1
$\begingroup$

Suppose $X_1, \ldots, X_n$ is a random sample with pdf $$f_{X_i}(x_i \mid \alpha, \beta) = \beta^{-1} \exp \left(\frac{-(x_i-\alpha)}{\beta}\right) I(x_i \geq \alpha)$$ for all $i = 1, 2, \ldots, n; \ n \geq 2$, with $\beta > 0$. I want to find a minimal sufficient statistic for $(\alpha, \beta)$. I am having trouble working out this problem and can't find a lot of information about this particular distribution so I thought I would ask here.

I do not think that this distribution belongs to an exponential family, but I do think it belongs to a location-scale family. So my approach was to get the PDF into a form where the Neyman-Pearson Factorization Theorem can be applied. We can write

$$\begin{aligned}[t] f_\mathbf{X}(\mathbf{x} \mid \alpha, \beta) &= \prod_{i=1}^n f_{X_i}(x_i \mid \alpha, \beta) \\ &= \beta^{-n}\exp\left( -\frac{1}{\beta} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i - \alpha n\right) \right) I(x_1 \geq \alpha, \ldots, x_n \geq \alpha). \end{aligned}$$

Please let me know if the error is due to my algebra (I omitted the simplification steps here since they are a bit long).

Now I am unsure how to proceed to form $T(\mathbf{x})$, the sufficient statistic. I thought that perhaps I could say

$$I(x_1 \geq \alpha, \ldots, x_n \geq \alpha) = I(x_{(1)} \geq \alpha)$$

and then take $T(\mathbf{x}) = \left( \sum_{i=1}^n x_i, \ x_{(1)} \right) $ and if my step with the indicator function is allowed, then $T$ is sufficient by the Neyman-Pearson Factorization Theorem. But, I am not sure if this is minimal sufficient. When I take the ratio of the pdfs and write

$$\frac{f_{\mathbf{X}}(\mathbf{x} \mid \alpha, \beta)}{f_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{y} \mid \alpha, \beta)} = \frac{I(x_{(1)} \geq \alpha)}{I(y_{(1)} \geq \alpha)} \exp \left(-\frac{1}{\beta} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i - \sum_{i=1}^n y_i \right) \right)$$

I know that if a sufficient statistic is minimal sufficient if given two samples, $\mathbf{x}, \ \mathbf{y}$, the ratio $f(\mathbf{x}\mid \theta) / f(\mathbf{y} \mid \theta)$ is "constant as a function of theta" if and only if $T(\mathbf{x}) = T(\mathbf{y})$.

How can I determine if this is true for my ratio? Clearly if the sums of the two samples are equal, the ratio is constant as a function of beta, so the sum is minimal sufficient for beta.

But I am unsure whether $x_{(1)}$ is sufficient for alpha based on the ratio argument. How can I use the ratio to determine this? If $x_{(1)}$ is not minimal sufficient for alpha, how can I modify my approach?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ @Xi'an thank you, I have fixed the typo. I thought that was the case but then I am not sure how to find a minimal sufficient statistic. $\endgroup$ Jan 26 at 20:29
  • $\begingroup$ Changing the pair in any way modifies the likelihood function/ratio by more than a multiplicative constant, hence the pair is minimal. $\endgroup$
    – Xi'an
    Jan 26 at 21:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Xi'an Unfortunately I am not allowed to use a likelihood argument as my course has not covered likelihood yet. I have updated my question to better reflect what I am asking. $\endgroup$ Jan 26 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ Then apply the ratio argument you mention. $\endgroup$
    – Xi'an
    Jan 27 at 7:20
1
$\begingroup$

First this family of distributions is an Exponential $\mathcal E(\beta^{-1})$ translated by $\alpha$. Since the support of the density depends on $\alpha$, the family is not an exponential family.

Second, the ratio $$\frac{f_{\mathbf{X}}(\mathbf{x} \mid \alpha, \beta)}{f_{\mathbf{Y}}(\mathbf{y} \mid \alpha, \beta)} = \frac{\mathbb I(x_{(1)} \geq \alpha)}{\mathbb I(y_{(1)} \geq \alpha)} \exp \left(-\frac{1}{\beta} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i - \sum_{i=1}^n y_i \right) \right)$$ factorises in a function of $\alpha$ only $$\frac{\mathbb I(x_{(1)} \geq \alpha)}{\mathbb I(y_{(1)} \geq \alpha)}\tag{1}$$ and a function of $\beta$ only $$\exp \left(-\frac{1}{\beta} \left(\sum_{i=1}^n x_i - \sum_{i=1}^n y_i \right) \right)\tag{2}$$

  1. If $x_{(1)}\ne y_{(1)}$, (1) is not constant in $\alpha$ but takes the values $0$, $1$ and $\infty$.
  2. If $\bar x_n\ne\bar y_n$, (2) is not constant in $\beta$.

Hence $(x_{(1)},\bar x)$ is a minimal sufficient statistic for $(\alpha,\beta)$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for the explanation, I think I was having trouble understanding what the theorem for the constant ratio actually means. But thanks to this I think I understand now. $\endgroup$ Jan 28 at 20:40

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.