5

Let $y:=\frac1n\sum_{i=1}^n x_i$, where $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n$ is a set of i.i.d. random variables, and every $x_i$ has a lognormal distribution $x_i \sim\text{Lognormal}(\mu,\sigma^2)$. Let $\text{Med}[y]$ be the median of $y$. Is the following inequality true $\forall (n,\mu,\sigma)$? $$\text{Med}[y]<\mathbf E[y]$$

Hans
  • 995
  • 1
    One could show that the third moment skewness is positive easily enough, but that doesn't automatically imply that the mean will exceed the median (I certainly believe the mean will exceed the median here but we'd need to prove that it does). What's this for? – Glen_b May 31 '17 at 00:38
  • @Glen_b: I am computing the sample mean of the lognormal random variables via Monte Carlo. The sample mean seems tend to concentrate below the mean for large $\sigma$. I am wondering whether this is true for all cases. – Hans May 31 '17 at 00:56
  • 1
    Incidentally, somewhat related (at least in the limit):
    Peter Hall, (1980), "On the Limiting Behaviour of the Mode and Median of a Sum of Independent Random Variables", Ann. Probab. Volume 8, Number 3, 419-430. Open Access at Project Euclid
    – Glen_b May 31 '17 at 01:06
  • The lognormal is an interesting case; it's a distribution with all moments finite but no mgf (and indeed, other distributions with the same moment sequence exist). You may be able to get somewhere with characteristic functions. – Glen_b May 31 '17 at 01:08
  • @Glen_b: By "no mgf" you mean the characteristic function is not analytic at the origin on the complex plane, and therefore there is no convergent Taylor series at the origin, right? What do you mean by "other distributions with the same moment sequence exist"? If all moment are equal, you should get the same series, therefore the same function if the series converges, except the complex variable may be rotated in the complex plane. – Hans May 31 '17 at 01:51
  • 1
    I mean "no mgf" in the sense expressed here. By "other distributions with the same moment sequence exist" I mean there are distributions with the same sequence of moments as the lognormal / the lognormal is an example of a distribution not uniquely defined by its moments: if $f$ is a standard lognormal density ($\mu=0$, $\sigma=1$) and $g(x)=f(x)\cdot (1+\epsilon\sin[2\pi k\log(x)])$ then the contribution of $g-f$ to the $n$th moment is $0$ for each $n=1,2,...$. This extends to the general lognormal (indeed to the 3 parameter case) – Glen_b May 31 '17 at 02:53
  • It might be the same as what you said, I'd have to look more closely to determine that; I merely wanted to give some link to what I would have said if I had given a more complete statement. ... On the second thing, given the MGF doesn't exist for the lognormal (in the sense I gave), why would you assume the convergence of Taylor series? – Glen_b May 31 '17 at 05:55
  • @Glen_b: Is your "here" not the same as what I said only in term of the characteristic function which only multiplying the parameter by the pure imaginary number i? I must have misunderstood your claim about the non-uniqueness of distribution given all the moments. The claim goes contrary to the uniqueness of analytic expansion or Taylor series expansion. – Hans May 31 '17 at 06:04
  • @Glen_b: Sorry I reposted my comment because I thought there was something to edit. I am saying if the Taylor series exists or converges the function must be analytic in some disk and is unique. OK, you are saying if the Taylor series does not exist, there may be two function not analytic but with all the same moments, right? I will have to think about that. – Hans May 31 '17 at 06:07
  • @Glen_b: You are right about the non-uniqueness of the function with the same moments when the Taylor expansion of the function does not exist. Your example is ingenious, since $$\sqrt{2\pi}\int_0^\infty f(x)\sin(2\pi k \log x)x^m dx = e^{\frac{m^2}2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-\frac{(z-m)^2}2}\sin(2\pi kz),dz = e^{\frac{m^2}2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-\frac{y^2}2}\sin(2\pi k(y+m)),dy \equiv 0,\ \forall m,k\in\mathbb N.$$ – Hans May 31 '17 at 06:25
  • @Glen_b: Can you post the links to those "other examples... on our site"? – Hans May 31 '17 at 07:51
  • Well, there's one here.

    On the above example ... whuber draws some member-densities of that family related to the lognormal here. I thought there was another explicit example but I may have misremembered -- or maybe I just didn't locate it quickly

    – Glen_b May 31 '17 at 08:39
  • 1
    Oh, this may have been it; it's more a generalization of the above case to a broader class: ... https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/25010/identity-of-moment-generating-functions/25017#25017 – Glen_b May 31 '17 at 08:43
  • Is there a clean proof for the case $n=2, \mu=0$? – Matt F. May 16 '20 at 02:55

1 Answers1

2

This is true for $n \le 4$, which we prove for $n=2$ in the following form, and then sketch for $n=3$ and $n=4$.

Main Result: $$P\Big[Y < Mean\Big] \ > \ \frac12$$

Proof: We change notation so that $X_i\sim LN (0, 2\sigma^2)$. Then $Mean=E[Y] = e^{\sigma^2}$.

Let \begin{align} U &= (\ln X_1 + \ln X_2)/2\\ V &= (\ln X_1 - \ln X_2)/2 \end{align} so that $U, V$ are iid $N (0, \sigma^2)$ with cdf $F$ and pdf $f$. Then: \begin{align} P\Big[Y<Mean\Big] &= P \left[\frac12(e^{U + V} + e^{U - V}) < e^{\sigma^2} \right] \\ &= P \left[e^U\cosh V < e^{\sigma^2} \right] \\ &= P \left[U < \sigma^{2^\phantom{2\!}} - \ln\cosh V \right] \\ &= E\! \left[F[\sigma^2 - \ln\cosh V]\right] \\ &> E\! \left[F[\sigma^2] - (\cosh V - 1)f(\sigma^2)\right]\\ &=F[\sigma^2]-\left(e^{\sigma^2/2}-1\right)f(\sigma^2)\\ &> 1/2 \end{align}

The first inequality here comes from the lemma below.

The term $F[\sigma^2]$ in both inequalities is also $P[\sqrt{X_1 X_2}<Mean]$, and is approximately $\frac12+\sigma/\sqrt{2\pi}$ for small $\sigma$.

The function of $\sigma$ in the second inequality is approximately $\frac12(1+\sigma/\sqrt{2\pi})$ for small $\sigma$ and $1-\sigma^{-1}/\sqrt{2\pi}$ for large $\sigma$.

enter image description here

Lemma: For $W>1$ (and in particular for $W=\cosh V$), $$F[\sigma^2 - \ln W] > F[\sigma^2] - (W-1)f(\sigma^2)$$ This is obviously true with equality when $W=1$. For $W>1$ it follows from the corresponding inequality for the derivatives of both sides, which can be written as: $$\frac{-f(\sigma^2 - \ln W)}{W} > -f(\sigma^2)$$ Cancelling many factors shows this equivalent to: $$\exp\left(\frac{-(\ln W)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right) < 1$$ which proves the lemma.

Sketch of Extension for $2\le n\le 4$:

A similar technique proves the same result for $n \le 4$, transforming $\ln(X)$ by an orthogonal matrix where all entries in the first row are equal. Then we replace $e^U$ by the geometric mean of the $X$'s, and we replace $\cosh V$ by a function with $n$ exponential terms in $n-1$ variables. The corresponding lemma is: $$F[k\sigma^2 - k\ln W]\, > $$ $$F[k\sigma^2]\ -kf(k\sigma^2)\Big(W-1+\frac{k^2-1}{2}(W-1)^2\Big)$$ where $k=\sqrt{n/2}$; this lemma would be false for higher $n$ (e.g. at $n=7$, $\sigma=1$, $W=1.05$), but Bernoulli's inequality with an exponent of $0\le k^2-1 \le 1$ shows that it is true for $2\le n\le 4$. When we take expectations of this lemma, we get a good bound for low $\sigma$, which we can combine with separate and easier bounds for high $\sigma$ to prove the result.

Matt F.
  • 4,726
  • There is an extra $\sigma$ on the denominator of Equation $(1)$ compared to the right hand side of the expression in the lemma. Does that matter? – Hans Oct 06 '23 at 01:53
  • Good catch -- I have now simplified the proof and avoided that expression entirely. – Matt F. Oct 06 '23 at 14:26
  • What about $n>2$? – Pontus Hultkrantz Oct 06 '23 at 15:53
  • 1
    Good question -- it took a couple years of thinking about this on and off to find a nice solution for $n=2$; I have some ideas for extending it but no results yet. – Matt F. Oct 06 '23 at 16:55
  • @PontusHultkrantz, I updated this for $2\le n\le 4$. And what about $n>4$? I have no idea, since I wouldn’t trust numerical integrals over five variables, and I don’t see how to extend the proof to all $n$. – Matt F. Oct 17 '23 at 17:45
  • Sorry for taking long. I will check out your proof hopefully before too long. Thank you for your toil! – Hans Oct 22 '23 at 01:21