5

Let $P$ and $Q$ be two probability measures on the space $[0,1]^d$, $d \in \{1, 2, \ldots \}$, endowed with the $L_\infty$ norm and the corresponding Borel $\sigma$-field, $\mathcal{B}$. Let $$F_P(\mathbf{u})=P([\mathbf{0},\mathbf{u}]), \, \quad F_Q(\mathbf{u})=Q([\mathbf{0},\mathbf{u}]),$$ denote the distribution functions associated to $P$ and $Q$, respectively. Then, we have that $$ d_{KS}(F_P,F_Q):=\sup_{\mathbf{u}\in[0,1]^d} |F_P(\mathbf{u})-F_Q(\mathbf{u})| \leq \sup_{B \in \mathcal{B}}|P(B)-Q(B)|=:d_{TV}(P,Q). $$ My question is the following: assume $F_P$ and $F_Q$ are Lipschitz continuous, then does (some form of) converse inequality also hold true?

I was reasoning in this way: since $P$ and $Q$ are regular, for every $B \in \mathcal{B}$ and $\epsilon>0$ there exist closed sets $C_{B,\epsilon}^{(P)},C_{B,\epsilon}^{(Q)}$ and open sets $O_{B,\epsilon}^{(P)},O_{B,\epsilon}^{(Q)}$ such that $O_{B,\epsilon}^{(\bullet)} \subset B \subset C_{B,\epsilon}^{(\bullet)}$ and $$ P(C_{B,\epsilon}^{(P)}\setminus O_{B,\epsilon}^{(P)})\leq \epsilon, \quad Q(C_{B,\epsilon}^{(Q)}\setminus O_{B,\epsilon}^{(Q)})\leq \epsilon. $$ Whence, $ |P(B)-Q(B)| \leq 2 \epsilon + |P(O_{B,\epsilon}^{(P)})-Q(O_{B,\epsilon}^{(Q)})|. $ Yet, from now on it is not clear how to proceed. Maybe cover each open set with uniform metric-balls $\{B_1^\bullet,\ldots,B_{m_\bullet}^\bullet\}$ of radius $\delta$? Herein , we could maybe exploit the covering number inequality $m_\bullet \leq (3d/\delta)^d$. Observe that each ball is of the form $$ B_i^\bullet=\times_{j=1}^d(u_{i,j}^\bullet-\delta,u_{i,j}^\bullet+\delta), $$ where $\mathbf{u}_i^\bullet=(u_{i,1}^\bullet, \ldots, u_{i,d}^\bullet) \in [0,1]^d. $ In particular, by absolute continuity, we could choose $\delta$ such that $$ |F_P(\mathbf{u}_i^Q+\delta \mathbf{1})-F_Q(\mathbf{u}_i^Q-\delta \mathbf{1})|\leq \epsilon', \quad |F_Q(\mathbf{u}_i^P+\delta \mathbf{1})-F_P(\mathbf{u}_i^P-\delta \mathbf{1})|\leq \epsilon' $$ for some arbitrarily small $\epsilon'>0$. But still it is not evident to me that this could lead to a suitable upperbound encompassing $d_{KS}(F_p,F_Q)$. Do you have any clue?

Jack London
  • 1,876

1 Answers1

1

The reverse inequality does not hold for $d=1$ even when the CDFs are Lipschitz.

A) Infinite family of counterexamples:

Let $U_\epsilon$ denote the uniform measure supported on $A_\epsilon=[\tfrac{1-\epsilon}{2},\tfrac{1+\epsilon}{2}]\subseteq[0,1]$ for $0<\epsilon\leq 1$. Its CDF is continuous and even Lipchitz since the derivative $U_\epsilon$ is bounded. The CDF is given by, $$ F_{\epsilon}(x) = \begin{cases} 0 & x \in \left(-\infty,\tfrac{1-\epsilon}{2}\right],\\ \tfrac{1}{\epsilon}(x-\tfrac{1}{2})+\tfrac{1}{2} & x\in \left[\tfrac{1-\epsilon}{2},\tfrac{1+\epsilon}{2}\right],\\ 1 & x\in \left[\tfrac{1+\epsilon}{2},\infty\right). \end{cases} $$

First note that, $$ d_{TV}(U_\epsilon,U_1)\!=\!\sup_{B\in\mathcal B} |U_\epsilon(B)-U_1(B)|\!\geq\! |U_\epsilon(A_\epsilon)-U_1(A_\epsilon)| \!=\!1-\epsilon. $$

Next note that since $|F_1-F_\epsilon|$ achieves a maximum value at $x^*_{\pm}=\tfrac{1\pm\epsilon}{2}$. In particular, $|F_1(x^*_-)-F_\epsilon(x^*_-)|=F_1(x^*_-)=x^*_-$ and so, $$ d_{KS}(F_\epsilon,F_1) = \sup_{t\in[0,1]} |F_\epsilon(t)-F_1(t)| = F_1(x^*_-) = \frac{1-\epsilon}{2}. $$

We can make $d_{KS}(U_\epsilon,U_1)<d_{TV}(U_\epsilon,U_1)$ occur by demanding $\tfrac{1-\epsilon}{2}<1-\epsilon$, or equivalently, $\epsilon<1$. Thus, if we choose $P=U_\epsilon$ and $Q=U_1$, where $0<\epsilon<1$, then the CDFs are Lipschitz and $d_{KS}(F_P,F_Q)<d_{TV}(P,Q)$.

B) Counterexample with both measures supported on [0,1]:

To produce these counterexamples, we can simply perturb the previous ones. Consider the mixture of uniform measures $W_\epsilon = \epsilon U_1 + (1-\epsilon) U_\epsilon$. Note that $\operatorname{supp} W_\epsilon = [0,1]$ for all $0<\epsilon\leq 1$. Moreover, it's CDF is given by $$ G_\epsilon(x)=W_\epsilon([0,x])= \epsilon F_1(x) + (1-\epsilon) F_\epsilon(x). $$

Note that $|W_\epsilon-W_1| = (1-\epsilon)|U_\epsilon-U_1|$. Similarly, $|G_\epsilon-G_1| = (1-\epsilon)|F_\epsilon-F_1|$. Thus, $$ \begin{align*} d_{TV}(W_\epsilon,W_1) &= (1-\epsilon)d_{TV}(U_\epsilon,U_1), \\ d_{KS}(G_\epsilon,G_1) &= (1-\epsilon)d_{KS}(F_\epsilon,F_1). \end{align*} $$

By using our results in A), we obtain $$ \begin{align*} d_{TV}(W_\epsilon,W_1) &= (1-\epsilon)d_{TV}(U_\epsilon,U_1)\geq (1-\epsilon)^2, \\ d_{KS}(W_\epsilon,W_1) &= (1-\epsilon)d_{KS}(F_\epsilon,F_1)= \frac{(1-\epsilon)^2}{2}. \end{align*} $$

Thus, $d_{KS}(W_\epsilon,W_1)<d_{TV}(W_\epsilon,W_1)$ since $\tfrac{1}{2}(1-\epsilon)^2<(1-\epsilon)^2$ holds for all $\epsilon\neq 1$.

  • Many thanks for your answer. I should have probabbly been more precise on that, but: what if two measures have exacalty the same support? E.g. if they have a Lebesgue density, what if the densities are positive on the same set? Clearly the case of measures with mismatched supports is appropriate, but non so interesting as the TV measure is involved. – Jack London Feb 15 '21 at 10:56
  • 1
    @JackLondon, the inequality is still strict even when only considering measures of equal support. I've added an additional example to demonstrate this case. – Christian Bueno Feb 16 '21 at 01:16
  • 1
    OK, many thanks for the extension of your answer. – Jack London Feb 16 '21 at 08:26
  • No problem, glad I could help. – Christian Bueno Feb 16 '21 at 20:16