5
$\begingroup$

1) I have seen it mentioned that if X is a zero mean random variable then $\frac{E[X^4]}{\sigma^4} \geq \left\{\frac{E[X^3]}{\sigma^3}\right\}^2 + 1$ , where $E[X^2]=\sigma^2$ .

Is this true, if yes ,what is the proof for this? (I am able to prove that $\frac{E[X^4]}{\sigma^4} \geq \left\{\frac{E[X^3]}{\sigma^3} \right\}^2 $)

2) Similar to the above statement, is it possible to find an upper bound or lower bound for the third moment $E[X^3]$ in terms of the second moment $E[X^2]$ , for a zero mean $X$?

I had tried using Holder's and Jensen's inequality to prove these, but it didn't give me the right direction for the bounds. I got bounds like $E[X^3] \leq \sqrt{E[X^2]\cdot E[X^4]} )$. This gives me that $E[X^4] \geq \{E[X^3]/\sigma\}^2$

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The first question is certainly true if $E[X^3]=0$ (which holds for cases when $X$ has a PDF that is symmetric about $0$) since it reduces to $E[X^4] \geq E[X^2]^2$. In general, that question reduces to $E[X^4-1]\geq E[X^3]^2$ for $X$ zero mean and unit variance, tho it is not obvious to me right now how to prove it. On the second question, you can do $E[|X|^2]^{3/2}\leq E[|X|^3]$ by Jensen, but there are examples of zero mean random variables $X$ where $E[X^3]=-\infty$ even when $E[X^2]$ is finite. $\endgroup$ – Michael Apr 7 '18 at 6:31
  • $\begingroup$ Yes,you are correct. In the second case, can anything be said for an upper bound on $E[X^3]$? (I will edit the question as well). $\endgroup$ – Aditya Pradeep Apr 7 '18 at 7:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I observe that the conjectured inequality $E[X^4] \geq 1 + E[X^3]^2$ for $X$ zero mean and unit variance, if true, is tight: Let $m \geq 0$. The following random variable $X$ meets the inequality with equality and has $E[X]=0, E[X^2]=1,E[X^3]=m$ by $P[X=a]=1/(1+a^2)$, $P[X=-1/a]=a^2/(1+a^2)$, $a=(1/2)(m + \sqrt{m^2+4})$. We can get $E[X^3]<0$ by defining $Y=-X$. $\endgroup$ – Michael Apr 7 '18 at 7:18
  • $\begingroup$ I developed an interesting proof. Where did this inequality come from? Is the original proof similar to mine? $\endgroup$ – Michael Apr 7 '18 at 18:28
  • $\begingroup$ It was mentioned that kurtosis >= (skewness)^2 +1, which on simplifying is the same expression as my question. There was no proof associated and it was mentioned as a known result. Since, I was unable to find or come up with a proof, I posted this. $\endgroup$ – Aditya Pradeep Apr 8 '18 at 3:41
1
$\begingroup$

This is a partial answer to some of the questions. It gives details on my above comments. (Answering will also help me find this question again later if I want.)

On upper/lower bounds for $E[X^3]$

If $E[X]=0$ and $E[X^2]$ is finite, this places no upper or lower bound on $E[X^3]$. Indeed, define $X$ with PDF $$ f_X(x) = (1/2)\delta(x+1/2) + 1\{x\geq 0\} \frac{(3/2)}{(x+1)^4} \quad \forall x \in \mathbb{R}$$ where $1\{x \geq 0\}$ is an indicator function that is 1 if $x\geq 0$ (and zero else); $\delta(x+1/2)$ is a unit impulse at $x=-1/2$. So $P[X=-1/2]=P[X\geq 0]=1/2$ and indeed $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f_X(x)dx = 1$. Also, $$ E[X]=0, E[X^2] = 5/8, E[X^3] = \infty $$ Fix $a> 0$. Defining $Z=aX$ gives $E[Z]=0$, $E[Z^3]=\infty$, and $E[Z^2]$ can be any positive value we like (by scalaing $a>0$). Likewise if we define $Y=-X$, then we see $E[Y^3]=-\infty$ even though $E[Y]=0$ and $E[Y^2]$ is finite.

On the conjecture $\frac{E[X^4]}{\sigma^4} \geq 1 + \frac{E[X^3]^2}{\sigma^6}$ for all $X$ such that $E[X]=0$

(Assuming $\sigma^2=Var(X)>0$.) As in my comments above, this is true in the special case $E[X^3]=0$, since it reduces to $E[X^4] \geq E[X^2]^2$ (which is true by Jensen's inequality).

In the general case $E[X^3]\neq 0$, by defining $Y=X/\sigma$, we see the desired inequality is true if and only if $$E[Y^4] \geq 1 + E[Y^3]^2$$ for all random variables $Y$ with $E[Y]=0$, $E[Y^2]=1$.

On tightness of $E[X^4] \geq 1 + E[X^2]^2$

As in my comments above, fix $m\geq 0$. We can design a random variable $X$ that satisfies $E[X]=0, E[X^2]=1, E[X^3]=m$, and that satisfies $E[X^4] = 1 + E[X^2]^2$. This is achieved by: \begin{align} X &= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} a &\mbox{ with prob $1/(1+a^2)$} \\ (-1/a) & \mbox{ with prob $a^2/(1+a^2)$} \end{array} \right. \\ a &= (1/2)\left(m + \sqrt{m^2+4}\right) \end{align} Indeed, with $m\geq 0$ we see that $a \geq 1$ and $$ E[X] = \frac{(a)(1)}{1+a^2} + \frac{(-1/a)(a^2)}{1+a^2} = 0$$ $$ E[X^2] = \frac{(a)^2(1)}{1+a^2} + \frac{(-1/a)^2(a^2)}{1+a^2} = 1$$ $$ E[X^3] = \frac{(a)^3(1)}{1+a^2} + \frac{(-1/a)^3(a^2)}{1+a^2} = \frac{a^2-1}{a} = m $$ $$ E[X^4] = \frac{(a)^4(1)}{1+a^2} + \frac{(-1/a)^4(a^2)}{1+a^2} =1 + \underbrace{\frac{(a^2-1)^2}{a^2}}_{E[X^3]^2}$$ Scaling $X$ by $\sigma$ gives cases of zero-mean variables with $\frac{E[X^4]}{\sigma^4} = 1 + \frac{E[X^3]^2}{\sigma^6}$.

Defining $Y=-X$ gives $E[Y]=0, E[Y^2]=1, E[Y^3]=-m$ and $E[Y^4] = 1 + E[Y^2]^2$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I would be interested to see a proof of $E[X^4]\geq 1 + E[X^2]^2$ for general (non-symmetric) situations with $E[X]=0, E[X^2]=1$. If you answer that, please send me a message via @Michael $\endgroup$ – Michael Apr 7 '18 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ I think I can show it reduces to optimizing over $4$-valued random variables, i.e., random variables that can take at most 4 values, but that optimization seems messy. $\endgroup$ – Michael Apr 7 '18 at 16:16
  • $\begingroup$ Aha! I found a very interesting proof! I will try to write it up in another answer. $\endgroup$ – Michael Apr 7 '18 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ The counter example for the bounds on $E[X^3]$ is nice. However, can something be said ,if the values X takes is bounded between [a,b]? $\endgroup$ – Aditya Pradeep Apr 8 '18 at 3:44
  • $\begingroup$ If $|X|\leq m$ then a simple bound is $$|E[X^3]| \leq E[|X|^3] \leq E[X^2m] = mE[X^2]$$ so $-mE[X^2]\leq E[X^3] \leq mE[X^2]$. The bound is tight in a sense: Let $X$ be such that $$P[X=m]=p, P[X=-mp/(1-p)]=(1-p)$$ Then $E[X]=0$ and $E[X^3] = mE[X^2] \frac{1-2p}{1-p}$, which converges to $mE[X^2]$ when $p\rightarrow 0$. $\endgroup$ – Michael Apr 8 '18 at 13:24
1
$\begingroup$

This answer proves that if $X$ is a random variable that satisfies $E[X]=0$ and $E[X^2]=1$, $E[X^3] \in \mathbb{R}$, then $$ E[X^4] \geq 1 + E[X^3]^2$$ As in my other answer, the scaling $X=Y/\sigma$ proves $E[(Y/\sigma)^4] \geq 1 + E[(Y/\sigma)^3]^2$.


Fix $m \geq 0$. In my other answer I constructed the following random variable to show tightness of the conjectured inequality:
\begin{align} X^* &= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} a &\mbox{ with prob $1/(1+a^2)$} \\ (-1/a) & \mbox{ with prob $a^2/(1+a^2)$} \end{array} \right. \\ a &= (1/2)\left(m + \sqrt{m^2+4}\right) \end{align} Here I show that this random variable solves the problem of minimizing $E[X^4]$ subject to $E[X]=0$, $E[X^2]=1$, $E[X^3]=m$, and that the minimizing value is: $$ E[X^4] = c = 1 + m^2 $$ Once we show this, it follows that for any random variable $X$ with $E[X]=0, E[X^2]=1$, $E[X^3]\geq 0$ we get: $$ E[X^4] \geq 1+E[X^3]^2 $$ Now if $X$ is a random variable that satisfies $E[X]=0, E[X^2]=1, E[X^3]<0$, we can define $Y=-X$ to conclude $$ E[X^4]=E[Y^4] \geq 1 + E[Y^3]^2 = 1 + E[X^2]^2 $$ So the desired result would be true regardless of whether $E[X^3]\geq 0$ or $E[X^3]<0$.


Fix $m \geq 0$. Define $\mathcal{S}$ as the space of all random variables $X$ that satisfy $E[X^4]<\infty$. Define the set $\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^4$ by: $$ \mathcal{A} = \{\left(E[X], E[X^2], E[X^3], E[X^4]\right) : X \in \mathcal{S}\} $$ Consider the following two optimization problems:

  • Problem 1 (Constrained problem):
    \begin{align} \mbox{Minimize:} \quad & y_4 \\ \mbox{Subect to:} \quad & y_1 = 0 \\ & y_2 = 1\\ & y_3 = m\\ & (y_1, y_2, y_3, y_4) \in \mathcal{A} \end{align}

  • Problem 2 (Unconstrained problem): Given real numbers $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3$, we have \begin{align} \mbox{Minimize:} \quad & y_4 + \lambda_1 y_1 + \lambda_2 (y_2-1) + \lambda_3 (y_3-m) \\ \mbox{Subect to:} \quad & (y_1, y_2, y_3, y_4) \in \mathcal{A} \end{align}

Lemma: (Lagrange multiplier theorem) If $(y_1, y_2, y_3, y_4)$ is a solution to the unconstrained problem that satisfies $y_1=0, y_2=1, y_3=m$, then it is also a solution to the constrained problem.

Proof: Clearly $(y_1, y_2, y_3, y_4)$ satisfies the constraints of the constrained problem. Let $(w_1, w_2,w_3,w_4)$ be another vector that satisfies the constraints of the constrained problem. We want to show that $y_4 \leq w_4$. Since $(w_1, w_2,w_3,w_4) \in \mathcal{A}$ and $(y_1, y_2, y_3, y_4)$ solves the unconstrained problem over all vectors in $\mathcal{A}$ we get $$ y_4 + \lambda_1y_1 + \lambda_2(y_2-1) + \lambda_3(y_3-m) \leq w_4 + \lambda_1w_1 + \lambda_2(w_2-1) + \lambda_3(w_3-m) $$ However, since $y_1=w_1=0$, $y_2=w_2=1$, $y_3=w_3=m$, the above inequality reduces to $$ y_4 \leq w_4$$ $\Box$

Now define $a= (1/2)\left(m + \sqrt{m^2+4}\right)$ (this is consistent with the definition of $a$ for the 2-valued random variable $X^*$ above). Note that $a \geq 1$. Define the following particular real numbers: \begin{align} \lambda_1 &= -2/a + 2a\\ \lambda_2 &= 1/a^2 - 4 + a^2\\ \lambda_3 &= -2a+2/a\\ c &= 1+m^2 \end{align} Define the function $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by $$ f(x) = x^4 + \lambda_1x + \lambda_2(x^2-1) + \lambda_3(x^3-m)$$ I designed these $\lambda_i$ values to get the following nice factorization: For all $x \in \mathbb{R}$ we have: $$ f(x) = (x-a)^2(x+1/a)^2+c \geq c $$ Thus for all random variables $X \in \mathcal{S}$ we have: $$ f(X) \geq c $$ and so $$ E[f(X)] \geq c$$ That is, $$E[X^4] + \lambda_1E[X] + \lambda_2(E[X^2]-1) + \lambda_3(E[X^3]-m) \geq c $$ On the other hand, the 2-valued random variable $X^*$ defined above takes values either $a$ or $-1/a$, and so for all realizations of that random variable we get $$ f(X^*) = (X^*-a)^2(X^*+1/a)^2+c = c $$ And so $E[f(X^*)]=c$. Thus, that 2-valued random variable minimizes the expression $$ E[X^4] + \lambda_1E[X] + \lambda_2(E[X^2]-1) + \lambda_3(E[X^3]-m)$$ over all random variables $X \in \mathcal{S}$. In particular, its moments $$(y_1^*,y_2^*,y_3^*,y_4^*) = (E[X^*], E[(X^*)^2], E[(X^*)^3], E[(X^*)^4])$$ solve the unconstrained optimization problem. Further, from my previous answer, we know those moments for $X^*$ satisfy $y_1^*=0, y_2^*=1, y_3^*=m$, and so by the Lagrange multplier lemma we conclude that $(y_1^*,y_2^*,y_3^*,y_4^*)$ is also optimal for the constrained problem. In particular, the value $y_4^*$ achieved by this 2-valued random variable is the minimum possible value of $E[X^4]$ over all random variables that satisfy $E[X]=0, E[X^2]=1, E[X^3]=m$. In fact, we know: $$ y_4^* = E[(X^*)^4] = 1+m^2 =c$$ $\Box$

$\endgroup$

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.