I am looking for a reference for the following claim:

Let $\phi:\mathbb (a,b) \to \mathbb R$ be a continuous function, and let $c \in (a,b)$ be fixed.

Suppose that "$\phi$ is convex at $c$". i.e. for any $x_1,x_2>0, \alpha \in [0,1]$ satisfying $\alpha x_1 + (1- \alpha)x_2 =c$, we have $$ \phi(c)=\phi\left(\alpha x_1 + (1- \alpha)x_2 \right) \leq \alpha \phi(x_1) + (1-\alpha)\phi(x_2) . $$

Then $\phi$ satisfies Jensen ineqaulity "at $c$".

Finite form:

Given $\lambda_i \in [0,1],x_i\in(0,\infty),i=1,\dots,k$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i=1,\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_ix_i=c$, we have $$\phi(\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_ix_i) \le \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i \phi(x_i).$$

A more general probabilistic (measure-theoretic) form:

Given a random variable $X \in (a,b)$ with expectation $E(X)=c$, we have $$ \phi(c)=\phi(E(X)) \le E(\phi(X)). $$

In addition, if $\phi$ is strictly convex at $c$, then equality holds if and only if $X$ is constant a.e..

Both of these forms of Jensen inequality follow from the existence of a supporting line to the graph of $\phi$ at $c$.

The proof of the latter fact is not hard, but I couldn't find a source in the literature that presents this "localized" form of Jensen inequality, under the sole assumption of "convexity at a point". (In fact, I couldn't even find the term "convex at a point" anywhere...).

I find it impossible to believe that this doesn't show up in existing literature. Any help would be welcomed.


Convexity at $c$ does not imply that the one-sided derivatives exist, so the standard proof for the existence of a supporting line (subgradient) does not apply here. (When the function is convex on an interval, every number between the two-sided derivatives form a subgradient).


For any real numbers $u,v,c$ such that $u\le c\le v$, let $\mu_{c;u,v}$ denote the unique probability distribution on the set $\{u,v\}$ with mean $c$.

Your generalization of Jensen's inequality follows immediately from the well-known fact that any probability distribution $\mu$ on $\mathbb R$ with a given mean $c\in\mathbb R$ is a mixture of probability distributions of the form $\mu_{c;u,v}$. See e.g. formula (2.13).

Details: Indeed, that formula implies $$Ef(X)=\int_{S_c} Ef(X_{u,v})\,\nu_X(du\times dv)$$ for some probability measure $\nu_X$ (depending on the distribution of $X$) on the set $S_c:=\{(u,v)\in\mathbb R^2\colon u\le c\le v\}$ and all functions $f\colon\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ such the function $\mathbb R\ni x\mapsto f(x)-kx$ is bounded from below for some some real $k$.

Now, if $f$ is convex at $c$, then $Ef(X_{u,v})\ge f(EX_{u,v})=f(c)$ for all $(u,v)\in S_c$, and hence $Ef(X)\ge f(c)$.

Answer to your additional question concerning the strict convexity at $c$: Moreover, if $f$ is strictly convex at $c$, then $Ef(X_{u,v})> f(EX_{u,v})=f(c)$ for all $(u,v)$ in the set, say $S_c^\circ$, of all $(u,v)\in S_c$ such that $u<c<v$. Hence, $Ef(X)>f(c)$ unless $\nu(S_c^\circ)=0$. On the other hand, the condition $(u,v)\in S_c\setminus S_c^\circ$ implies that $Eg(X_{u,v})=g(c)$ for all functions $g\colon\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$. So, the condition $Ef(X)=f(c)$ implies $\nu_X(S_c^\circ)=0$, which in turn implies that $Eg(X)=\int_{S_c\setminus S_c^\circ} g(c)\,\nu_X(du\times dv)=g(c)$ for all (say) nonnegative $g\colon\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$, which means that $P(X=c)=1$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this answer. Can you please elaborate on how proposition 3.18 implies the required form of Jensen inequality? I am having a bit of trouble deducing it. BTW, this approach seems to be a bit of an overkill, isn't it? (it seems less elementary than just proving the existence of a supporting line. I hoped there would be a more elementary reference, say some book on convex analysis, rather than a paper from 2009. I am quite sure this version of Jensen was known long before that...). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Jul 9 at 5:24
  • $\begingroup$ Anyway, I am interested in understanding better this more general approach, so if you could elaborate more on how it implies Jensen, it would be great. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Jul 9 at 5:24
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, and last question: Does the approach you have described imply that if $\phi$ is strictly convex at $c$, and there is an equality in Jensen, then the random variable is constant a.e.? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Jul 9 at 8:39
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafShachar : I have added the details you requested, and even an (affirmative answer) to your additional question concerning the strict convexity at $c$. $\endgroup$ – Iosif Pinelis Jul 9 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WillieWong : This is so. Indeed, consider first the probability measures with a compact support. For any compact $K\subset\mathbb R^n$, let $P_{K,c}$ be the set of all probability measures with support $\subseteq K$ and mean $c$. Then $P_{K,c}$ is convex and compact and hence, by the Choquet–Bishop–de Leeuw theorem, any point in $P_{K,c}$ is a mixture of extreme points of $P_{K,c}$, which latter are probability measures with support of cardinality $\le n+1$. It remains to note that any probability measure on $\mathbb R^n$ is a mixture of probability measures with a compact support. $\endgroup$ – Iosif Pinelis Jul 9 at 21:12

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.