Convex order and an integral inequality over quantile functions

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $X, Y$ be random variables in $L^1$. We will write $X preceq_c Y$ if for all convex functions $u$ on $mathbbR$
$$ mathbbE [u(X)] leq mathbbE[u(Y)].$$
Now let $q_X$ and $q_Y$ be the (left-continuous) quantile functions of $X$ and $Y$.
How to prove that
$$ int_0^t q_X(s) d s geq int_0^t q_Y(s) ds$$
for all $0 leq t leq 1$ given $X preceq_c Y$?
The case $t=0$ is trivial. For $t=1$ note that if $U$ is uniformly distributed on $(0,1)$, then $q_X (U)$ is distributed as $X$. Thus,
$$int_0^1 q_X (s) ds = mathbbE[q_X(U)] = mathbbE [X] = mathbbE[Y] = int_0^1 q_Y (s) ds $$
since $x mapsto x$ and $x mapsto -x$ are both convex.
But I don't see how this can be generalized to prove the case where $t$ is not $0$ or $1$.
probability
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $X, Y$ be random variables in $L^1$. We will write $X preceq_c Y$ if for all convex functions $u$ on $mathbbR$
$$ mathbbE [u(X)] leq mathbbE[u(Y)].$$
Now let $q_X$ and $q_Y$ be the (left-continuous) quantile functions of $X$ and $Y$.
How to prove that
$$ int_0^t q_X(s) d s geq int_0^t q_Y(s) ds$$
for all $0 leq t leq 1$ given $X preceq_c Y$?
The case $t=0$ is trivial. For $t=1$ note that if $U$ is uniformly distributed on $(0,1)$, then $q_X (U)$ is distributed as $X$. Thus,
$$int_0^1 q_X (s) ds = mathbbE[q_X(U)] = mathbbE [X] = mathbbE[Y] = int_0^1 q_Y (s) ds $$
since $x mapsto x$ and $x mapsto -x$ are both convex.
But I don't see how this can be generalized to prove the case where $t$ is not $0$ or $1$.
probability
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $X, Y$ be random variables in $L^1$. We will write $X preceq_c Y$ if for all convex functions $u$ on $mathbbR$
$$ mathbbE [u(X)] leq mathbbE[u(Y)].$$
Now let $q_X$ and $q_Y$ be the (left-continuous) quantile functions of $X$ and $Y$.
How to prove that
$$ int_0^t q_X(s) d s geq int_0^t q_Y(s) ds$$
for all $0 leq t leq 1$ given $X preceq_c Y$?
The case $t=0$ is trivial. For $t=1$ note that if $U$ is uniformly distributed on $(0,1)$, then $q_X (U)$ is distributed as $X$. Thus,
$$int_0^1 q_X (s) ds = mathbbE[q_X(U)] = mathbbE [X] = mathbbE[Y] = int_0^1 q_Y (s) ds $$
since $x mapsto x$ and $x mapsto -x$ are both convex.
But I don't see how this can be generalized to prove the case where $t$ is not $0$ or $1$.
probability
Let $X, Y$ be random variables in $L^1$. We will write $X preceq_c Y$ if for all convex functions $u$ on $mathbbR$
$$ mathbbE [u(X)] leq mathbbE[u(Y)].$$
Now let $q_X$ and $q_Y$ be the (left-continuous) quantile functions of $X$ and $Y$.
How to prove that
$$ int_0^t q_X(s) d s geq int_0^t q_Y(s) ds$$
for all $0 leq t leq 1$ given $X preceq_c Y$?
The case $t=0$ is trivial. For $t=1$ note that if $U$ is uniformly distributed on $(0,1)$, then $q_X (U)$ is distributed as $X$. Thus,
$$int_0^1 q_X (s) ds = mathbbE[q_X(U)] = mathbbE [X] = mathbbE[Y] = int_0^1 q_Y (s) ds $$
since $x mapsto x$ and $x mapsto -x$ are both convex.
But I don't see how this can be generalized to prove the case where $t$ is not $0$ or $1$.
probability
probability
asked Sep 10 at 7:52
LittleDoe
996
996
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I think you are trying to prove something like Theorem 5 in David Blackwell's paper Comparison of Experiments . Blackwell's functions $F_M$ and $F_m$ are, I think, the inverse functions of your $q_X$ and $q_Y$ (or maybe vice versa; the notations make my head spin). In general, your hypothesis $Eu(X)le Eu(Y)$ for all convex $u$ is pretty strong, and has well-known necessary and sufficient equivalents, as in the famous paper of Cartier, et al. The exposition in Le Cam's Comparison of Experiments - A short review (see esp. the bottom of page 130) might serve as a roadmap.
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to find a direct proof somewhere. There is also a (convoluted) proof in Föllmer&Schieds "Stochastic Finance" (Chapter 2). Seems like one has to dissect that to arrive at a direct argument.
â LittleDoe
Sep 11 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
It is relatively well-known that $X preceq_c Y$ if and only if $Y$ is a mean-preserving spread of $X$. (If this is not something you already know, I imagine it might be found in the links in kimchi lover's answer. Otherwise, it's probably in Shaked and Shanthikumar.)
The result you are looking for is stated as lemma $1$ of Brooks and Du (2018). The proof is in their appendix.
Apologies for the brief answer. I don't have time to write a detailed one at the moment, and I thought you'd rather a brief one sooner rather than a detailed one (possibly much) later. I'll try to find the time to develop this into a full answer later on.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I found a source for a direct proof. Thanks to the two answers for telling me where to look.
Nice to see you find something that worked. The source you cite is older, but also employs essentially the same argument found in Brooks and Du. I suppose B&D were unable to find your source when they tried to prove their lemma.
â Theoretical Economist
Sep 14 at 11:08
This might make a good Comment (or edit) on your original Question, but it does not serve as a useful Answer in its present form. While links can be helpful, without a summary of the information given there they are flagged as "link-only" Answers. See Provide context for links, "Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline."
â hardmath
Sep 14 at 15:06
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I think you are trying to prove something like Theorem 5 in David Blackwell's paper Comparison of Experiments . Blackwell's functions $F_M$ and $F_m$ are, I think, the inverse functions of your $q_X$ and $q_Y$ (or maybe vice versa; the notations make my head spin). In general, your hypothesis $Eu(X)le Eu(Y)$ for all convex $u$ is pretty strong, and has well-known necessary and sufficient equivalents, as in the famous paper of Cartier, et al. The exposition in Le Cam's Comparison of Experiments - A short review (see esp. the bottom of page 130) might serve as a roadmap.
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to find a direct proof somewhere. There is also a (convoluted) proof in Föllmer&Schieds "Stochastic Finance" (Chapter 2). Seems like one has to dissect that to arrive at a direct argument.
â LittleDoe
Sep 11 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I think you are trying to prove something like Theorem 5 in David Blackwell's paper Comparison of Experiments . Blackwell's functions $F_M$ and $F_m$ are, I think, the inverse functions of your $q_X$ and $q_Y$ (or maybe vice versa; the notations make my head spin). In general, your hypothesis $Eu(X)le Eu(Y)$ for all convex $u$ is pretty strong, and has well-known necessary and sufficient equivalents, as in the famous paper of Cartier, et al. The exposition in Le Cam's Comparison of Experiments - A short review (see esp. the bottom of page 130) might serve as a roadmap.
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to find a direct proof somewhere. There is also a (convoluted) proof in Föllmer&Schieds "Stochastic Finance" (Chapter 2). Seems like one has to dissect that to arrive at a direct argument.
â LittleDoe
Sep 11 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I think you are trying to prove something like Theorem 5 in David Blackwell's paper Comparison of Experiments . Blackwell's functions $F_M$ and $F_m$ are, I think, the inverse functions of your $q_X$ and $q_Y$ (or maybe vice versa; the notations make my head spin). In general, your hypothesis $Eu(X)le Eu(Y)$ for all convex $u$ is pretty strong, and has well-known necessary and sufficient equivalents, as in the famous paper of Cartier, et al. The exposition in Le Cam's Comparison of Experiments - A short review (see esp. the bottom of page 130) might serve as a roadmap.
I think you are trying to prove something like Theorem 5 in David Blackwell's paper Comparison of Experiments . Blackwell's functions $F_M$ and $F_m$ are, I think, the inverse functions of your $q_X$ and $q_Y$ (or maybe vice versa; the notations make my head spin). In general, your hypothesis $Eu(X)le Eu(Y)$ for all convex $u$ is pretty strong, and has well-known necessary and sufficient equivalents, as in the famous paper of Cartier, et al. The exposition in Le Cam's Comparison of Experiments - A short review (see esp. the bottom of page 130) might serve as a roadmap.
answered Sep 11 at 2:14
kimchi lover
8,97031128
8,97031128
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to find a direct proof somewhere. There is also a (convoluted) proof in Föllmer&Schieds "Stochastic Finance" (Chapter 2). Seems like one has to dissect that to arrive at a direct argument.
â LittleDoe
Sep 11 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to find a direct proof somewhere. There is also a (convoluted) proof in Föllmer&Schieds "Stochastic Finance" (Chapter 2). Seems like one has to dissect that to arrive at a direct argument.
â LittleDoe
Sep 11 at 9:13
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to find a direct proof somewhere. There is also a (convoluted) proof in Föllmer&Schieds "Stochastic Finance" (Chapter 2). Seems like one has to dissect that to arrive at a direct argument.
â LittleDoe
Sep 11 at 9:13
Thank you for your answer. I was hoping to find a direct proof somewhere. There is also a (convoluted) proof in Föllmer&Schieds "Stochastic Finance" (Chapter 2). Seems like one has to dissect that to arrive at a direct argument.
â LittleDoe
Sep 11 at 9:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
It is relatively well-known that $X preceq_c Y$ if and only if $Y$ is a mean-preserving spread of $X$. (If this is not something you already know, I imagine it might be found in the links in kimchi lover's answer. Otherwise, it's probably in Shaked and Shanthikumar.)
The result you are looking for is stated as lemma $1$ of Brooks and Du (2018). The proof is in their appendix.
Apologies for the brief answer. I don't have time to write a detailed one at the moment, and I thought you'd rather a brief one sooner rather than a detailed one (possibly much) later. I'll try to find the time to develop this into a full answer later on.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
It is relatively well-known that $X preceq_c Y$ if and only if $Y$ is a mean-preserving spread of $X$. (If this is not something you already know, I imagine it might be found in the links in kimchi lover's answer. Otherwise, it's probably in Shaked and Shanthikumar.)
The result you are looking for is stated as lemma $1$ of Brooks and Du (2018). The proof is in their appendix.
Apologies for the brief answer. I don't have time to write a detailed one at the moment, and I thought you'd rather a brief one sooner rather than a detailed one (possibly much) later. I'll try to find the time to develop this into a full answer later on.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
It is relatively well-known that $X preceq_c Y$ if and only if $Y$ is a mean-preserving spread of $X$. (If this is not something you already know, I imagine it might be found in the links in kimchi lover's answer. Otherwise, it's probably in Shaked and Shanthikumar.)
The result you are looking for is stated as lemma $1$ of Brooks and Du (2018). The proof is in their appendix.
Apologies for the brief answer. I don't have time to write a detailed one at the moment, and I thought you'd rather a brief one sooner rather than a detailed one (possibly much) later. I'll try to find the time to develop this into a full answer later on.
It is relatively well-known that $X preceq_c Y$ if and only if $Y$ is a mean-preserving spread of $X$. (If this is not something you already know, I imagine it might be found in the links in kimchi lover's answer. Otherwise, it's probably in Shaked and Shanthikumar.)
The result you are looking for is stated as lemma $1$ of Brooks and Du (2018). The proof is in their appendix.
Apologies for the brief answer. I don't have time to write a detailed one at the moment, and I thought you'd rather a brief one sooner rather than a detailed one (possibly much) later. I'll try to find the time to develop this into a full answer later on.
edited Sep 16 at 18:12
answered Sep 13 at 2:58
Theoretical Economist
3,6032730
3,6032730
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I found a source for a direct proof. Thanks to the two answers for telling me where to look.
Nice to see you find something that worked. The source you cite is older, but also employs essentially the same argument found in Brooks and Du. I suppose B&D were unable to find your source when they tried to prove their lemma.
â Theoretical Economist
Sep 14 at 11:08
This might make a good Comment (or edit) on your original Question, but it does not serve as a useful Answer in its present form. While links can be helpful, without a summary of the information given there they are flagged as "link-only" Answers. See Provide context for links, "Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline."
â hardmath
Sep 14 at 15:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I found a source for a direct proof. Thanks to the two answers for telling me where to look.
Nice to see you find something that worked. The source you cite is older, but also employs essentially the same argument found in Brooks and Du. I suppose B&D were unable to find your source when they tried to prove their lemma.
â Theoretical Economist
Sep 14 at 11:08
This might make a good Comment (or edit) on your original Question, but it does not serve as a useful Answer in its present form. While links can be helpful, without a summary of the information given there they are flagged as "link-only" Answers. See Provide context for links, "Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline."
â hardmath
Sep 14 at 15:06
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
I found a source for a direct proof. Thanks to the two answers for telling me where to look.
I found a source for a direct proof. Thanks to the two answers for telling me where to look.
answered Sep 14 at 8:41
LittleDoe
996
996
Nice to see you find something that worked. The source you cite is older, but also employs essentially the same argument found in Brooks and Du. I suppose B&D were unable to find your source when they tried to prove their lemma.
â Theoretical Economist
Sep 14 at 11:08
This might make a good Comment (or edit) on your original Question, but it does not serve as a useful Answer in its present form. While links can be helpful, without a summary of the information given there they are flagged as "link-only" Answers. See Provide context for links, "Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline."
â hardmath
Sep 14 at 15:06
add a comment |Â
Nice to see you find something that worked. The source you cite is older, but also employs essentially the same argument found in Brooks and Du. I suppose B&D were unable to find your source when they tried to prove their lemma.
â Theoretical Economist
Sep 14 at 11:08
This might make a good Comment (or edit) on your original Question, but it does not serve as a useful Answer in its present form. While links can be helpful, without a summary of the information given there they are flagged as "link-only" Answers. See Provide context for links, "Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline."
â hardmath
Sep 14 at 15:06
Nice to see you find something that worked. The source you cite is older, but also employs essentially the same argument found in Brooks and Du. I suppose B&D were unable to find your source when they tried to prove their lemma.
â Theoretical Economist
Sep 14 at 11:08
Nice to see you find something that worked. The source you cite is older, but also employs essentially the same argument found in Brooks and Du. I suppose B&D were unable to find your source when they tried to prove their lemma.
â Theoretical Economist
Sep 14 at 11:08
This might make a good Comment (or edit) on your original Question, but it does not serve as a useful Answer in its present form. While links can be helpful, without a summary of the information given there they are flagged as "link-only" Answers. See Provide context for links, "Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline."
â hardmath
Sep 14 at 15:06
This might make a good Comment (or edit) on your original Question, but it does not serve as a useful Answer in its present form. While links can be helpful, without a summary of the information given there they are flagged as "link-only" Answers. See Provide context for links, "Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline."
â hardmath
Sep 14 at 15:06
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2911650%2fconvex-order-and-an-integral-inequality-over-quantile-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password