Is it possible to prove this if the function is not invertible?
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $f(t,X) = log (1+t^2 X)/t$ and let $G_n(t) = n^{-1} sum_{i=1}^n f(t,X_i)$
Define $T_n$ as the point that maximizes $G_n(t)$ and let $T_infty$ be defined as the value that maximises the non-random function $g(t) = EG_n (t)$.
My goal is to find the asymptotic distribution of $sqrt{n}(T_n - T_infty)$.
I have successfully shown:
$T_n to T_infty$ in probability
$G(T_n) to g(T_infty)$ in probability
$sqrt{n}(G(T_n) - G_n(T_infty)) to N(0,sigma(t))$
Derived the expression of $sigma (t)$.
However, the last step, getting from the aymptotic distribution of $(3)$ to the desired result is hindered by the fact $f(t,X)$ and $G_n(t)$ are not invertible, and so the $delta$-method cannot be used.
Does anyone see a way forward?
Edit:
Looking at this further I think the trick is to use a Taylor expansion, so I''m going down that route for now!
probability convergence self-learning
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $f(t,X) = log (1+t^2 X)/t$ and let $G_n(t) = n^{-1} sum_{i=1}^n f(t,X_i)$
Define $T_n$ as the point that maximizes $G_n(t)$ and let $T_infty$ be defined as the value that maximises the non-random function $g(t) = EG_n (t)$.
My goal is to find the asymptotic distribution of $sqrt{n}(T_n - T_infty)$.
I have successfully shown:
$T_n to T_infty$ in probability
$G(T_n) to g(T_infty)$ in probability
$sqrt{n}(G(T_n) - G_n(T_infty)) to N(0,sigma(t))$
Derived the expression of $sigma (t)$.
However, the last step, getting from the aymptotic distribution of $(3)$ to the desired result is hindered by the fact $f(t,X)$ and $G_n(t)$ are not invertible, and so the $delta$-method cannot be used.
Does anyone see a way forward?
Edit:
Looking at this further I think the trick is to use a Taylor expansion, so I''m going down that route for now!
probability convergence self-learning
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Let $f(t,X) = log (1+t^2 X)/t$ and let $G_n(t) = n^{-1} sum_{i=1}^n f(t,X_i)$
Define $T_n$ as the point that maximizes $G_n(t)$ and let $T_infty$ be defined as the value that maximises the non-random function $g(t) = EG_n (t)$.
My goal is to find the asymptotic distribution of $sqrt{n}(T_n - T_infty)$.
I have successfully shown:
$T_n to T_infty$ in probability
$G(T_n) to g(T_infty)$ in probability
$sqrt{n}(G(T_n) - G_n(T_infty)) to N(0,sigma(t))$
Derived the expression of $sigma (t)$.
However, the last step, getting from the aymptotic distribution of $(3)$ to the desired result is hindered by the fact $f(t,X)$ and $G_n(t)$ are not invertible, and so the $delta$-method cannot be used.
Does anyone see a way forward?
Edit:
Looking at this further I think the trick is to use a Taylor expansion, so I''m going down that route for now!
probability convergence self-learning
Let $f(t,X) = log (1+t^2 X)/t$ and let $G_n(t) = n^{-1} sum_{i=1}^n f(t,X_i)$
Define $T_n$ as the point that maximizes $G_n(t)$ and let $T_infty$ be defined as the value that maximises the non-random function $g(t) = EG_n (t)$.
My goal is to find the asymptotic distribution of $sqrt{n}(T_n - T_infty)$.
I have successfully shown:
$T_n to T_infty$ in probability
$G(T_n) to g(T_infty)$ in probability
$sqrt{n}(G(T_n) - G_n(T_infty)) to N(0,sigma(t))$
Derived the expression of $sigma (t)$.
However, the last step, getting from the aymptotic distribution of $(3)$ to the desired result is hindered by the fact $f(t,X)$ and $G_n(t)$ are not invertible, and so the $delta$-method cannot be used.
Does anyone see a way forward?
Edit:
Looking at this further I think the trick is to use a Taylor expansion, so I''m going down that route for now!
probability convergence self-learning
probability convergence self-learning
edited Nov 27 at 7:44
daw
24k1544
24k1544
asked Nov 27 at 7:19
Xiaomi
972115
972115
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I suggest to mimic derivation of Maximum Likelihood Estimator: The First-Order Condition is given by
$$
G_n'(T_n) =frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_n,X_i) = 0 cdots(*).
$$($f_1$ is partial derivative with respect to $t$.)
What we know is that, roughly speaking, under sufficient regularity of $f$, it holds that
$$S_n := frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_infty,X_i)to E[f_1(T_infty,X_i)] =g'(T_infty)=0,
$$ almost surely. Moreover, we know from CLT the limiting distribution of $S$:
$$sqrt{n}S_n to N(0,sigma^2),$$
where $$sigma^2 = var(f_1(T_infty,X_1)) = E[f_1(T_infty,X_1)^2].
$$From $(*)$, we know $$sqrt{n}S_n = sqrt{n}(S_n - G_n'(T_n)) = frac{1}{sqrt{n}}sum_{ileq n}(f_1(T_infty,X_i)-f_1(T_n,X_i))=frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i)cdotsqrt{n}(T_infty-T_n),$$ where in the last equation, we used mean value theorem($0<s<1$). Under sufficient condition, we have
$$frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i) to E[f_{11}(T_infty,X_1)]:= tau neq 0
$$(being non-zero is assumed.) Finally, Slutsky's theorem gives us the result:
$$sqrt{n}(T_n-T_infty) to N(0, frac{sigma^2}{tau^2}).
$$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015449%2fis-it-possible-to-prove-this-if-the-function-is-not-invertible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I suggest to mimic derivation of Maximum Likelihood Estimator: The First-Order Condition is given by
$$
G_n'(T_n) =frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_n,X_i) = 0 cdots(*).
$$($f_1$ is partial derivative with respect to $t$.)
What we know is that, roughly speaking, under sufficient regularity of $f$, it holds that
$$S_n := frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_infty,X_i)to E[f_1(T_infty,X_i)] =g'(T_infty)=0,
$$ almost surely. Moreover, we know from CLT the limiting distribution of $S$:
$$sqrt{n}S_n to N(0,sigma^2),$$
where $$sigma^2 = var(f_1(T_infty,X_1)) = E[f_1(T_infty,X_1)^2].
$$From $(*)$, we know $$sqrt{n}S_n = sqrt{n}(S_n - G_n'(T_n)) = frac{1}{sqrt{n}}sum_{ileq n}(f_1(T_infty,X_i)-f_1(T_n,X_i))=frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i)cdotsqrt{n}(T_infty-T_n),$$ where in the last equation, we used mean value theorem($0<s<1$). Under sufficient condition, we have
$$frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i) to E[f_{11}(T_infty,X_1)]:= tau neq 0
$$(being non-zero is assumed.) Finally, Slutsky's theorem gives us the result:
$$sqrt{n}(T_n-T_infty) to N(0, frac{sigma^2}{tau^2}).
$$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I suggest to mimic derivation of Maximum Likelihood Estimator: The First-Order Condition is given by
$$
G_n'(T_n) =frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_n,X_i) = 0 cdots(*).
$$($f_1$ is partial derivative with respect to $t$.)
What we know is that, roughly speaking, under sufficient regularity of $f$, it holds that
$$S_n := frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_infty,X_i)to E[f_1(T_infty,X_i)] =g'(T_infty)=0,
$$ almost surely. Moreover, we know from CLT the limiting distribution of $S$:
$$sqrt{n}S_n to N(0,sigma^2),$$
where $$sigma^2 = var(f_1(T_infty,X_1)) = E[f_1(T_infty,X_1)^2].
$$From $(*)$, we know $$sqrt{n}S_n = sqrt{n}(S_n - G_n'(T_n)) = frac{1}{sqrt{n}}sum_{ileq n}(f_1(T_infty,X_i)-f_1(T_n,X_i))=frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i)cdotsqrt{n}(T_infty-T_n),$$ where in the last equation, we used mean value theorem($0<s<1$). Under sufficient condition, we have
$$frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i) to E[f_{11}(T_infty,X_1)]:= tau neq 0
$$(being non-zero is assumed.) Finally, Slutsky's theorem gives us the result:
$$sqrt{n}(T_n-T_infty) to N(0, frac{sigma^2}{tau^2}).
$$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I suggest to mimic derivation of Maximum Likelihood Estimator: The First-Order Condition is given by
$$
G_n'(T_n) =frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_n,X_i) = 0 cdots(*).
$$($f_1$ is partial derivative with respect to $t$.)
What we know is that, roughly speaking, under sufficient regularity of $f$, it holds that
$$S_n := frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_infty,X_i)to E[f_1(T_infty,X_i)] =g'(T_infty)=0,
$$ almost surely. Moreover, we know from CLT the limiting distribution of $S$:
$$sqrt{n}S_n to N(0,sigma^2),$$
where $$sigma^2 = var(f_1(T_infty,X_1)) = E[f_1(T_infty,X_1)^2].
$$From $(*)$, we know $$sqrt{n}S_n = sqrt{n}(S_n - G_n'(T_n)) = frac{1}{sqrt{n}}sum_{ileq n}(f_1(T_infty,X_i)-f_1(T_n,X_i))=frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i)cdotsqrt{n}(T_infty-T_n),$$ where in the last equation, we used mean value theorem($0<s<1$). Under sufficient condition, we have
$$frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i) to E[f_{11}(T_infty,X_1)]:= tau neq 0
$$(being non-zero is assumed.) Finally, Slutsky's theorem gives us the result:
$$sqrt{n}(T_n-T_infty) to N(0, frac{sigma^2}{tau^2}).
$$
I suggest to mimic derivation of Maximum Likelihood Estimator: The First-Order Condition is given by
$$
G_n'(T_n) =frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_n,X_i) = 0 cdots(*).
$$($f_1$ is partial derivative with respect to $t$.)
What we know is that, roughly speaking, under sufficient regularity of $f$, it holds that
$$S_n := frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_1(T_infty,X_i)to E[f_1(T_infty,X_i)] =g'(T_infty)=0,
$$ almost surely. Moreover, we know from CLT the limiting distribution of $S$:
$$sqrt{n}S_n to N(0,sigma^2),$$
where $$sigma^2 = var(f_1(T_infty,X_1)) = E[f_1(T_infty,X_1)^2].
$$From $(*)$, we know $$sqrt{n}S_n = sqrt{n}(S_n - G_n'(T_n)) = frac{1}{sqrt{n}}sum_{ileq n}(f_1(T_infty,X_i)-f_1(T_n,X_i))=frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i)cdotsqrt{n}(T_infty-T_n),$$ where in the last equation, we used mean value theorem($0<s<1$). Under sufficient condition, we have
$$frac{1}{n}sum_{ileq n}f_{11}(sT_infty+(1-s)T_n,X_i) to E[f_{11}(T_infty,X_1)]:= tau neq 0
$$(being non-zero is assumed.) Finally, Slutsky's theorem gives us the result:
$$sqrt{n}(T_n-T_infty) to N(0, frac{sigma^2}{tau^2}).
$$
answered Nov 27 at 8:02
Song
3,435315
3,435315
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015449%2fis-it-possible-to-prove-this-if-the-function-is-not-invertible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown