta.$

For instance, suppose you had a strong belief that $\theta=0.$ You might then adjust your estimator to guess $\theta=0$ whenever an outcome consistent with that guess showed up. That is, you would set $t_0=t_1=t_{-1}=0.$ That is equivalent to $\delta_{-1}=1,$ $\delta_0=0,$ and $\delta_1=-1.$ As we have remarked earlier, these initial conditions determine $t$ completely from the recursion $(1).$ Its variance when $\theta=0$ is zero, because it always guesses the correct value of $\theta.$ You can't do any better than that! Moreover, $0 \ll 2/3$ is a huge improvement. But compensating for that is a larger variance for certain other values of $\theta.$ For instance, since $\delta_2 = \delta_{-1} = 1,$ when $\theta=1$ the possible outcomes are $0,1,2,$ for which $t$ guesses $0,$ $0,$ and $3,$ respectively, for a variance of

$$\frac{1}{3}\left((0-1)^2 + (0-1)^2 + (3-1)^2\right) = 2 \gg \frac{2}{3}.$$

This contradiction--obtaining a lower variance for certain values of $\theta$--shows no UMVUE exists.

You might enjoy re-interpreting $\delta$ as an estimator of 0 ;-).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Setting partial derivatives of the Lagrangian equal to zero gives $2/3(\delta_{i-1}-1)+\lambda = 2/3 \delta_i + \lambda = 2/3(\delta_{i+1} + 1) + \lambda = \delta_{i-1}+\delta_i+\delta_{i+1}=0$. Why does this imply $\delta_{i-1}=\delta_i=\delta_{i+1}$? I thought it implies $\delta_{i-1}-1=\delta_i=\delta_{i+1}+1$, which also satisfies the constraint that they sum to zero. $\endgroup$ Jul 18 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel The equations have to hold for all $i.$ See the text immediately above that result. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Jul 18 at 18:22
  • $\begingroup$ Not sure I understand- if they hold for all $i$, then they hold for $i=0$. Then the first equation reads $\delta_{-1}-1=\delta_0$, which isn't satisfied by $\delta_{-1}=\delta_0=0$. $\endgroup$ Jul 18 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel The integers include the negative numbers. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Jul 18 at 20:37
1
$\begingroup$

I think you have made the right attempt, since the method of zero estimator is the necessary and sufficient condition for a UMVUE to exist. And here is my proof:

Let's first assume there exist a UMVUE $\hat\theta $ for $\theta$. Then, by the theorem, any zero estimator $\eta$ will have:

  1. $E_{\theta}\eta = 0$, for any $𝜃∈Θ$.
  2. $E_𝜃[\eta \hat \theta]=0$

So next step is to find an estimator that breaks one of these conditions.

Let's start with the first term: $$E_𝜃[\eta ]=\frac{1}{3}[\eta(\theta-1) + \eta(\theta) + \eta(\theta+1)] = 0$$ Then any function that satisfies $\eta(x-1) + \eta(x) + \eta(x+1) = 0 $ will meet the requirement. This surely can not derive $E_{\theta}(\eta \hat\theta)= 0 $, so in this case there is no UMVUE.

$\endgroup$

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.