1
$\begingroup$

Given a random variable $X$, satifying $P(0\leq X \leq 1)=1$, and $\mathsf{E}[X^2] = \alpha$. We know its maximum variance $\text{Var}(X) = \alpha(1-\alpha)$ achived by a binary random variable $P(X =x) = \begin{cases} &1-\alpha, &x=0 \\ &\alpha, &x=1 \end{cases}$.

Now my problem is given a random vector $\boldsymbol{X}$, and $\text{supp}\boldsymbol{X} = [0,1]^n$, and $\mathsf{E}\boldsymbol{X}={\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$. After a linear transformation $\boldsymbol{H} (\boldsymbol{H} \succ \boldsymbol{0})$, I want to know whether the maximum trace of the covaraince matrix $\text{cov}(\boldsymbol{H}\boldsymbol{X})=\mathsf{E}[(\boldsymbol{H}\boldsymbol{X}-\mathsf{E}[\boldsymbol{H}\boldsymbol{X}])(\boldsymbol{H}\boldsymbol{X}-\mathsf{E}[\boldsymbol{H}\boldsymbol{X})^\text{T}]$ can be achived by a discrete random vector whose support $\text{supp}\boldsymbol{X}=\{0,1\}^n$.

The trace can be expanded as $\text{tr}(\text{cov}(\boldsymbol{H}\boldsymbol{X}))=\sum_{k=1}^{n} h_{i,k}^2 \mathsf{E}{\bigl(X_k-\mathsf{E}{X_k}\bigr)^2} + \sum_{k=1}^{n} \sum_{\substack{\ell=1\\\ell\neq k}}^{n} 2h_{i,k} h_{i,\ell} \bigl( \mathsf{E}{X_{k} X_{\ell}} - \mathsf{E}{X_{k}}\mathsf{E}{X_{\ell}}\bigr)$. If we use the similar method as in the random variable case, we can maximize the first term of RHS of above equation, be the change of second term of RHS cannot be determined.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ For the original question (before the edit), it looks like you want to find an equilibrium measure with respect to a "Reisz potential" subject to the condition that the mean is $\alpha$. Since equilibrium measures tend to accumulate on the boundary of a compact set, one would expect for the $\text{Tr}(\text{Cov}(HX))$ to be maximized by a measure on the boundary of the cube. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 27, 2022 at 12:25

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

The answer is yes. Indeed, let $X:=\boldsymbol{X}$, $H:=\boldsymbol{H}$, and $a:=\boldsymbol{\alpha}$. By approximation and compactness, without loss of generality (wlog), the matrix $H$ is nonsingular, so that the trace in question is $$\sum_{i=1}^n Var\,l_i (X),$$ where the $l_i$'s are linearly independent linear functionals determined by the matrix $H$. By compactness, the maximum of this trace over all random vectors $X$ with mean $EX=a$ and $P(X\in[0,1]^n)=1$ is attained at some maximizing $X$. In what follows, let $X$ be such a maximizer.

To obtain a contradiction, suppose that there is some point $x\in S_X\cap[0,1]^n\setminus\{0,1\}^n$, where $S_X$ is the support of the distribution $\mu_X$ of the random vector $X$. Then (i) $\{x-h,x+h\}\subset[0,1]^n$ for some nonzero vector $h$ and (ii) $\mu_X(U_x)>0$ for some set $U_x$ relatively open in $[0,1]^n$ and such that $x\in U_x$. Wlog, the length of the vector $h$ and the diameter of the set $U_x$ are small enough so that $U_{x-h}\cup U_{x+h}\subseteq[0,1]^n$. Moving now half of the mass $\mu_X(U_x)$ by the parallel translation by vector $h$ and moving the remaining half of the mass $\mu_X(U_x)$ by the parallel translation by vector $-h$, we obtain a new probability distribution of some random vector $Y$ with values in $[0,1]^n$ such that $EY=a=EX$ and $Var\,l_i (Y)\ge Var\,l_i (X)$ for all $i$, with at least one of these inequalities being strict (namely, strict for all $i$ with $l_i(h)\ne0$). This contradicts the assumption that $X$ is a maximizer. $\quad\Box$

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your original question made perfect sense, and it was completely answered. You should not change a question so as to invalidate such a valid answer. After your edit, your new question is completely different from the original one, even with the vector $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ replaced by a scalar $\alpha$, and a quadratic restriction instead of the original affine one. Therefore, I suggest you restore your original post and finalize this matter. Then you may want to post your new question separately, possibly not on MathOverflow. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 27, 2022 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ OK. It may should be handled like this. I finalized the problem. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 27, 2022 at 12:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .