2
$\begingroup$

Recently I was thinking if there is a way to do the following: assuming I have some sampled points of distribution $\mathcal{X}$ and distribution $\mathcal Z$ (whose MGF I do not have in closed form) and I know that $\text{law}(\mathcal X)\cdot\text{law}(\mathcal Y) = \text{law}(\mathcal Z)$ can I obtain $\mathcal{Y}$? Are there any results/papers on this? We can also that the support of all $3$ RVs is in $\mathbb{R_{+}}$

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ What does "$\text{law}(\mathcal X)\cdot\text{law}(\mathcal Y) = \text{law}(\mathcal Z)$" mean? $\endgroup$ Commented May 14, 2023 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ What I am trying to find is a method that could provide me the distribution of $\mathcal Y$ given that I know the distribution of $\mathcal X$ and $\mathcal Z$ knowing that they are related by the fact that the product of $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal Y$ is $\mathcal Z$ in distribution (assuming everything is "nice") $\endgroup$ Commented May 14, 2023 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ OK - makes sense. Just to make it completely clear - I think you're saying that if $X$ and $Y$ are independent with distributions $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ respectively, then their product $XY$ has distribution $\mathcal{Z}$. And presumably your samples $X_1, X_2, \dots, X_m$ and $Z_1, Z_2, \dots, Z_n$ from $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Z}$ are independent of each other. $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2023 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ @JamesMartin exactly that! I apologize if I did not express myself too clearly from the start $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2023 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Hazards what precisely is your "niceness" assumption? It is pretty well-known that the ratio of two Gaussians is Cauchy, i.e. even when $X, Y$ are individually nice, $X/Y$ need not be nice. $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2023 at 22:17

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\R{\mathbb R}\newcommand\Z{\mathbb Z}$After James Martin's clarifying comment, the question becomes as follows:

Suppose that $Z=XY$, where $X$ and $Y$ are independent positive random variables (r.v.'s). The distributions $P_X$ and $P_Z$ of $X$ and $Z$ are known. Does this determine the distribution $P_Y$ of $Y$?

The answer to this question is no. Indeed, write $X=e^U$, $Y=e^V$, and $Z=e^W$, where $U,V,W$ are real-valued r.v.'s such that $W=U+V$; $U$ and $V$ are independent; and the distributions $P_U$ and $P_W$ are known. The question can now be restated in terms of the characteristic functions (c.f.'s) $f_U,f_V,f_W$ of $U,V,W$ as follows:

Suppose that $f_U\,f_V=f_W$ and suppose that $f_U$ and $f_W$ are known. Does this determine $f_V$?

The answer to this equivalent question is of course still no. Indeed, note that (i) the function $f$ given by the formula $f(t)=\max(0,1-|t|/\pi)$ for real $t$ is a c.f. (of the absolutely continuous distribution with density $\R\ni x\mapsto\dfrac{1-\cos\pi x}{\pi^2 x^2}\,1(x\ne0)$ and (ii) the periodic function $g$ with period $2\pi$ such that $g=f$ on $[-\pi,\pi]$ is a c.f. (of the discrete distribution on $\Z$ with probability mass function $\Z\ni x\mapsto\dfrac12\,1(x=0)+\dfrac{1-\cos\pi x}{\pi^2 x^2}\,1(x\ne0)$. Note that $fg=f^2$. So, if $f_U=f$ and $f_W=f^2$, then $f_V$ can be either one of the two distinct c.f.'s: $f$ or $g$. So, $f_U$ and $f_W$ do not determine $f_V$. $\quad\Box$.

This example is well known; see e.g. this book.


Such examples are of course an exception. Indeed, if the set $N_U:=\{t\in\R\colon f_U(t)=0\}$ is nowhere dense (as will usually be the case, apparently -- including the case when $f_U$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $\R$), then we know the values of $f_V(t)=f_W(t)/f_U(t)$ for all $t$ in the everywhere dense set $\R\setminus N_U$. So, by the continuity of any c.f., we know $f_V$ completely -- so that we know the distribution of $V$ and hence the distribution of $Y$.


Regarding concerns about statistical aspects of the problem, raised by James Martin, one can say the following.

(i) If we have an i.i.d. sample $(X_1,Z_1),\dots,(X_n,Z_n)$ from the joint distribution of the pair $(X,Y)$ for a large enough sample size $n$, we get the i.i.d. $Y$-sample $Y_1:=Z_1/X_1,\dots,Y_n:=Z_n/X_n$. So, we can use, say, the empirical c.d.f. based on $Y_1,\dots,Y_n$ to approximate in the standard manner the true c.d.f. of $Y$. The question as to whether the distribution of $Y$ is determined by the individual distributions of $X$ and and of $Z$ is completely irrelevant here, once the joint distribution of the pair $(X,Y)$ is known or available for sampling as described above.

(ii) If we only have an i.i.d. sample $X_1,\dots,X_n$ from the individual distribution of $X$ and an i.i.d. sample $Z_1,\dots,Z_n$ from the individual distribution of $Z$, then we only have partial knowledge of the individual distributions of $X$ and and of $Z$. But, as shown above, even complete knowledge of the individual distributions of $X$ and of $Z$ will in general not determine the distribution of $Y$. So, clearly, the partial knowledge of the individual distributions of $X$ and and of $Z$ cannot provide substantial partial knowledge of the distribution of $Y$ -- in particular, then we would even be unable to guess whether $Y$ is integer-valued or absolutely continuous.

Summarizing the statistical sampling aspects of the problem: depending on the kind of of sampling available -- (i) from the joint distribution of $(X,Z)$ or (ii) from the individual distributions of $X$ and $Z$, the sampling is either (i) irrelevant to the problem stated in the OP or (ii) not at all helpful to the problem.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for taking the time to answer my question! Do you think we could impose some special restrictions on the formulation of the distributions of $Z$ and $X$ such that we can uniquely determine $Y$? I.e. does there exists a class of distributions for which we could determine this? $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2023 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nice example! - but also was that really the whole question? The question seemed to me to have a more statistical flavour - supposing we have access not to complete information about the distributions of $X$ and $Z$, but to samples, how do we go about getting estimates on the distribution of $Y$ which get more reliable as our samples get bigger? Of course, in a case like the one you mention where the distribution of $Y$ is not uniquely determined, it's problematic.... but what about in a "nice case"? $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2023 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ @JamesMartin +1 Indeed, although not clear from my side, the question is coming from a statistics/sampling point of view $\endgroup$ Commented May 15, 2023 at 20:41
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't think the "statistics" part that you added is right. The property that $XY\sim \mathcal{Z}$ for independent $X\sim \mathcal{X}$ and $Y\sim\mathcal{Y}$, does not imply that $Z/X\sim\mathcal{Y}$ for independent $X\sim\mathcal{X}$ and $Z\sim\mathcal{Z}$. $\endgroup$ Commented May 16, 2023 at 8:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree the OP did not specify what is meant by "obtain". The question was how to "obtain" the distribution of $Y$ from samples of $X$ and $Z$. From independent finite samples from $X$ and $Z$ of any size, there is no way to get an exact sample from $Y$ -- for example you can't distinguish with certainty between a distribution putting all its mass on the point $1$ and one putting all its mass on $2$. So then, in what sense might one "obtain" $\mathcal{Y}$ from such a sample? The interpretation about estimates which get more reliable as the samples get bigger was my attempt at that. $\endgroup$ Commented May 16, 2023 at 8:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.