4
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a random variable with $|X|\le1$, and $\mathcal{A}$ be a $\sigma$-algebra. What is an upper bound for $|E(X|\mathcal{A})-E(X)|$?

Existing results:

It has been known that $E|E(X|\mathcal{A})-E(X)|\le 2\alpha(\sigma(X),\mathcal{A})$, where $\alpha(\sigma(X),\mathcal{A})$ is the $\alpha$ mixing coefficient between $\sigma(X),\mathcal{A}$, and the $\sigma(X)$ is the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $X$. This result shows that $|E(X|\mathcal{A})-E(X)|=O_P(\alpha(\sigma(X),\mathcal{A}))$.

In practice, the above upper bound is too loose, and we need an exponential type upper bound to strengthen it. Suppose we can prove the following $$ E\psi(|E(X|\mathcal{A})-E(X)|/C)\le\alpha(\sigma(X),\mathcal{A}), $$ where $\psi(x)=\exp(x^2)-1$. Then one can argue that
$$ |E(X|\mathcal{A})-E(X)|=O_P(\sqrt{\log(1+\alpha(\sigma(X),\mathcal{A})}). $$ Clearly, this largely improve the first upper bound to a sharper level.

My question is how to prove this?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Did you try to work with Rio's covariance inequality? $\endgroup$ May 8, 2016 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, Rio's results might be applied. I am adding my tentative solution soon... $\endgroup$
    – Jeff
    May 13, 2016 at 20:36

1 Answer 1

-1
$\begingroup$

I guess $\alpha$-mixing condition might not be sufficient. Instead, we may need $\phi$-mixing conditions.

Without loss of generality, assume $1\ge X\ge 0$ almost surely.

Define $\phi$-mixing coefficients:

$\phi(\mathcal{A},\sigma(X))=\sup_{A\in\mathcal{A},B\in\sigma(X)\textrm{ with} P(A)>0}|P(B|A)-P(B)|$.

For any $A\in\mathcal{A}$ with $P(A)>0$, $$ |E(X|A)-E(X)|=|\int_0^1 [P(X>x|A)-P(X>x)]dx|\le\phi(\mathcal{A},\sigma(X)). $$

Since the above is true for arbitrary $A\in\mathcal{A}$ with $P(A)>0$,it holds that \begin{equation}\label{eqn:0} |E(X|\mathcal{A})-E(X)|\le\phi(\mathcal{A},\sigma(X)).\tag{$***$} \end{equation} Since $\psi(x)=o(x^2)$ for $x$ within a neighborhood of $0$, $$ E\psi(|E(X|\mathcal{A})-E(X)|)=o(\phi(\mathcal{A},\sigma(X))^2). $$

The above derivation relies on argument (***), which I am not sure if is correct.

$\endgroup$
1

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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