3
$\begingroup$

Suppose $Z=X+Y$ where $X$ is independent of $Y$ and $Y\sim N(0,1)$. I would like to compare $\text{var}(E(X|Z))$ to $\text{var}(E(Z|X))$. Obviously, $\text{var}(E(Z|X))=\text{var}(X)$.

In particular, my guess is that $\text{var}(E(Z|X)) > \text{var}(E(X|Z))$. If $Z$ is normal, then this is easy to prove directly from known formulas for conditional distributions of a multivariate Gaussian. Furthermore, if $Y$ is non-normal, then this appears to be false as well. The difficulty, as I see it, is in getting a handle on $E(X|Z)$ while accounting for the fact that $Y$ is Gaussian. Another approach is to compute (or control somehow) the marginal $P(Z)$, which would help understand $P(X|Z)=P(X,Z)/P(Z)$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @S.Surace: It's definitely true that if $\operatorname{Var}[X \mid Z]=0$ then $X$ is $Z$-measurable, i.e. $X =f(Z)$. The last part I have to think about. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 3, 2020 at 23:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a nice question. The issue can be reformulated as finding a lower bound on the estimation error of $X$ given $Z$. Now, if the law of $X$ has finite fisher information, then the Gaussianity of $Y$ together with Van-Tree's version of Cramer-Rao would give a strictly positive lower bound on the variance. This however does not prove the general case. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 6, 2020 at 11:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeteJorgensen Yes. The question you are asking can be rephrased as a question about the mean square error of the optimal estimator of $X$ given $Z$. Namely, your conjecture is equivalent to the claim that $\sigma^2:=\inf_{W} E(X-W)^2>0$, where the infimum is over all $Z$-measurable, $L^2$ random variables (the infimum is achieved by $W=E(X|Z)$, and this is the link to your question). $\sigma^2$ is the variance I refer to in my answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2020 at 8:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeteJorgensen Now, there is a lower bound on $\sigma^2$, known as the van-Trees version of the Cramer Rao lower bound from statistics, which gives a lower bound on $\sigma^2$ in terms of the inverse of a sum of two Fisher informations: one related to $p(Z|X)$ (which involves the Gaussianity of $Y$, and hence is bounded), and the other is the Fisher information of the law of $X$. If the latter is bounded (e.g., if $X$ has a nice smooth density that does not vanish too fast at a point) then the latter is bounded and you get a lower bound on $\sigma^2. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2020 at 8:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PeteJorgensen The argument for the general case (ie when the density of $X$ does not have a bounded Fisher information) escapes me. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2020 at 8:24

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

EDIT: It seems that one can remove the integrability condition.

Suppose that $\text{Var}[X]<\infty$ and $Z=X+Y$, where $Y\sim\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ and $X$ and $Y$ are independent. Because of the law of total variance, $$\text{Var}\{E[Z|X]\}=\text{Var}\{X\}\\=E[\text{Var}\{X|Z\}]+ \text{Var}\{E[X|Z]\}\geq \text{Var}\{E[X|Z]\},$$ with equality iff $ \text{Var}\{X|Z\}=0$. So to prove your conjecture we only need to show $ \text{Var}\{X|Z\}>0$.

Theorem $\text{Var}\{X|Z\}=0$ if and only if $X$ is constant.

Proof: If $X$ is constant then $\text{Var}[X]=0$ and therefore also $\text{Var}\{X|Z\}=0$. For the converse, suppose that $\text{Var}\{X|Z\}=0$. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be the measure under which $Z=X+Y$, where $X$ has law $P_X$, $Y$ is standard Gaussian and independent of $X$, and $\mathbb{\tilde P}$ be the measure under which $Z$ is standard Gaussian and independent of $X$, which has the same law as under $\mathbb{P}$. Let $$ L := \exp\left[X Z-\frac12 X^2\right].$$ Since $L$ is nonnegative, we have by Tonelli's theorem and the MGF of $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ that $$\mathbb{\tilde{E}}[L]=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}e^{xz-\frac12 x^2}\mathbb{\tilde P}_X(dx)\otimes \mathbb{\tilde P}_Z(dz)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-\frac12 x^2}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{xz}\mathbb{\tilde P}_Z(dz)\right)\mathbb{\tilde P}_X(dx)\\=\int_{\mathbb{R}}e^{-\frac12 x^2}e^{\frac12 x^2}\mathbb{\tilde P}_X(dx) = 1.$$

Thus $\mathbb{P}\ll\mathbb{\tilde P}$, $ \frac{d\mathbb{P}}{d\mathbb{\tilde P}} = L$, and we have an abstract Bayes formula $$\mathbb{E}[\varphi(X)|Z]=\frac{\mathbb{\tilde E}[\varphi(X)L|Z]}{\mathbb{\tilde E}[L|Z]}.$$ Let $M(Z):=\mathbb{\tilde E}[L|Z]$, which is finite by assumption. Then the conditional variance of $X$ given $Z$ can be written as $$\text{Var}\{X|Z\}=\frac{M''(Z)}{M(Z)}-\left(\frac{M'(Z)}{M(Z)}\right)^2 = \frac{d}{dz}\frac{M'(z)}{M(z)} \Bigg|_{z=Z}.$$ Since $\text{Var}\{X|Z\}=0$, we have $$\frac{M'(Z)}{M(Z)} = \frac{M'(0)}{M(0)} = \frac{\mathbb{E}[Xe^{-\frac12 X^2}]}{\mathbb{E}[e^{-\frac12 X^2}]} . $$ But we also have $$ X = \mathbb{E}\left[ X|Z\right] = \frac{M'(Z)}{M(Z)}.$$ It therefore follows that $X$ is constant.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you must use normalcy of Y somewhere because of this: if X takes only 1/4, 3/4 and Y only 0,1, then when you see X+Y you know both X and Y so E(X|Z) = X and you don't get strict inequality. $\endgroup$
    – mike
    Commented Jun 4, 2020 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, @mike, I noticed that this does not get us much further. At present I do not know how to complete the argument. $\endgroup$
    – S.Surace
    Commented Jun 4, 2020 at 12:22
  • $\begingroup$ @S.Surace Nice! just a quick remark: since $zX-X^2$ is bounded above, its expectation is also bounded above, so the condition you wrote holds trivially. On the other hand, you need a bit more I think, namely (as a minimum) you need the expectation of $dP/d\tilde P$ to be bounded, and for that you need $E(e^X^2/2)$ finite. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 8, 2020 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ @oferzeitouni, thanks! I made a correction including the Novikov-like condition. $\endgroup$
    – S.Surace
    Commented Jun 8, 2020 at 15:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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