I'm trying to understand this theorem: Let $\theta=(\theta_1,...\theta_p)$ be parameters for a distribution. Then if $\theta$ has a minimum variance unbiased estimator $\hat{\theta}$, then $\hat{\theta}$ must be the maximum likelihood estimator obtained by solving $U(x;\hat{\theta})=0$.

It is not clear to me why this is true, although I understand that the MLE of $\theta$ maximizes the joint density function $f(x;\theta)$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Source? I don't think it could be true (but I could be thinking about it wrong). Think of something like an exponential distribution parametrized by $\lambda$ (not $\theta$). Shouldn't the sample mean still be be a complete, sufficient statistic there, so $1/\bar X$ scaled to be unbiased should be the UMVUE? However the MLE is just $1/\bar X$ and is biased. $\endgroup$ – spaceisdarkgreen May 15 '18 at 3:51

This is incorrect. There is no reason for MLE to be an unbiased estimator. E.g., in normal settings $N(\mu, \sigma^2)$, the MLE of $\sigma^2$ $$ \frac{1}{n}\sum(X_i - \bar{X})^2, $$ while the UMVUE is $$ \frac{1}{n-1}\sum(X_i - \bar{X})^2. $$


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.