Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

[Spoiler: it's not true (see comments)]

I believe the following to be true, but am not sure how to prove it:

$$ \mathbb{E}_1[x] > \mathbb{E}_2[x] \implies \mathbb{E}_1 [g(x)] > \mathbb{E}_2 [g(x)] $$ when $g$ is an increasing, convex function. (We can also restrict ourselves to $x \geq 0$ for my problem.) By the subscripts $1$ and $2$, I refer to two different probability distributions over x.

In the continuous case, we'd have

$$ \int x f_1(x) dx > \int x f_2(x) dx \implies \int g(x) f_1(x) dx > \int g(x) f_2(x) dx $$

for two pdfs $f_1$ and $f_2$.

Question: Is my conjecture right, and if so, what's the proof?

What I've tried: We might like to write it this way:

$$ \int x (f_1(x) - f_2(x)) dx > 0 \implies \int g(x) (f_1(x) - f_2(x)) dx > 0 $$

I've tried using integration by parts to rewrite it in terms of $g^{\prime}(x)$ and the cdfs, but I wasn't able to carry that through. It seems promising, but I wasn't sure how to use it.

I also thought about assuming that $g(x)$ is analytic and using the Taylor series, but again, I'm not sure where to take that either.

Sidenote: It would also be cool to show whether $g$ has to be strictly increasing everywhere for this to be true.

Thanks for any advice!!

share|improve this question
    
My advice: do not try to prove this result, it does not hold (and counterexamples abound). –  Did Apr 23 '12 at 6:23
    
OK, thanks, but I'm having trouble coming up with any counter-examples (pictorially, it seems counterintuitive). Could you give one or give me an idea of what to look for? Thank you! –  usul Apr 23 '12 at 6:34
    
Compare uniform distributions on intervals with nearly equal midpoints. –  Did Apr 23 '12 at 6:40
    
OK, I think I see by taking one distribution to be uniform on [0,1] and the other to be uniform on [0.5,0.5+epsilon]. The same argument with a minus epsilon would show a counterexample for concave functions. Thanks you, that answers my question! –  usul Apr 23 '12 at 6:55
1  
Indeed. A common practice in such cases is that the OP (you!) writes an answer which, after a while so that others can check it, may be accepted. This allows to close the question. –  Did Apr 23 '12 at 9:55
show 1 more comment

1 Answer

As per Didier's response, this property does not hold. Here is a counterexample.

Consider $g(x) = x^2$ . $f_2(0) = \frac{1}{2}, f_2(1) = \frac{1}{2}$. (So there is a 50-50 chance of realizing either zero or one.)

Then $\mathbb{E}_2(x) = 0.5$, and $\mathbb{E}_2(g(x)) = 0.5$.

Let $f_1(0.5) = \frac{1}{2}, f_1(0.5 + \epsilon) = \frac{1}{2}$. Then $\mathbb{E}_1(x) = 0.5 + \frac{\epsilon}{2}$, but $\mathbb{E}_1(g(x)) \approx \frac{1}{2} 0.25 + \frac{1}{2} 0.25 = 0.25$.

So we have a counterexample. A similar example could show that this not true in general for concave functions either -- only for $g(x)$ a linear function of $x$.

share|improve this answer
    
+1ed. Note that your solution is for discrete random variables and that the same idea works for continuous ones. –  Did Apr 29 '12 at 9:54
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.