Convex order and an integral inequality over quantile functions

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2












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 $1$.










share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    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 $1$.










    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      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 $1$.










      share|cite|improve this question













      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






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Sep 10 at 7:52









      LittleDoe

      996




      996




















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • 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.
            – LittleDoe
            Sep 11 at 9:13

















          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • 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.
              – 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."
              – hardmath
              Sep 14 at 15:06










            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            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






























            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • 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.
              – LittleDoe
              Sep 11 at 9:13














            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















            • 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.
              – LittleDoe
              Sep 11 at 9:13












            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            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.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            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.
              – 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.
              – 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.
            – 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.
            – LittleDoe
            Sep 11 at 9:13










            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                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.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Sep 16 at 18:12

























                answered Sep 13 at 2:58









                Theoretical Economist

                3,6032730




                3,6032730




















                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer




















                    • 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.
                      – 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."
                      – hardmath
                      Sep 14 at 15:06














                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer




















                    • 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.
                      – 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."
                      – hardmath
                      Sep 14 at 15:06












                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    I found a source for a direct proof. Thanks to the two answers for telling me where to look.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    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.
                      – 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."
                      – 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.
                      – 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."
                      – 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.
                    – 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.
                    – 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."
                    – 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."
                    – hardmath
                    Sep 14 at 15:06

















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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













































































                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                    tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

                    How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                    1st Magritte Awards