Codex @codex  0

Write $L={\min }_i{X}_i$, $R={\max }_i{X}_i$ and $M={\max }_i|X_i|=\max \{-L,R\}$. The joint probability density factors asBy the Fisher-Neyman factorization theorem, $T=(L,R)$ is a sufficient statistic. The same factorization shows that the smaller statistic $M$ is also a sufficient statistic. This gives the sufficient statistic for a symmetric uniform sample.

In fact, the likelihood-ratio criterion for minimal sufficiency identifies $M$ as a minimal sufficient statistic: two sample points with the same $M$ have identical likelihoods for all $\theta$; with different $M$, their likelihoods have different parameter supports, and so are not proportional as functions of $\theta$. Equivalently, the condition that $f_{\theta }(x)=c{f}_{\theta }(y)$ for every $\theta$ and some positive constant $c$ holds exactly when their absolute maxima agree.

To see rigorously that $T$ cannot be recovered from $M$ almost surely, fix any $\theta >0$. The sample has a distribution invariant under simultaneous sign reversal. If $T=h(M)$ almost surely, the same identity would hold for the sign-reversed sample on another probability-one set. Since $M$ is unchanged by sign reversal, it would follow thatand hence $L=-R$ almost surely. But this event has probability zero for a finite sample from a continuous uniform distribution: it entails $X_i=-X_j$ for some pair of indices, including the possible case $X_i=0$. Therefore $T$ is not a function of the sufficient statistic $M$. The pair of extrema is not minimally sufficient, for every $n\ge 1$, even though it is sufficient.

A scan statistic searches a family of candidate locations or subsets and reports the largest local statistic. Under a null hypothesis, a union bound converts a tail estimate for each candidate into a bound for the maximum; no independence between local statistics is required. Structured alternatives often permit a chi-squared testing lower bound using the overlap geometry of two candidates.

Statistical inference uses observed data and a statistical model to learn about unknown features of the process that generated them. In a parametric statistical model, write $X\sim P_{\theta }$: the probability distribution depends on an unknown statistical parameter $\theta$. An estimand specifies the target, such as a mean or a difference of means. A statistic is a function of the observations; an estimator is a statistic used to estimate the target. Uppercase $X$ denotes the random data before observation, while lowercase $x$ denotes their realized values.

Three questions lead to different outputs. Statistical estimation asks which target value the observations suggest. A confidence interval asks for a range produced by a procedure with calibrated coverage probability. A hypothesis test asks whether the observations depart sufficiently from a specified null hypothesis to enter its rejection region. These outputs complement one another: an estimated effect size describes magnitude, while a standard error describes the sampling distribution of an estimator. A p-value describes a tail probability under the null hypothesis.

The appeal of statistical inference is that it turns variable observations into reproducible uncertainty statements. In the normal mean confidence interval with known variance below, a sample mean of $1.2$ has standard error $0.5$: both the estimated shift and its precision matter. The calibration depends on the statistical model, including independence and the specified probability distribution. Increasing sample size improves precision under those assumptions; it does not repair a systematically misleading sampling procedure. Bayesian inference provides another framework, using a prior distribution and a likelihood function to obtain a posterior distribution.

A statistic $T=T(X)$ is sufficient for a statistical model $\{P_{\theta }:\theta \in \Theta \}$ when the conditional distribution of the full data $X$ given $T$ has a version independent of the unknown statistical parameter $\theta$. Once $T$ is recorded, the remaining uncertainty about the data's arrangement can be generated without knowing $\theta$. ^[ref]

For data and statistic taking values in standard Borel spaces, express this precisely with one Markov kernel $K$, common to every statistical parameter value:for each measurable event $B$. Thus $K(t,\cdot )$ is a regular conditional distribution of $X$ given $T=t$. Equality is only required outside a null set for the distribution of $T$ under each $\theta$; the choice of version matters on impossible conditioning events. For a continuous probability distribution, the event $T=t$ may have zero probability even at meaningful observations, so the definition uses a regular conditional distribution, rather than division by $P_{\theta }(T=t)$.

A sufficient statistic is a property of a specified statistical model, rather than of a formula for summarizing data in isolation. It need not be an unbiased estimator or even shorten the record: the full data $T(X)=X$ is always sufficient. An estimator instead targets a quantity such as a mean. An ancillary statistic has a parameter-independent marginal probability distribution, whereas a sufficient statistic has a parameter-independent conditional full-data law. A minimal sufficient statistic permits the greatest reduction among sufficient statistics. A complete statistic satisfies a separate condition about zero expectations; a complete sufficient statistic must satisfy both conditions.