# Show the sample mean is a sufficient estimator of $\theta$ if the population is exponentially distributed with parameter $\theta$.

I used the Fisher-Neyman factorization theorem for this problem.

If $X$ is exponentially distributed, $f(x)=\theta e^{x \theta}$ for $x>0$.

If we have a random sample $X_1,\dots,X_n$, and $\bar{X}$ is the sample mean, their joint density is:

$$f(x_1,\dots,x_n)=\theta^ne^{n\bar{x}\theta}$$ Then if we take $h(x_1,\dots,x_n)=1$ and $g_\theta(x_1,\dots,x_n)=\theta^ne^{n\bar{x}\theta}$, by the Fisher-Neyman factorization theorem, $\bar{X}$ is a sufficient estimator of $\theta$.

I have two questions about this result. The first is that the Wikipedia article uses the sum of $X_1,\dots,X_n$ as an example of a sufficient statistic of $\theta$. Does this mean both of these estimators are sufficient, but not necessarily consistent? Also, by choosing $h(x_1,\dots,x_n)=1$ as in the article, I felt a little like I was cheating. What would be a situation in which I can take $h$ as above and still wind up with an insufficient statistic?

-
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 15, "mathjax_display_tex": 1, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9545530676841736, "perplexity_flag": "head"}