1
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand if the following claim is true:

Let $P$, $Q$ be probability measures on $\mathcal{X}$. For any $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{G}$, with countably many atoms (sets with $\emptyset$ as their only subset in $\mathcal{G}$), let $$D(P||Q|\mathcal{G}) = \sum_{A\in atom(\mathcal{G})} P(A)\log\frac{P(A)}{Q(A)}.$$ Then for any $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal{H} \subset \mathcal{G}$ we have $D(P||Q|\mathcal{H}) \leq D(P||Q|\mathcal{G})$.

First of all, I think there should be some assumption regarding the measurability of atoms of $\mathcal{G}$ with respect to $P$ and $Q$.

Apart from that, I cannot see why the inequality would necessarily holds. To build a counterexample, let $\lambda$ be the counting measure on $\{0\}$ and let $(\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{F},\mu)$ be a probability space with an atomless $\sigma$-algebra. For $\alpha\in[0,1]$, There is a probability space on $\mathcal{X} = Y\cup \{0\}$ with probability measure $a\mu' + (1-a)\lambda'$, where the prime measures act as $\mu'(A) = \mu(A\cap \mathcal{Y})$ and $\lambda'(A) = \lambda(A\cap \{0\})$. Take $\mathcal{G}$ to be the $\sigma$-algebra generated in $\mathcal{X}$ by $\mathcal{F}$ and let $\mathcal{H} = \{\emptyset,\mathcal{Y},\{0\},\mathcal{X}\}$. Now $\mathcal{H} \subset \mathcal{G}$ and they both contain finitely many atoms, but we have $$D\left(\frac{1}{2}\mu' + \frac{1}{2}\lambda'||a\mu' + (1-a)\lambda'|\mathcal{G}\right) - D\left(\frac{1}{2}\mu' + \frac{1}{2}\lambda'||a\mu' + (1-a)\lambda'|\mathcal{H}\right) = -\frac{1}{2}\log\left(\frac{a}{2}\right)$$ which is $\leq0$ as long as $a\geq$2.

Having said that, if I assume $\mathcal{X} = \cup atom(\mathcal{G})$ in the original statement, this argument would collapse and the inequality could hold.

Is there a flaw in my argument? I have assumed the existence of measures with various properties (most notably a probability measure with an atomless sigma algebra), but if I remember my measure theoretic basics correctly, all of these existences can be proven.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\G}{\mathcal G}\newcommand{\HH}{\mathcal H}\newcommand{\A}{\mathcal A}\newcommand{\X}{\mathcal X}$First here, a nonempty member $A$ of a sigma-algebra $\G$ is an atom of $\G$ if the only proper subset of $A$ in $\G$ is empty.

Let now $\A(\G)$ denote the set of all atoms of $\G$. Without the condition \begin{equation*} \X=\cup\A(\G),\tag{1} \end{equation*} it is of course easy to construct counterexamples to the inequality \begin{equation*} D(P||Q|\HH)\le D(P||Q|\G),\tag{2} \end{equation*} as was done in your post.

On the other hand, assuming that (1) holds and that $\A(\G)$ is (at most) countable, inequality (2) holds. Indeed, then every atom $B$ of $\HH$ is a disjoint countable union of atoms of $\G$: \begin{equation*} B=\cup\A_B(\G), \end{equation*} where \begin{equation*} \A_B(\G):=\{A\in\A(\G)\colon A\subseteq B\}. \end{equation*} So, \begin{align*} D(P||Q|\G)&=\sum_{A\in\A(\G)}P(A)\log\frac{P(A)}{Q(A)} \\ &=\sum_{B\in\A(\HH)}\sum_{A\in\A_B(\G)}P(A)\log\frac{P(A)}{Q(A)}, \end{align*} \begin{align*} D(P||Q|\HH)&=\sum_{B\in\A(\HH)}P(B)\log\frac{P(B)}{Q(B)} \\ & =\sum_{B\in\A(\HH)}\sum_{A\in\A_B(\G)}P(A)\log\frac{P(B)}{Q(B)}, \end{align*} \begin{align*} D(P||Q|\G)-D(P||Q|\HH) &=\sum_{B\in\A(\HH)}\sum_{A\in\A_B(\G)}P(A)\log\frac{P(A|B)}{Q(A|B)} \\ &=\sum_{B\in\A(\HH)}P(B)\sum_{A\in\A_B(\G)}P(A|B)\log\frac{P(A|B)}{Q(A|B)} \\ &=\sum_{B\in\A(\HH)}P(B)D\big(P(\cdot|B)||Q(\cdot|B)\big)\ge0, \end{align*} since $D\big(P(\cdot|B)||Q(\cdot|B)\big):=\sum_{A\in\A_B(\G)}P(A|B)\log\frac{P(A|B)}{Q(A|B)}\ge0$.

Thus, (2) holds.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for verifying the presented argument and for providing the proof given the assumption $\mathcal{X}=\cup\mathcal{A}(\mathcal{G})$! $\endgroup$
    – T.T.
    Apr 2, 2021 at 15:22

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.