I noticed this post. But still I'd like to follow up with a specific case I have in mind. Say $p(x| \theta)$ is the density of a Gaussian distribution on $\mathbb{R}^n$ with mean $\theta$ and known covariance $\Sigma$. Let $$f(x) = \int_{\Theta} p(x| \theta) \Lambda(d\theta),$$ where $\Theta$ is a proper subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$, and $\Lambda$ is an arbitrary probability measure over $(\Theta, \mathcal{B}(\Theta))$, not necessarily continuous w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure. Let $g(x)$ be the density of another Gaussian on $\mathbb{R}^n$ with mean $\mu$ and known covariance $\Sigma + \Psi$. Is it possible for $g(x)$ and $f(x)$ to agree on a set of positive Lebesgue measure?
1 Answer
$\newcommand\R{\mathbb R}\renewcommand\th{\theta}\newcommand{\Th}{\Theta}\newcommand{\Si}{\Sigma} \newcommand\La\Lambda\newcommand{\C}{\mathbb C}$The answer is: This will be so if (and only if) $\Lambda$ itself is a (possibly degenerate) Gaussian distribution.
Let us prove the "only if" part. Here it does not really matter whether it is a priori assumed that $\Th$ is a proper subset of $\R^n$. Also, by substitutions $x\leftrightarrow\Si^{1/2}x$ and $\th\leftrightarrow\Si^{1/2}\th$, without loss of generality $\Si=I_n$, the identity matrix. So,
\begin{equation*}
f(x)=(2\pi)^{-n/2}\int_{\R^n}\exp\Big(-\frac12\sum_{j=1}^n(x_j-\th_j)^2\Big)\,\La(d\th)
\end{equation*}
for $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)\in\R^n$. Since
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{j=1}^n(x_j+iy_j-\th_j)^2=\sum_{j=1}^n(x_j-\th_j)^2-\sum_{j=1}^n y_j^2
+2i\sum_{j=1}^n(x_j-\th_j)y_j, \tag{2}\label{2}
\end{equation*}
the function $f$ can be extended to a holomorphic function on $\C^n$. Similarly, the function $g$ can be extended to a holomorphic function on $\C^n$.
So, $f$ and $g$ are real-analytic on each (straight) line in $\R^n$.
Suppose now $f=g$ on some subset $A$ of $\R^n$ of Lebesgue measure $|A|>0$. Without loss of generality, the set $A$ is bounded.
Take any $x\in\R^n$. Then \begin{equation*} 0<|A|=|A-x|=\int_{S^{n-1}}du\,\int_0^\infty r^{n-1}\,dr\,1(ru\in A-x), \end{equation*} where $\int_{S^{n-1}}du$ is the integral with respect to the surface measure on the unit sphere $S^{n-1}$ in $\R^n$. So, by the Tonelli theorem, there is some $u_x\in S^{n-1}$ such that $\int_0^\infty r^{n-1}\,dr\,1(ru_x\in A-x)>0$ and hence \begin{equation*} |A\cap(x+\R_+ u_x)|=\int_0^\infty dr\,1(x+ru_x\in A)=\int_0^\infty dr\,1(ru_x\in A-x)>0. \end{equation*} So, the set $A\cap(x+\R_+ u_x)$ is an infinite and bounded subset of the line $x+\R u_x$, and $f=g$ on this infinite bounded subset of a line. Recalling that $f$ and $g$ are real-analytic on each line in $\R^n$, we conclude that $f=g$ on the line $x+\R u_x$, and hence $f(x)=g(x)$.
So, $f=g$ (on the entire space $\R^n$), which can be rewritten as the identity \begin{equation*} e^{-\|x\|^2/2}\int_{\R^n}\exp\Big(\sum_{j=1}^n \th_j x_j\Big)\,L(d\th) =C\exp\big(-x^\top Bx+x^\top\mu\big) \end{equation*} for all $x\in\R^n$, where $\|\cdot\|$ is the Euclidean norm, $$L(d\th):=e^{-\|\th\|^2/2}\La(d\th),$$ $B$ is some positive-definite $n\times n$ real matrix, $\mu$ is some vector in $\R^n$, and $C:=L(\R^n)=(2\pi)^{n/2}f(0)$. So, for (joint) moment generating function (mgf) $M_{L/C}$ of the probability measure $L/C$, some symmetric matrix $R$, and all $x\in\R^n$ we have \begin{equation*} M_{L/C}(x)=\exp\big(-x^\top Rx+x^\top\mu\big) \end{equation*} Any mgf is log convex. So, $R$ must be positive semidefinite. Thus, $M_{L/C}$ is the mgf of a (possibly degenerate) Gaussian distribution. So, $L/C$ is a (possibly degenerate) Gaussian distribution. So, $\La$ is a (possibly degenerate) Gaussian distribution.
Vice versa, if $\La$ is a (possibly degenerate) Gaussian distribution, then $f$ is clearly a Gaussian distribution. $\quad\Box$
-
$\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for your reply!! I have a very basic question. I know that if $\Lambda(\theta)$ is absolutely continuous w.r.t. Lebesgue measure, $f$ would be analytic in $x$. Then if $f$ and $g$ agree on a set of positive Lebesgue measure, it's necessary that $f=g$ by the identity theorem. However, if $\Lambda$ is any arbitrary measure, I'm not sure whether $f$ is necessarily analytic. Could you point me to some references/ proof for this? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 21, 2023 at 5:16
-
$\begingroup$ Also to summarize, I guess in my case where $\Theta$ is a proper subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$, $\Lambda$ cannot be a non-degenerate gaussian. Therefore $f$ and $g$ cannot agree on a set with positive Lebesgue measure since here I'm assuming the covariance matrix of $g$ is strictly larger (in matrix sense) than $\Sigma$. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 21, 2023 at 5:18
-
$\begingroup$ @statstats : That $f$ is analytic has nothing to do with whether the measure $\Lambda$ is absolutely continuous or not. The analyticity of $f$ follows (say) from the Cauchy, Fubini, and Morera theorems. Cf. e.g. math.stackexchange.com/a/229242/96609 , where the parameter $x$ takes values in $\mathbb R$ and the measure over $\mathbb R$ is the Lebesgue one; but the same argument holds for any measure $\Lambda$ on any measurable space $\Theta$, as long as the Fubini theorem is applicable -- which is applicable here in view of (2) and the condition that $f$ is a pdf and hence integrable. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 21, 2023 at 16:50
-
$\begingroup$ Whether $\Theta$ is a proper subset of $\mathbb R^n$ has nothing to do with the problem. E.g., $\Theta:=\mathbb R^n\setminus\{0\}$ is a proper subset of $\mathbb R^n$, but it is as good as $\mathbb R^n$ if (say) $\Lambda(d\theta)=(2\pi)^{-n/2}e^{-\|\theta\|^2/2}$ for $\theta\in\Theta=\mathbb R^n\setminus\{0\}$. Anyhow, as shown in the answer, $f$ can be Gaussian if and only if the measure $\Lambda$ itself is a (possibly degenerate) Gaussian distribution. Please let me know if you have further difficulties regarding this answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 21, 2023 at 16:50
-
$\begingroup$ Thanks again for the elaboration and references. I think I understand why $f$ is analytic now. And regarding my second comment above, I was thinking of having $\Theta$ as e.g., just the positive quardrant, in which case $\Lambda$ cannot be a non-degenerate Gaussian. I actually didn't fully understand some of the technical details in the answer. E.g., the setup of the integral for $|A-x|$. Conceptually I can see it's integrating over rays towards different directions(?) Any references you could suggest for me to read more about this would be very helpful! Thanks!!! $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 22, 2023 at 15:42