So the Cramer-Rao bound gives us a lower bound on the variance of an estimator, now if the estimator is unbiased then we have a bound on the mean square error. While I can see the utility of the bound for unbiased estimators, i.e., we have a lower bound on the squared error from the parameter we are trying to estimate, how does the bound help us for biased estimators since if the estimator is biased then it's variance is not equal to its mean squared error, so we just have a bound seemingly unrelated to the parameter we are trying to estimate.
2 Answers
how does the bound help us for biased estimators since if the estimator is biased then it's variance is not equal to its mean squared error
If you are using the squared error loss then we may use the decomposition $$\text{Mean squared error} = \text{bias}^2 + \text{variance}$$
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_squared_error#Proof_of_variance_and_bias_relationship
-
$\begingroup$ generally speaking ( not always of course ), the CR bound is applied using MLEs which are consistent. ( asymptotically unbiased ). If not, then you are right then that the CR bounds isn't all that useful. $\endgroup$– mloftonCommented Nov 16, 2023 at 16:58
-
$\begingroup$ @mlofton I am not saying that the bound isn't useful. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 16, 2023 at 17:04
-
1$\begingroup$ oh, my bad. i wasn't saying that you were saying that the bound wasn't useful. I was refferring to the OP, since he was asking about the bias term and my point was only that, asymptotically, if one uses the MLE, there is no bias. I should have put the comment under where the OP wrote his question. My apologies. $\endgroup$– mloftonCommented Nov 16, 2023 at 18:33
The thing about unbiased estimators is that they are not always the best estimator in terms of minimized error. Often, you should choose to use a biased estimator. Nonetheless, one should still care about the variance of their estimator, as both bias and variance contribute to error: $$\mathbb E [(\hat \theta - \theta)^2]=b^2(\hat \theta) + \text{var}(\hat \theta)$$
Now say you have an estimator, and you are able to do the bias variance decomposition above in relation to some test-data. How might you asses whether your estimator is as precise as it can be given the bias? You can asses the variance with the CRB for biased estimators.
If the bias of your estimator is given by $b(\hat \theta)=\mathbb E[\hat \theta]-\theta$, then the CR bound is given by $$\text{var}(\hat \theta) \ge \frac{(1+b'(\hat \theta))^2}{I(\theta)}$$ where $b'(\hat \theta)$ is the derivative of the bias function. If there is no bias, i.e. $b(\hat \theta)=0$, then this reduces to the traditional bound: $$\text{var}(\hat \theta) \ge \frac{1}{I(\theta)}.$$
Proof found here.
-
2$\begingroup$ You are stating how to compute the CR bound for a biased estimator. But, the question isn't about that. The bound is know, but the question is about the utility of knowing the bound. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 16, 2023 at 18:58
-
1$\begingroup$ @Davey: Your expression is interesting but it does beg the followjng question ( atleast in my mind ). : Since the MLE always has zero bias ( asymptotically), why would someone, interested in the minimizing the variance of the estimator, ever not use the MLE ? Is it possible for a consistent estimator that is not an MLE to have a CRLB less than the CRLB of the MLE ? I'm not sure. $\endgroup$– mloftonCommented Nov 17, 2023 at 6:50
-
$\begingroup$ To me, that is the question you should ask! If you have limited data a biased estimator is may be more "admissible" than the MLE. As the dimensions of your estimation problem increase, the amount of data you need increasese astronomically. Check out James-Stein estimator as an intro to this idea. This is the reason people do regularization or empose priors on their likelihood models. $\endgroup$– DaveyCommented Nov 17, 2023 at 18:00