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.

There are three ways to define the exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of a stochastic process: one via symmetric functions, another via $n$-symmetric functions and a third via exchangeable events. Why are these three formulations equivalent?

Denote by $S(n)$ ($n\in\mathbb{N}_1$) (with $\mathbb{N}_1=\left\{1,2,3,\dots\right\}$ the set of positive integers) the set consisting of all bijections $\rho:\mathbb{N}_1\rightarrow\mathbb{N}_1$ that leave all numbers $>n$ unchanged.

If $D$, $E$ are non-empty sets, $x=\left(x_1, x_2, \dots\right)\in E^{\mathbb{N}_1}$ and $\rho:\mathbb{N}_1\rightarrow\mathbb{N}_1$, $x^\rho$ will denote $\left(x_{\rho(1)},x_{\rho(2)},\dots\right)$. If $f:D\rightarrow E^{\mathbb{N}_1}$ and $\rho:\mathbb{N}_1\rightarrow\mathbb{N}_1$, $f^\rho:D\rightarrow E^{\mathbb{N}_1}$ will denote the function $f^\rho(x):=[f(x)]^\rho$. $f:E^{\mathbb{N}_1}\rightarrow D$ will be called $n$-symmetric (for a fixed $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$) iff $f(x)=f(x^\rho)$ for all $x\in E$ and $\rho\in S(n)$. $f$ will be called symmetric iff it is $n$-symmetric for all $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$.

Let $X=\left(X_n\right)_{n\in\mathbb{N}_1}$ be a sequence of random objects defined over the measurable space $\left(\Omega,\mathcal{A}\right)$, each taking values in the measurable space $\left(E,\mathcal{B}\right)$.

If $B\in\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$ (the product $\sigma$-algebra), we will define $B^\rho:=\left\{X^\rho\in B\right\}$ for $\rho:\mathbb{N}_1\rightarrow\mathbb{N}_1$. $B$ will be called range-side $n$-symmetric (for a fixed $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$) iff $B^\rho=X^{-1}(B)$ for every $\rho\in S(n)$. $B$ will be called range-side symmetric iff it is range-side $n$-symmetric for all $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$. It is easy to verify that the collection of range-side $n$-symmetric events is a sub-$\sigma$-algebra of $\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$. It will be denoted by $\mathcal{D}_n$ and referred to as the range-side $n$-exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of $X$. It is likewise easy to see that $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{D}_n$ is the collection of range-side symmetric events, which is therefore a $\sigma$-algebra too. It will be denoted by $\mathcal{D}$ and referred to as the range-side exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of $X$.

With $\mathfrak{B}$ denoting the Borel field on the real line, define

$$\begin{array}{lcl} \mathcal{E}_n & := & \sigma\left(\bigcup\left\{\left.\left(f\circ X\right)^{-1}\left(\mathfrak{B}\right):\right|\space f:E^{\mathbb{N}_1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\space\mathrm{is}\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}\space/\space\mathfrak{B}\space\mathrm{-measurable}\space\mathrm{and}\space n\mathrm{-symmetric}\right\}\right) \\ \mathcal{E} & := & \sigma\left(\bigcup\left\{\left.\left(f\circ X\right)^{-1} \left(\mathfrak{B}\right):\right|\space f:E^{\mathbb{N}_1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\space\mathrm{is}\space\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}\space/\space\mathfrak{B}\space\mathrm{-measurable}\space\mathrm{and}\space\mathrm{symmetric}\right\}\right) \\ \mathcal{F}_n & := & X^{-1}\left(\mathcal{D}_n\right) \\ \mathcal{F} & := & X^{-1}\left(\mathcal{D}\right) \end{array}$$

According to Klenke (Definition 12.6 and Remark 12.7),

  1. $\mathcal{E}_n=\mathcal{F}_n$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$ and
  2. $\mathcal{E}=\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{E}_n=\mathcal{F}$

The collection in 1 is the domain-side $n$-exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of $X$; its members are the domain-side $n$-symmetric events of $X$. The collection in 2 is the domain-side exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of $X$, or simply the exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of $X$; its members are the domain-side symmetric events of $X$, or simply the symmetric events of $X$.

I see why $\mathcal{E}_n\subseteq\mathcal{F}_n$ and why $\mathcal{E}\subseteq\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{E}_n\subseteq\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_n=\mathcal{F}$. Any help with proving the converse containments required to establish Klenke's claims, namely $\mathcal{F}_n\subseteq\mathcal{E}_n$ and $\mathcal{F}\subseteq\mathcal{E}$, will be appreciated.


Comments

There are a couple possible alternative definitions of an exchangeable $\sigma$-field. After defining them, i will explore their relation to the $\sigma$-algebras defined above.

The first alternative definition is due to David Freedman (p. 39). An event $B\in\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$ will be called range-side $n$-symmetric of the 2nd kind iff $x\in B\implies x^\rho\in B$ for all $x\in E^{\mathbb{N}_1}$ and all $\rho\in S(n)$. It will be called range-side symmetric of the 2nd kind iff it is $n$-symmetric of the 2nd kind for all $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$. The collection of range-side $n$-symmetric events of the 2nd kind (for a fixed $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$) constitutes a $\sigma$-algebra that will be denoted $\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}$ and called the range-side $n$-exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of the 2nd kind. The intersection $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}$ is the collection of range-side symmetric events of the 2nd kind, which is therefore a $\sigma$-algebra that will be denoted $\mathcal{D}^{(2)}$ and called the range-side exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of the 2nd kind. $X^{-1}\left(\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}\right)$ will be denoted $\mathcal{F}_n^{(2)}$ and called the domain-side $n$-exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of the 2nd kind of $X$, its members - the domain-side $n$-symmetric events of the 2nd kind of $X$. Similarly, $X^{-1}\left(\mathcal{D}^{(2)}\right)$ will be denoted $\mathcal{F}^{(2)}$ and called the domain-side exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of the 2nd kind of $X$ (or simply the exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of the 2nd kind of $X$), its members - the domain-side symmetric events of the 2nd kind of $X$ (or simply the symmetric events of the 2nd kind of $X$).

The second alternative set of definitions derives from Klenke's definition (12.1) of an exchangeable sequence of random objects over a probability space. Suppose, then, that a measure $\mu$ is defined on $\left(\Omega,\mathcal{A}\right)$ and denote by $\mu_X$ its distribution, i.e. the measure induced on $\left(E^{\mathbb{N}_1},\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}\right)$ by $X$. For each $\rho\in\mathbb{N}_1\rightarrow\mathbb{N}_1$ write $\mu^\rho:=\mu_{X^\rho}$, i.e. the measure induced on $\left(E^{\mathbb{N}_1},\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}\right)$ by $X^\rho$. Then $B\in\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$ will be called a range-side $n$-symmetric event of the 3rd kind iff $\mu_X(B)=\mu^\rho(B)$ for all $\rho\in S(n)$ (for a fixed $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$). It will be called a range-side symmetric event of the 3rd kind iff it is an $n$-symmetric event of the 3rd kind for all $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$. The collection of all range-side $n$-symmetric events of the 3rd kind (for a fixed $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$) is a $\sigma$-algebra that will be denoted $\mathcal{D}_n^{(3)}$ and called the range-side $n$-exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of the 3rd kind. $\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{D}_n^{(3)}$ is the collection of range-side exchangeable events of the 3rd kind, which is therefore a $\sigma$-algebra that will be denoted $\mathcal{D}^{(3)}$ and called the range-side exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of the 3rd kind. A "domain-side ($n$-)exchangeable $\sigma$-algebra of the 3rd kind" will not be defined.

It is interesting to note that the definition of $\mathcal{D}^{(2)}$ makes no use of either $X$ or $\mu$, the definition of $\mathcal{D}$ relies on $X$ but not on $\mu$ and the definition of $\mathcal{D}^{(3)}$ relies on both $X$ and $\mu$.

It is evident that $\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}\subseteq\mathcal{D}_n\subseteq\mathcal{D}_n^{(3)}$ and that $\mathcal{D}^{(2)}\subseteq\mathcal{D}\subseteq\mathcal{D}^{(3)}$. Similarly, $\mathcal{F}_n^{(2)}\subseteq\mathcal{F}_n$ and $\mathcal{F}^{(2)}\subseteq\mathcal{F}$.

It is also easy to check that

$$\begin{array}{lcl} \mathcal{D}_n^{(2)} & = & \bigcup\left\{\left.f^{-1}\left(\mathfrak{B}\right):\right|\space f:E^{\mathbb{N}_1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\space\mathrm{is}\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}\space/\space\mathfrak{B}\space\mathrm{-measurable}\space\mathrm{and}\space n\mathrm{-symmetric}\right\} \\ \mathcal{D}^{(2)} & = & \bigcup\left\{\left.f^{-1} \left(\mathfrak{B}\right):\right|\space f:E^{\mathbb{N}_1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\space\mathrm{is}\space\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}\space/\space\mathfrak{B}\space\mathrm{-measurable}\space\mathrm{and}\space\mathrm{symmetric}\right\} \end{array}$$

Hence $\mathcal{E}_n=\mathcal{F}_n^{(2)}$ and $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{F}^{(2)}$



References

  1. Klenke, Achim. "Probability Theory: A Comprehensive Course", 2008
  2. Freedman, David. "Markov Chains", 1971
share|improve this question
1  
May I suggest that you consider editing the question offline until it has reached a stable state? 20 edits in the span of 7 hours might be viewed as excessive by some users. Cheers. –  cardinal Mar 17 '13 at 17:57

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Fix an $n\in\mathbb{N}_1$. I will show that $\mathcal{F}_n\subseteq\mathcal{E}_n$. The proposition $\mathcal{F}\subseteq\mathcal{E}$ can be shown analogously. Since $\mathcal{F}_n^{(2)}=\mathcal{E}_n$, it suffices to show that $\mathcal{F}_n\subseteq\mathcal{F}_n^{(2)}$. In light of the equalities $\mathcal{F}_n=X^{-1} \left(\mathcal{D}_n\right)$ and $\mathcal{F}_n^{(2)}=X^{-1} \left(\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}\right)$, this amounts to showing that to every $B\in\mathcal{D}_n$ there's some $B'\in\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}$ such that $X^{-1}(B)=X^{-1}(B')$.

I will proceed as follows. To every set $A\in E^{\mathbb{N}_1}$ (not necessarily measurable) i will define a set $\overline{A}\in E^{\mathbb{N}_1}$ called the $n$-symmetric closure of $A$, or, since $n$ is fixed, simply the symmetric closure of $A$. I will then show that $B':=\overline{B}$ satisfies the requirement by showing that

  1. If $A\in\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$, $\overline{A}\in\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}$, i.e.

    a) For all $x\in\overline{A}$, $x^\rho\in\overline{A}$ for all $\rho\in S(n)$

    b) $\overline{A}\in\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$

  2. If $A\in\mathcal{D}_n$, $X^{-1}(A)=X^{-1}\left(\overline{A}\right)$

I will start with an auxiliary definition. A set $A\in E^{\mathbb{N}_1}$ will be called $n$-symmetric (or simply symmetric, since $n$ is fixed) iff $\forall x\in E^{\mathbb{N}_1}\forall\rho\in S(n), x\in A\implies x^\rho\in A$.

It is easy to verify that if $\mathcal{C}$ is a collection of symmetric sets, $\bigcap\mathcal{C}$ is symmetric too. Given $A\in E^{\mathbb{N}_1}$, the $n$-symmetric closure of $A$, to be denoted $\mathrm{SymClo}_n{A}$, is defined as the smallest $n$-symmetric set containing $A$: $\mathrm{SymClo}_n{A}:=\bigcap\left\{B\in E^{\mathbb{N}_1}\left|:\space A\subseteq B,\space B\space\mathrm{is}\space n\mathrm{-symmetric}\right.\right\}$. Since $n$ is fixed, we will simplify the notation and write $\overline{A}:=\mathrm{SymClo}_n(A)$. Note that $A\subseteq\overline{A}$ and $\overline{A}$ is symmetric. So property 1a is verified.

It is easy to check the following characterization of $\overline{A}$: $x\in\overline{A}\iff\exists\rho\in S(n),\space x^{\rho}\in A$. From this, in light of the fact that

$$\pi_\rho:E^{\mathbb{N}_1}\rightarrow E^{\mathbb{N}_1},\space\space\pi_\rho(x):=x^\rho$$

is $\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}\space/\space\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$-measurable for all $\rho\in S(n)$, as can be easily verified, we get that if $A\in\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$, $\overline{A}=\bigcup_{\rho\in S(n)}\pi_\rho^{-1}(A)\in\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$. So property 1b is verified.

Finally, from the same characterization follows property 2. Indeed, let $A\in\mathcal{D}_n$ and suppose to the contrary that $X^{-1}(A)\subsetneq X^{-1}\left(\overline{A}\right)$. Let $\omega\in X^{-1}\left(\overline{A}\right)\backslash X^{-1}(A)$. Let $y\in\overline{A}\backslash A$ such that $y=X(\omega)$. From the characterization property, there's some $\rho\in S(n)$ such that $y':=y^\rho\in A$. Then $X^\rho\left(\omega\right)=y'$. But then, by the definition of $\mathcal{D}_n$, $\omega\in X^{-1}(A)$, a contradiction.

It is interesting to note that even though $\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}\subseteq\mathcal{D}_n$ and $X^{-1}\left(D_n\right)=X^{-1}\left(\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}\right)$, in general $\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}\neq\mathcal{D}_n$. For example, if $X$ is constant, $X=c$, than any $\otimes_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal{B}$-measurable set that contains $c$ belongs to $\mathcal{D}_n$, but only the symmetric ones belong to $\mathcal{D}_n^{(2)}$.

share|improve this answer

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.