2
$\begingroup$

It is known that Cramér–Rao_bound is the lower bound of variance of a parameter. A useful link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cram%C3%A9r%E2%80%93Rao_bound There is also a term called 'superefficient', mentioned in the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodges%27_estimator which claims that: "In general, any superefficient estimator may surpass a regular estimator at most on a set of Lebesgue measure zero". My question is how "Lebesgue measure zero" is associated with the parameters discussed in the Cramér–Rao_bound? Is there a limitation where Cramér–Rao_bound is applicable?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The basic form of the Crammer-Rao bound is: if $\hat \theta$ is unbiased (or at least locally unbiased around $\theta_0$) then:

$$ var(\hat \theta | \theta_0) \geq I_F^{-1}(\theta_0) $$

The general form is: define the function $e(\theta) = E(\hat \theta | \theta)$. Then:

$$ var(\hat \theta | \theta_0) \geq e'(\theta_0) I_F^{-1}(\theta_0) e'(\theta_0) $$

(If I haven't messed up, this formula should work for vector valued $\theta$: that's why I separated the derivatives). You can see how the general formula reduces to the basic formula when $e' = 1$

Any super-efficient guy is "cheating" the Cramer-Rao bound by being biased. While they break the basic Crao bound, they still respect the general formula for biased estimators. If you consider the Hodges, for every finite $n$, $\hat \theta_n^H$ is biased everywhere, and actually $e'(\theta=0)=0$ so that it's not surprising that they can reach an arbitrarily low variance there.

I think this super-efficient business looks fishy. The hodge estimator appears surpisingly powerful because we went to the limit $n \rightarrow \infty$ and then considered his properties. That's stupid: at $n=\infty$ most non-absurd estimators are exact. Nobody can be better than anybody else. When we looked at the property of the hodge estimator for a finite n, the "paradox" disappeared. To quote Jaynes:

Not only in probability theory, but in all mathematics, it is the careless use of infinite sets, and of infinite and infinitesimal quantities, that generates most paradoxes.

Passage to a limit should always be the last operation, not the first.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.