The term ∑i∉Egi(xi) along with xi for all i∈E is a sufficient statistic, of dimension at most 2D. So if we assume that the Xi’s are 1-dimensional, then there’s a “gap” in the theorem between D and 2D: there exists a summary statistic of dimension D only if the distribution has that form, and if the distribution has that form then ∑i∉Egi(xi) and xi for all i∈E together form a summary statistic of dimension at-most 2D.
I already understood that because you explain it in the text; the further doubt I have is: concerning only the “only if” part, given a D-dimensional sufficient statistic exists by assumption, if ∑i∉Egi(xi) is also a D-dimensional sufficient statistic or not.
I think not, because it should not be able to capture what goes on with the E variables, that’s hidden in the completely arbitrary ∏i∈EP[Xi|Θ] term.
This annoys me because I can’t see the form of the sufficient statistic like in the i.i.d. case.
Correct.
The term ∑i∉Egi(xi) along with xi for all i∈E is a sufficient statistic, of dimension at most 2D. So if we assume that the Xi’s are 1-dimensional, then there’s a “gap” in the theorem between D and 2D: there exists a summary statistic of dimension D only if the distribution has that form, and if the distribution has that form then ∑i∉Egi(xi) and xi for all i∈E together form a summary statistic of dimension at-most 2D.
I already understood that because you explain it in the text; the further doubt I have is: concerning only the “only if” part, given a D-dimensional sufficient statistic exists by assumption, if ∑i∉Egi(xi) is also a D-dimensional sufficient statistic or not.
I think not, because it should not be able to capture what goes on with the E variables, that’s hidden in the completely arbitrary ∏i∈EP[Xi|Θ] term.
This annoys me because I can’t see the form of the sufficient statistic like in the i.i.d. case.