1
$\begingroup$

In my study of Dynamic Light Scattering, I came across the following inverse problem. Let $F(s):[0,T]\rightarrow[0,T]$ be the Laplace transform of a probability distribution $f(t)$ on the real line with finite support. This means that $$F(s)=\int_0^{L}e^{-st}f(t)dt$$ for all $s$, while $$\int_0^{L}f(t)dt=1$$ and $f(t)\geq0$ for all $t\in[0,L]$. The numbers $T$ and $L$ are fixed positive real constants. I found that the inverse problem: obtain $f(t)$ from $F(s)$, is ill-posed. Specifically, we can make a sequence of Laplace transforms $F_n(s)$ converge under the $L_2$ norm to some limiting $F(s)$, while the sequence of PDFs $f_n(t)$ does not converge to $f(t)$. I'll give an example at the end of the question.

However, it seems to be different for the cumulative distribution function. Let the CDF be defined by $$C(t):= \int_0^t f(t')dt'.$$ The question: If the Laplace transforms $F_n(s)$ of $f_n(t)$ converge under the $L_2$ norm to the Laplace transform $F(s)$ of $f(t)$, does it follow that the CDFs $C_n(t)$ converge under the $L_2$ norm to $C(t)$?

Own attempts Both the Laplace transforms $F_n(s)$ and the CDFs $C_n(t)$ are monotone functions. So when we assume smoothness, convergence under the $L_2$ norm is equivalent to pointwise convergence. So the question can be restated as follows: if the Laplace transforms converge pointwise, do the CDFs also converge pointwise?

Finding the PDF is ill-posed: Let $$f_n(t):=\frac{1}{t\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{-\frac{-(\ln(t)-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}}(1+\sin(2\pi n(\ln t-\mu)/\sigma)).$$ This is a lognormal distribution multiplied by a sinusoid. Here we take $\mu$ such that $e^{\mu}$ lies inside $[0,L]$, and we take $\sigma$ very small. Now $f_n(t)$ is a probability distribution for all $n$ (up to a very small normalizing factor). The Laplace transforms $F_n(s)$ of $f_n(t)$ converge uniformly on $[0,T]$ to the Laplace transform $F(s)$ of the lognormal distribution: $$f(t):=\frac{1}{t\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{-\frac{-(\ln(t)-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}}.$$ However, the PDFs $f_n(t)$ do not converge to $f(t)$ under the $L_2$ norm. Here is an illustration of $f(t)$ and one instance of $f_n(t)$: Lognormal distribution and lognormal distribution multiplied by sinusoid. The Laplace transforms of these distributions are nearly identical on a [0,T].

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ This depends on the assumptions you make on $f_n(t)$: in the beginning you speak about $f(t)$ having finite support -> this is not true for your counterexample with log normal distributions. In general, you need a criterion on the tails of your random variables. Note that that the tail of the log normal distribution decays quite slowly as $t\to \infty$. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Commented Oct 18 at 11:37
  • $\begingroup$ Hi David! So in my counterexample, I intended $f_n(t)$ to have finite support. When $\sigma$ is small, more than $99.99\%$ of the area under the lognormal distribution is inside of $[0,L]$. So to convert it to an actual probability distribution with finite support, we just need to multiply by a normalizing factor (like 1.0001). $\endgroup$
    – Riemann
    Commented Oct 18 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ No chance. A simple integration by parts yields a simple relation between the Laplace transforms of C and f, so inverting one is basically as bad as inverting the other. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 18 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comment@MichaelRenardy! I thought about this, and the situation for $C$ seems to be much nicer than $f$. The reason is that $C$ is a monotone function (being a CDF). Knowing that the output of the Laplace Inversion is monotone, should make it much more well-behaved. $\endgroup$
    – Riemann
    Commented Oct 19 at 15:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your example is essentially an instance of the following phenomenon: convergence in distribution can occur without convergence of density functions $\endgroup$
    – Ziv
    Commented Oct 27 at 12:43

1 Answer 1

1
+50
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\ep\varepsilon$

So the question can be restated as follows: if the Laplace transforms converge pointwise, do the CDFs also converge pointwise?

The answer is yes.

Indeed, let $P_n$ ($n=1,2,\ldots$) and $P$ be any probability distributions supported on a finite interval $[a,b]$ such that $LP_n\to LP$ pointwise on an interval $[0,T]$ for some real $T>0$, where $LQ$ is the Laplace transform of a probability distribution $Q$, so that $$(LQ)(t):=\int e^{-tx}Q(dx)$$ for real $t$.

Take any subsequence $(P_{n_k})$ of the sequence $(P_n)$ that converges weakly to a probability distribution $D$. Since $e^{-tx}$ is continuous in $x$, it follows that $(LP_{n_k})(t)\to (LD)(t)$ for all real $t$. So, $$LP=LD \text{ on } [0,T]. \tag{10}\label{10}$$

Since the distribution $P$ is supported on a finite interval, it is determined by its moments $m_k(P)$ ($k=1,2,\ldots$) -- see e.g. Theorem 30.1 in Billingsley. But $$m_k(P)=(-1)^k (LP)^{(k)}(0)$$ for $k=0,1,\dots$, so that the $m_k(P)$'s are in turn determined by the values of $LP$ on $[0,T]$. So, $P$ is determined by the values of $LP$ on $[0,T]$. So, by \eqref{10}, $D=P$. So, any weakly convergent subsequence of the sequence $(P_n)$ weakly converges to $P$.

Also, since all the $P_n$'s are supported on a finite interval, the sequence $(P_n)$ is tight.

So, by the Corollary to Theorem 29.3 on p. 381 in Billingsley's book, $(P_n)$ weakly converges to $P$.

That is, the c.d.f. $C_n$ of $P_n$ converges to the c.d.f. $C$ of $P$ at every point of continuity of $C$.

Finally, if $C$ is absolutely continuous (or just continuous), then $C_n\to C$ pointwise. $\quad\Box$

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer! I get a bit lost where you say 'so, inversing the Laplace transform,'. Why can we do this for $f_{n,\epsilon}$ while it is not allowed for $f_n$? $\endgroup$
    – Riemann
    Commented Oct 25 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Riemann: Because $L(f_{n,\epsilon})(s+it)$ for real $s,t$ decreases (very) fast in $|t|$, whereas in general we cannot say this concerning $L(f_{n})(s+it)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ Ok I checked and $|L(f_n)(s+it)|\leq1$ for all s and t, while $|L(\psi_{\epsilon})(s+it)|=e^{0.5s^2\epsilon^2-0.5t^2\epsilon^2}$ which is $O(e^{-0.5t^2\epsilon^2})$. $\endgroup$
    – Riemann
    Commented Oct 25 at 17:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Riemann : The standard definition of the Laplace transform is for all complex arguments $s$ with $\Re s>0$. Your definition, which I noticed only now, is very strange, for two additional reasons: (i) your "Laplace transform" is defined only on a finite interval and (ii) the co-domain must be the same as the domain. Do you want to say anything about this? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27 at 1:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Riemann : I have now presented a different kind of argument, for the same "yes" answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27 at 5:02

You must log in to answer this question.

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