2

Suppose that $f(x)$ is a smooth probability density function on $\mathbb R$ and denote by $a_i$ the $\frac{2i-1}{2n}$-th quantile of $F$ for $1\leq i \leq n$, where $F(x)$ is the cumulative distribution function corresponding to the density $f(x)$. It is claimed in this monograph (without any proof unfortunately) that both $$\int_{-\infty}^{a_1} (a_1-x)^r f(x) \mathrm{d} x$$ and $$\int_{a_n}^\infty (x - a_n)^r f(x) \mathrm{d} x$$ are of order $\mathcal{O}(n^{-r})$. May I know how should we prove the aforementioned claim? You can safely assume that $f$ has finite moments up to order $r \geq 1$.


Remark: I forgot to mention the important condition/assumption on the density $f$. Indeed, it is required that the (smooth) density $f$ has some finite moment of order $q > r$. i.e., $$\int_{\mathbb R} |x|^q f(x) \mathrm{d} x < +\infty$$ for some $q > r$.

Fei Cao
  • 2,988
  • 1
    @Gary Note that by definition $a_i$ is the $\frac{2i-1}{2n}$-th quantile of the cumulative distribution function $F$. So strictly speaking there is a "hidden" $n$ there – Fei Cao Aug 21 '23 at 03:03
  • 1
    Working through the case $f = 2/x^3 \mathbf{1}{x \ge 1},$ I get that the second integral for $r = 1$ is $1/\sqrt{2n} \gg 1/n$. Can you see if other assumptions are made, or add an explicit reference to where in the monograph the claim is made? – stochasticboy321 Aug 23 '23 at 18:17
  • @stochasticboy321 Thanks for your comment. I have modified the post accordingly. – Fei Cao Aug 23 '23 at 20:50
  • This still doesn't quite work, right? For $\alpha > 1,$ take a law with pdf $f(x) = \alpha/x^{\alpha + 1}$ for $x \ge 1$. Note that $a_n = (2n)^{1/\alpha}$. We get $ \int_{a_n}^\infty x f(x) = \frac{\alpha}{(\alpha - 1)a_n^{\alpha - 1}} = (1 + 1/\alpha-1)(2n)^{-(1-1/\alpha)}$ and $\int_{a_n}^\infty f(x) = a_n/2n = (2n)^{-(1-1/\alpha)},$ so the second integral at $r = 1$ is $(2n)^{-(1-1/\alpha)}/(\alpha - 1) \gg 1/n.$ If the assumption is on existence of moments, then the above suggests that all moments must exist. – stochasticboy321 Aug 24 '23 at 19:44
  • @stochasticboy321 We are assuming that $f$ is a smooth density on $\mathbb R$, with your choice of $f$ there is a obvious discontinuity at $x = 1$ right? – Fei Cao Aug 24 '23 at 20:55
  • @stochasticboy321 The statement appears in page 101 (immediately before formula (7.7)) of the monograph "Foundations of Quantization for Probability Distributions" which is provided in the link in the original post. The set-up is mentioned in the beginning of section 7.3 (near the end of page 99). – Fei Cao Aug 24 '23 at 21:12
  • Hm... one approach might be to show $$a_1 = \mathcal O(n^{-1})$$ or find some other suitable asymptotic on $a_1$, since $$\int_{x \leq a_1}(a_1 - x)^r f(x),dx \leq a_1^r/(2n).$$ – BBBBBB Aug 30 '23 at 05:07
  • @BBBBBB That is an interesting idea, but how can we show that $a_1$ is of order $n^{-\frac{r-1}{r}}$ ? – Fei Cao Aug 30 '23 at 19:22
  • 1
    @Fei Cao I am not sure yet-- so far I have only been successful in showing $$a_1^2 \leq \frac{2nC}{2n-1},$$ where $C> 0$ is the second moment of $F$. This follows from the observation $$\frac{2n-1}{2n} = \int_{x\geq a_1} f(x),dx \leq a_1^{-2} \int_{x\geq a_1} x^2f(x),dx \leq a_1^{-2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} x^2f(x),dx.$$ The inequality should hold not only for $a_1^2$ but all $a_1^{2r}$ where $r$ is a positive integer. – BBBBBB Aug 30 '23 at 19:50
  • @BBBBBB Thank you very much, this "loose" bound is still good to know. I will try to see if a modification of your argument will lead to the advertised bound... By the way, for your first inequality $\leq$, don't you need $a_1 \geq 0$? – Fei Cao Aug 31 '23 at 03:15

1 Answers1

1

Let \begin{equation*} I_r=\int_{a_n}^{\infty}(x-a_n)^rf(x)\,\mathrm{d}x, \tag{1} \end{equation*} where $a_n$ denote the $\frac{2n-1}{2n}$-th quantile of $F$, $F$ is the cumulative function corresponding to density $f(x)$.

In the following, another expression of $I_r$ will be derived, it will be convenient to estimate the order of $I_r$ as $n\to\infty$.

Let \begin{equation*} \overline{F}_1(x)=1-F(x)=\int_{x}^{\infty}f(t)\,\mathrm{d}t,\qquad x\in\mathbb{R}, \tag{2} \end{equation*} Suppose \begin{equation*} \overline{F}_1(x)=O(x^{-(r+\delta)}), \quad \delta>0,\qquad \text{as }\; x\to+\infty, \tag{3} \end{equation*} then \begin{align*} I_r &= \int_{a_n}^{\infty}(x-a_n)^rf(x)\,\mathrm{d}x \\ &= -\int_{a_n}^{\infty}(x-a_n)^r\,\mathrm{d}\overline{F}_1(x)\\ &=-\big[(x-a_n)^r\overline{F}_1(x)\big]_{a_n}^\infty + r\int_{a_n}^{\infty}(x-a_n)^{r-1}\overline{F}_1(x)\,\mathrm{d}x\\ &=r\int_{a_n}^{\infty}(x-a_n)^{r-1}\overline{F}_1(x)\,\mathrm{d}x \end{align*} Now let \begin{equation*} \overline{F}_{k+1}(x)=\int_{x}^{\infty}\overline{F}_k(x)\,\mathrm{d}x, \qquad k\ge 1. \end{equation*} Then, inductively, \begin{align*} \overline{F}_k(x) & =O(x^{-(r+1-k+\delta)}), \quad 1\le k \le r+1, \qquad \text{as }\; x\to\infty, \\ I_r&=\frac{r!}{(r-k)!}\int_{a_n}^{\infty}(x-a_n)^{r-k}\overline{F}_k(x)\, \mathrm{d}x\\ &=-\frac{r!}{(r-k)!}\int_{a_n}^{\infty}(x-a_n)^{r-k}\, \mathrm{d}\overline{F}_{k+1}(x)\\ &=\frac{r!}{(r-k-1)!}\int_{a_n}^{\infty}(x-a_n)^{r-k-1}\overline{F}_{k+1}(x)\, \mathrm{d}x\\ &\cdots\cdots\\ &=r!\int_{a_n}^{\infty} \overline{F}_{r}(x)\,\mathrm{d}x\\ I_r&=r!\overline{F}_{r+1}(a_n). \tag{4} \end{align*} The (4) may be used to estimate the order of $I_r$.

Now suppose \begin{equation*} \lim_{x\to+\infty} x^{r+\delta}\overline{F}_1(x)=c>0, \end{equation*} also written it as \begin{equation*} \overline{F}_1(x)\sim x^{-(r+\delta)}, \end{equation*} then \begin{gather*} \overline{F}_{r+1}(x)\sim x^{-\delta},\\ \frac{1}{2n}=\overline{F}_1(a_n)\sim a_n^{-(r+\delta)},\\ a_n\sim n^{1/(r+\delta)},\\ I_r=r!\overline{F}_{r+1}(a_n)\sim n^{-\delta/(r+\delta)}. \end{gather*}

Exapmle Suppose $f(x)=e^{-x}1_{[0,\infty)}(x)$, then \begin{equation*} \overline{F}_k(x)=e^{-x}, \qquad a_n=\log(2n) \end{equation*} hence from (4) \begin{equation*} I_r=r!\overline{F}_{r+1}(a_n)=\frac{r!}{2n}. \end{equation*}

JGWang
  • 5,601
  • Thank you very much for your answer. I will try to digest it in detail later – Fei Cao Oct 03 '23 at 22:18
  • I think your argument is correct (you may take $\delta = q- r > 0$). Does that mean the quoted conclusion in my original post is wrong? – Fei Cao Oct 05 '23 at 17:15
  • 1
    Thanks for your question. To get the required order $I_r$, the condition in your original post is not sufficient. But I don't know for some special $f$, weither the order we could get. – JGWang Oct 06 '23 at 01:26