Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top


$y= \theta + \varepsilon + a,$

where $a$ is a choice variable in a behavioral economic model, with equilibrium solution $a^e$, and $\theta$ and $\varepsilon$ are independently distributed random variables with distributions:

$\theta \sim \mathcal{N}(\bar{\theta},\sigma_{\theta}^2)$,


$\varepsilon \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma_{\varepsilon}^2)$.

A paper I am reading, on page 173 at bottom states:

$E[E[\theta|y]]=\bar{\theta} + \phi E[\theta + \varepsilon + a - a^e - \bar{\theta}]$,



It refers to this result as a "well known" signal extraction result.

Googling the latter I found that for $y= a + b$, with $a$ and $b$ i.i.d standard normal (i.e. mean zero) then:

$E[a|y] = \frac{\sigma_{a}^2}{\sigma_{y}^2}y$.

This differs from the case above in that the latter is not standard normal with mean zero and the definition of $y$ includes a constant.

Hence I am having difficulty deriving the result in the paper. Grateful if someone could explain the steps. Thanks!

share|cite|improve this question
The hour is late and I'll look at this tomorrow (by which time 20 answers may have appeared already.....) but may I comment that it seems a bit odd to use the same letter, $\theta$, to refer both to a random variable and to its expected value. – Michael Hardy Aug 20 '11 at 5:20
@Michael Hardy All expected values have a bar, as in $\bar{\theta}$, except for the definition of the mean in $\mathcal{N}(\theta,\sigma_{\theta}^2)$ where I corrected typo. – Fred Aug 20 '11 at 5:32

I'm not surprised you're having difficulty deriving the result; I think it's rather badly explained in the paper. Here's how I would describe the derivation:

In the paper, $a^e$ is introduced not as an equilibrium solution, but as "the public's perception of $a$" (p. 172, above (4)). In (3) and (10), the expectation values $E(\theta|x)$ and $E(\theta|y)$, respectively, refer to calculations performed by the public, whereas the expectation operator $\mathsf E$ (you didn't reproduce the typographical distinction made in the paper) refers to calculations performed by the bureaucrat (who can use the correct value $a$). The public decides about the career prospects of the bureaucrat in accordance with its estimation of the bureaucrat's talents, and it can only do so based on its perception $a^e$ of the bureaucrat's effort $a$ and on the policy outcome $y$. The paper does not specify how the public models the difference between its perception $a^e$ and the actual value $a$, but it seems from (4) that the public simply calculates as if the actual effort where known to be $a^e$. If we transfer that to the present setting including the unobservable noise $\varepsilon$, the public will use the model


where $\theta^e$ is the public's idea of the talent $\theta$, which it models according to the given normal distribution. Since $y=\theta+\varepsilon+a$, we have $\theta^e=\theta+a-a^e$. Now the public will apply your result, which I'll rewrite for $c$, $d$ and $x$ since the version with $a$, $b$ and $y$ is rather confusing (with $a$ referring to $\theta$ rather than $a$ in the present case): For $x=c+d$, with $c$ and $d$ i.i.d. normally distributed random variables with zero mean, $E[c|x]=(\sigma_c^2/\sigma_x^2)x$. Rewritten in terms of zero-mean variables, the public's model is


so we can apply the general result with $x=y-\bar\theta-a^e$, $c=\theta^e-\bar\theta$ and $d=\varepsilon$. Thus, the public's calculation of the expected talent of the bureaucrat given its perception $a^e$ of the effort and the observed policy outcome $y$ is

$$ \begin{eqnarray} E[\theta^e|y] &=&\bar\theta+E[c|x] \\ &=& \bar\theta+(\sigma_c^2/\sigma_x^2)x \\ &=& \bar\theta+(\sigma_\theta^2/\sigma_y^2)(y-\bar\theta-a^e) \\ &=& \bar\theta+(\sigma_\theta^2/(\sigma_\theta^2+\sigma_\varepsilon^2))(\theta^e-\bar\theta+\varepsilon) \\ &=& \bar\theta+(\sigma_\theta^2/(\sigma_\theta^2+\sigma_\varepsilon^2))(\theta+a-a^e-\bar\theta+\varepsilon)\;, \end{eqnarray} $$

in agreement with the result in the paper.

share|cite|improve this answer
Many thanks, this is very useful. I was thinking precisely along those line i.e. centering the variables around zero. What I am not so clear is on the jump from $E[\theta^e|y]$ to $E[\theta^e|y]=\bar{\theta} + E[c|x]$. What is the general rule that allows you to do this? How was the $\bar{\theta}$ factored out? I understand the intuition, but not the formal derivation. BTW after the third equal sign in the last derivation just substitute $y=\theta^e+\varepsilon+a^e$ for $y$ and you are done. – Fred Aug 20 '11 at 14:43
I meant substitute $y=\theta+\varepsilon+a$ for $y$ and you are done. – Fred Aug 20 '11 at 14:49
to be clear, you have implicitly done the following: $E[\theta|y]=E[\theta] + E[\theta-\bar{\theta}|y-\bar{y}] = E[\theta] + E[\theta-\bar{\theta}|y-\bar{\theta}-a]$ and I am unclear what axioms of expected probability where involved in the process. Then, in eq. $a=a^e$ – Fred Aug 20 '11 at 15:08

Your Answer


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.