Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Why is the following $$f(x|\theta) = \theta^{-1} \exp(1-(x/\theta)), \ \ 0 < \theta < x <\infty$$ not an exponential family? We know that $$f(x| \theta) = h(x)c(\theta) \exp(w(\theta)t(x))$$ where $h(x) = e, \ c(\theta) = \theta^{-1}, w(\theta) = \theta^{-1}$ and $t(x) = -x$.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

It depends on your definition of exponential family, but the problem is that the support of the distribution depends on $\theta$. You cannot enforce that $f(x|\theta)=0$ when $x\le \theta$ with functions that depend solely on $x$ or $\theta$ and not both.

share|cite|improve this answer
In other words, this $h(x)c(\theta)\exp(w(\theta)t(x))$ is NOT $f(x\mid\theta)$ for every $(x,\theta)$. – Did Jan 28 '12 at 17:08

A more formal version of deinst's argument: Assume $f(x|\theta)=h(x)c(\theta)\exp(w(\theta) t(x))$. For any fixed $\theta$ and $x<\theta$ we have $$f(x|\theta)=h(x)c(\theta)\exp(w(\theta) t(x))=0,$$ but on the other hand $f(x|\theta)>0$ for all $x>\theta$. This implies $c(\theta)>0$ and $h(x)=0$ for all $x<\theta$. Since $\theta$ was arbitrary, we get $h(x)\equiv 0$, a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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