3
$\begingroup$

Let $h:[0,\infty)\to [0,1)$ be a strictly increasing and strictly concave function. Let the argument of this function be a random variable $C$ with probability density function (pdf) $f_{C}(c)$ with support on some subset of $[0,\infty)$. By an application of Jensen's inequality, we have

$$\mathrm{E}(h(C)) = \int_{0}^{\infty}h(c)f_{C}(c)dc < h\left(\int_{0}^{\infty}cf_{C}(c)dc\right) = h(\mathrm{E}(C))$$ where the expectations are assumed to exist. I wonder if this can be generalized as outlined below when the function $h$ is defined as above.

Assume that we have two random variables $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ for which $\mathrm{E}(C_{1}) = \mathrm{E}(C_{2})$, but the higher moments of their distributions $f_{C_{1}}$ and $f_{C_{2}}$ differ in general. In particular, we may take $\mathrm{Var}(C_{2})>\mathrm{Var}(C_{1})$.

  • Can anything be said about which quantity is larger in this case, $\mathrm{E}(h(C_{1}))$ or $\mathrm{E}(h(C_{2}))$?

Intuitively, since $h$ is concave and increasing, I expect $\mathrm{E}(h(C_{2})) < \mathrm{E}(h(C_{1}))$ (the variable with the largest variance produces the smallest expectation), and certainly if $f_{C_{1}}$ and $f_{C_{2}}$ are both symmetric. But does this hold in general? I would be a little surprised if it does, but I haven't been able to find a simple counterexample.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ can you not use the fact that a the negative of a strictly concave function is strictly convex (at least from my limited knowledge in this area) and apply the same tricks? $\endgroup$
    – Chinny84
    Apr 7 '15 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Chinny84 It is correct that the negative of a concave function is convex, but I can't see a way to exploit that fact here... $\endgroup$
    – vgnils
    Apr 8 '15 at 12:33
1
$\begingroup$

To answer my own question: It does not hold in general, i.e. $\mathrm{Var}(C_{2}) > \mathrm{Var}(C_{1})$ does not guarantee that $\mathrm{E}(h(C_{2})) < \mathrm{E}(h(C_{1}))$. Simple numerical testing produced counterexamples.

However, the concept of stochastic dominance is what I was looking for. It provides neccesary and sufficient conditions on $h$, $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ for an inequality like $\mathrm{E}(h(C_{2})) < \mathrm{E}(h(C_{1}))$ to hold. For example, with $h$ concave and increasing, the inequality holds whenever $C_{2}$ is a mean-preserving spread of $C_{1}$ (2nd order stochastic dominance). If $C_{2}$ is a mean-preserving spread of $C_{1}$, then $\mathrm{Var}(C_{2}) > \mathrm{Var}(C_{1})$, but the converse is not true in general.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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