4.9.18 · Maths › Probability Theory & Statistics
Hamare paas ek unknown number θ hai (yahi parameter hai) jo ek population ko describe karta hai — jaise uska true mean.
Hum θ directly nahi dekh sakte; hum sirf ek random sample dekhte hain. Ek estimator θ ^ ek rule hai (data ka ek function) jo ek guess produce karta hai.
Kyunki data random hai, θ ^ khud bhi ek random variable hai — iska ek distribution hota hai.
Pura game yeh hai: yeh guessing rule kitna acha hai? Hum ise teen nazariye se judge karte hain:
Unbiasedness — kya yeh average par sahi hai? (θ par centered hai)
Consistency — kya yeh zyada data collect karne par behtar hota hai ? (θ pe converge karta hai)
Efficiency — achhe rules mein se, kya yeh sabse kam wobbly hai? (smallest variance)
Definition Estimator vs estimate
Diye gaye data X 1 , … , X n ke liye, ek estimator ek statistic θ ^ = T ( X 1 , … , X n ) hota hai — ek random variable.
Ek estimate woh number hai jo aapko actual observed data plug in karne ke baad milta hai.
Example: X ˉ = n 1 ∑ X i mean μ ka ek estimator hai; ek sample se aayi value 4.7 ek estimate hai.
Random variable KYU? Kyunki sample lene se pehle, aapko nahi pata kaunsi values aayengi. Alag-alag samples → alag-alag θ ^ values → ek sampling distribution.
Definition Unbiased estimator
θ ^ , θ ke liye unbiased hai agar
E [ θ ^ ] = θ for every possible θ .
Bias hai Bias ( θ ^ ) = E [ θ ^ ] − θ . Unbiased ka matlab bias = 0 .
Intuition YEH KYU matter karta hai
"Infinitely many samples ke average par, mera rule bullseye pe lagta hai." Iska matlab yeh nahi hai ki koi bhi single estimate sahi hai — matlab yeh hai ki errors long run mein cancel ho jaate hain, koi systematic over- ya under-shoot nahi hoti.
Maano X 1 , … , X n i.i.d. hain aur E [ X i ] = μ .
E [ X ˉ ] = E [ n 1 ∑ i = 1 n X i ] = n 1 ∑ i = 1 n E [ X i ] = n 1 ⋅ n μ = μ .
Yeh step kyun? Expectation linear hai, isliye yeh sum se aur constant 1/ n se pass ho jaati hai. ✓
Hum σ 2 = Var ( X ) estimate karna chahte hain. Naive estimator n 1 ∑ ( X i − X ˉ ) 2 biased low hai. Chaliye dekhte hain exactly kyun.
Iss identity se shuru karein (subtract aur add μ ):
∑ i ( X i − X ˉ ) 2 = ∑ i ( X i − μ ) 2 − n ( X ˉ − μ ) 2 .
Yeh step kyun? ∑ ( X i − μ ) 2 ko X ˉ ke around expand karo; cross term collapse ho jaata hai kyunki ∑ ( X i − X ˉ ) = 0 .
Expectations lo:
E [ ∑ i ( X i − X ˉ ) 2 ] = ∑ i σ 2 E [( X i − μ ) 2 ] − n Var ( X ˉ ) = σ 2 / n E [( X ˉ − μ ) 2 ] = n σ 2 − σ 2 = ( n − 1 ) σ 2 .
Yeh step kyun? Har E [( X i − μ ) 2 ] = σ 2 aur Var ( X ˉ ) = σ 2 / n .
Toh ise unbiased banane ke liye hum n − 1 se divide karte hain, n se nahi:
Definition Consistent estimator
θ ^ n (size n ke sample se estimator) θ ke liye consistent hai agar yeh probability mein converge karta hai:
θ ^ n P θ , i.e. ∀ ε > 0 : lim n → ∞ P ( ∣ θ ^ n − θ ∣ > ε ) = 0.
Intuition KYU / yeh kya capture karta hai
Unbiasedness kisi bhi fixed n ke baare mein hai; consistency n badhne par kya hota hai ke baare mein hai. Ek consistent estimator zyada data ikattha karne par sach ke paas aa jaata hai. Zyada data → almost surely zyada close.
Maano m = E [ θ ^ ] . ± m insert karo:
E [( θ ^ − θ ) 2 ] = E [( θ ^ − m + m − θ ) 2 ] .
Yeh step kyun? Zero jodna ( − m + m ) hume ek "random part" aur ek "constant part" mein split karne deta hai.
Expand karo:
= Var E [( θ ^ − m ) 2 ] + 2 ( m − θ ) = 0 E [ θ ^ − m ] + Bias 2 ( m − θ ) 2 .
Middle kyun vanish hota hai? E [ θ ^ − m ] = m − m = 0 . Toh MSE = Var + Bias 2 .
Var ( X ˉ ) = σ 2 / n → 0 aur bias = 0 , toh MSE = σ 2 / n → 0 . Ho gaya. (Yeh disguise mein Weak Law of Large Numbers hai.)
Unbiased estimators mein, zyada efficient wala hota hai jiska variance smaller ho. Sabse efficient (smallest possible variance) wala MVUE (Minimum-Variance Unbiased Estimator) hota hai.
θ ^ 1 ki θ ^ 2 ke relative mein Relative efficiency (dono unbiased): Var ( θ ^ 1 ) Var ( θ ^ 2 ) .
Intuition Lower bound KYU exist karta hai
Data mein θ ke baare mein sirf finite information hoti hai. Fisher information I ( θ ) likelihood ke peak ki sharpness measure karta hai: sharp peak ka matlab hai data θ ko tightly pin down karta hai → chota achievable variance. Aap n i.i.d. points ke liye 1/ ( n I 1 ( θ )) ko simply beat nahi kar sakte.
μ ke do unbiased estimators ko compare karna
Sample X 1 , X 2 , X 3 i.i.d., variance σ 2 . Compare karo
μ ^ A = X ˉ = 3 X 1 + X 2 + X 3 aur μ ^ B = 2 X 1 + X 3 (X 2 ko ignore karta hai).
Unbiased? E [ μ ^ A ] = E [ μ ^ B ] = μ — dono unbiased hain. Kyun? Linearity, weights ka sum 1 hai.
Efficiency: Var ( μ ^ A ) = σ 2 /3 , Var ( μ ^ B ) = 2 ⋅ ( σ 2 /4 ) = σ 2 /2 .
Kyunki σ 2 /3 < σ 2 /2 , μ ^ A zyada efficient hai. Relative efficiency = σ 2 /3 σ 2 /2 = 1.5 .
Lesson: saara data use karna aur equal weights rakhna (equal variances ke liye) variance minimize karta hai.
Worked example (B) MSE, unbiasedness ko beat kar sakta hai
Uniform( 0 , θ ) ke liye, MLE hai θ ^ = max i X i . Yeh biased hai (E [ max ] = n + 1 n θ < θ , hamesha underestimate karta hai).
Unbiased fix hai n n + 1 max i X i . Phir bhi MSE ke liye, thoda biased shrinkage jeet sakta hai.
Yeh step kyun matter karta hai: "Unbiased" ka matlab "best" nahi hai। MSE = Var + Bias² honest scorecard hai.
s 2 ki consistency
s 2 = n − 1 1 ∑ ( X i − X ˉ ) 2 unbiased hai aur Var ( s 2 ) → 0 jab n → ∞ (finite 4th moment ke liye), toh MSE → 0 ⇒ consistent . Dhyan do ki biased version (n se divide karo) bhi consistent hai — iska bias ∝ 1/ n → 0 . Kyun? Consistency sirf limit ki parwah karta hai; chota finite-n bias wash out ho jaata hai.
Common mistake "Unbiased ⇒ consistent" (aur vice-versa)
Kyun sahi lagta hai: dono sunne mein lagte hain jaise "estimator achha/sahi hai."
Counterexample: θ ^ = X 1 (sirf pehla observation) μ ke liye unbiased hai lekin consistent nahi — iska variance hamesha σ 2 rehta hai, kabhi nahi shrinkta.
Fix: Unbiasedness = fixed n par on average sahi. Consistency = limit n → ∞ mein sahi. Bilkul alag axes hain.
n se divide karne par sahi variance estimate milta hai."
Kyun sahi lagta hai: variance squared deviations ka average hai, toh n se divide karna natural lagta hai.
Fix: Aapne X ˉ pe center kiya, true μ pe nahi. Deviations systematically choti hain; aapne 1 degree of freedom spend kiya. Shrink ko undo karne ke liye n − 1 se divide karo.
Common mistake "Zyada efficient ka matlab sirf chota variance hai, chahe biased ho."
Kyun sahi lagta hai: chota variance = stable.
Fix: Classical efficiency variances ko sirf unbiased estimators mein compare karti hai. Biased vs unbiased ko fairly compare karne ke liye, MSE use karo, sirf variance nahi.
Recall Feynman: 12-saal ke bachche ko samjhao
Socho tum guess kar rahe ho ki tumhare school mein average bachcha kitna lamba hai — kuch doston ko measure karke.
Unbiased = tumhara guessing trick na zyada tall ki taraf jhukta hai na zyada short ki taraf — agar tum ise tons of times repeat karo, tumhare guesses ka average exactly sahi jagah land karta hai.
Consistent = jitne zyada dost measure karo, utna hi tumhara guess real answer ke paas sneaks up karta hai.
Efficient = saare fair tricks mein se, tumhara sample se sample tak sabse kam wobble karta hai. Tum chahte ho ek trick jo fair ho, zyada data se behtar ho, aur steady ho. Yahi ek great estimator hai!
"U-C-E = Center, Closer, Calm"
U nbiased → guess sach par C entered hai.
C onsistent → n badhne par C loser hota jaata hai.
E fficient → C alm rehta hai (lowest wobble/variance).
Ek unbiased estimator define karo. E [ θ ^ ] = θ for all θ ; yaani bias = E [ θ ^ ] − θ = 0 .
Sample variance ko n − 1 se kyun divide karte hain? E [ ∑ ( X i − X ˉ ) 2 ] = ( n − 1 ) σ 2 ; ek degree of freedom μ ko X ˉ se estimate karne mein use ho jaata hai, toh / ( n − 1 ) bias hata deta hai.
MSE ki bias–variance decomposition batao. MSE ( θ ^ ) = Var ( θ ^ ) + Bias ( θ ^ ) 2 .
Consistency ki definition. θ ^ n P θ :
∀ ε > 0 , P ( ∣ θ ^ n − θ ∣ > ε ) → 0 as
n → ∞ .
Consistency ke liye easy sufficient condition. MSE ( θ ^ n ) → 0 (Var→0 aur Bias→0), Chebyshev ke zariye.
μ ka ek unbiased lekin inconsistent estimator do.μ ^ = X 1 : E [ X 1 ] = μ lekin Var = σ 2 kabhi nahi shrinkta.
Efficiency kya compare karta hai aur kaise? Unbiased estimators mein, chota variance = zyada efficient; relative efficiency = Var ( θ ^ 2 ) / Var ( θ ^ 1 ) .
Cramér–Rao Lower Bound batao. Var ( θ ^ ) ≥ 1/ I ( θ ) , Fisher info ke saath I ( θ ) = E [( ∂ θ ln f ) 2 ] .
X ˉ kyun μ ke liye consistent hai?Unbiased hai aur Var = σ 2 / n → 0 , toh MSE→ 0 (Weak LLN).
Kya unbiasedness "best" ke liye sufficient hai? Nahi; ek biased estimator ka MSE lower ho sakta hai. MSE = Var + Bias² ko true scorecard ke roop mein use karo.
Maximum Likelihood Estimation — MLEs aksar consistent aur asymptotically efficient hote hain.
Law of Large Numbers — X ˉ ki consistency ke neeche yahi hai.
Central Limit Theorem — X ˉ ki sampling distribution deta hai, isliye confidence intervals milte hain.
Fisher Information — variance par CRLB floor define karta hai.
Bias–Variance Tradeoff — machine learning mein bhi yahi decomposition hai.
Sampling Distributions — θ ^ ka distribution jise hum judge karte hain.
Random variable with sampling distribution
E of theta-hat equals theta
Divide by n-1 for variance s^2
Converges to theta as n grows
Smallest variance among good rules