5
$\begingroup$

Let $X, Y$ be two random variables, with $X$ taking values in $\Bbb R^n$ and $Y$ taking values in $\Bbb R$.

Then we can look at the function $h: \Bbb R^n \to \Bbb R$ given by $$\beta \mapsto \Bbb E[(Y-X^T\beta)^2]$$ It is claimed that the gradient of $h$ is given by $$\nabla h = \Bbb E[2X(X^T\beta-Y)]$$

This seems like a special case of the identity

$$\nabla \Bbb E[f]=\Bbb E [\nabla f]$$

Where the expectation is taken over the mutual distribution of some random variables.

Formally, We want the following: Suppose $X_1,...,X_m$ are random variables returning values in some sets $A_i$ with some given mutual probability distribution. Then for every function $f: \Bbb R^n \times \prod A_i \to \Bbb R$, for every $\beta \in \Bbb R^n$ we can form the random variable $f(\beta, X_1,...,X_m)$ and take its expectation. Taking different values of $\beta$ gives rise to a function $\Bbb R^n \to \Bbb R$. We claim that its gradient is equal to the vector obtained by first fixing the values of $X_1,...,X_m$ and taking the gradient of the resulting function $\Bbb R^n \to \Bbb R$, and this gives a random variable returning values in $\Bbb R^n$, for which we can take the expectation.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Essentially this is differentiating under the integral. I know that this doesn't always work, but I'm an algebraist so I don't have any examples handy. $\endgroup$ – Matt Samuel Feb 8 '17 at 19:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I was under the impression that the cases where it doesn't work are pathological. $\endgroup$ – Matt Samuel Feb 8 '17 at 19:47
3
$\begingroup$

That is not the most general version. It is just convenient for the proof. It basically says, you may differentiate under expectation.

Consider $f:\Omega \times U \to \mathbb R$, where $(\Omega, \mathcal A, P)$ is some probability space (Or a $\sigma$ finite measure space if you like) and $U\subseteq \mathbb R^n$ is open and contains $0$.

  1. Assume for (almost) every $\omega\in\Omega$ the function $z \mapsto f(\omega, z)$ is differentiable and define $g(\omega, z) = D_{z} f(\omega, z)$.

  2. Assume there is a $P$-integrable function $S:\Omega \to \mathbb R$ with $\|g(\;.\;, z)\| \le S$ (almost) everywhere for everywhere $z\in U$ and define $G(z) = \int g(\;.\;, z) dP$.

  3. Assume $G$ is continuous at $0$.

Then, $F$ is differentiable at $0$ with $$ D F(0) = G(0). $$

Proof:

For (almost) every $\omega\in\Omega$ we have $\|g(\omega,\;.\;)\| \le S(\omega) < \infty$. That is $f(\omega, \;.\;)$ is lipschitz continuous and the fundamental theorem of calculus applies. Thus, for $z\in U$ we have \begin{align*} F(z) - F(0) - G(0)z &= \int f(\omega, z) - f(\omega,0) - g(\omega,0)z \; dP(\omega) \\ &= \int \int_{0}^1 g(\omega, tz)z - g(\omega, 0)z \; dt\, dP(\omega) \\ &=\biggl(\underbrace{\int \int_{0}^1 g(\omega, tz) - g(\omega, 0) \; dt \, dP(\omega)}_{R(z)} \biggr) z. \end{align*} Since $$ \int\int_0^1 \| g(\omega, tz) - g(\omega, 0) \| \; dt \, dP(\omega) \le \int\int_0^1 2 S(\omega) \; dt \, dP(\omega) = 2 \int S \, dP < \infty$$ Fubini's theorem applies and for $z\to 0$ we have $$ R(z) = \int_0^1 \int g(\omega, tz) - g(\omega, 0)\; dP(\omega) \, dt = \int_0^1 G(tz) - G(0) \, dt \to 0. $$ That is, $F$ is differentiable at $0$ with $$ DF(0) = G(0). $$

Notes:

  1. The assumptions are obviously satisfied in your case.

  2. We can relax assumption 1 and 2 to: Assume for almost every $\omega\in\Omega$ the function $f(\omega,\;.\;)$ is locally absolutely continuous with $$ \sup_{z\in U} \int \| D_z f(\;.\;, z) \| \, dP < \infty. $$ However, one need to be careful about the domain of $D_z f$.

  3. We can replace the Fubini type argument with a Dominated Convergence type argument with a slightly stronger assumption 3. This would allow every measure instead of only $\sigma$ finite one.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

$\beta$ is not a random variable so you can expand the expression and take $\beta$ out as a factor. Then differentiate that expression with respect to $\beta$ and check that the claimed equality holds. It is not more complicated than that. It would be a problem if you couldn't factor $\beta$ out (e.g. $e^{X^{\top}\beta}$). Then you would indeed have to justify interchanging integration and differentiation.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So I factor out $\beta$ by rewriting $\Bbb E[(x^T \cdot \beta)^2]=\Bbb E[\beta^T(xx^T\beta)]=\beta^T \Bbb E[xx^T]\beta$, And now by the product rule $\nabla (\beta^TA\beta)=D(A^T\beta)\beta+(\beta^TA\cdot D(\beta))^T=2A\beta$. Thank you! $\endgroup$ – Emolga Feb 10 '17 at 6:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Leullame Yes exactly. You are welcome. $\endgroup$ – Calculon Feb 10 '17 at 6:41

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.