2
$\begingroup$

I think that the answer is 0.5, independently of the common distribution of $Y_1$ and $Y_2$. Attempt to a proof, assuming continuous random variables:

$P(Y_1>Y_2)=\int_{\Omega}f_{Y_1,Y2}(y_1,y_2)dy_1dy_2=\int_{\mathbf {R}} \left( \int_{-\infty}^{y_1} f_Y(y_2)dy_2 \right) f_Y(y_1) dy_1 = \int_{\mathbf {R}} F_Y(y_1) f_Y(y_1) dy_1 $

Now, integrating by parts:

$ \int_{\mathbf {R}} F_Y(y) f_Y(y) dy = \left[(F_Y(y))^2\right]_{-\infty}^{+\infty} - \int_{\mathbf {R}} f_Y(y) F_Y(y) dy$

(EDITED because some users didn't understand the equation layout)

This implies that

$ 2\int_{\mathbf {R}} f_Y(y) F_Y(y) dy= \left[(F_Y(y))^2\right]_{-\infty}^{+\infty} = 1-0 \implies \int_{\mathbf {R}} f_Y(y) F_Y(y) dy =0.5 $

Is this correct? Does it hold for generic random variables too? With generic I mean $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ not necessarily continous, but still i.i.d.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Counter-example: If both are constant random variables, the probability that one is larger is zero. $\endgroup$
    – Sycorax
    Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 19:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ right, so it doesn't hold for generic random variables. Does it hold for continous random variables, though? In other words, is my "proof" correct? $\endgroup$
    – DeltaIV
    Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 20:45
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If the r.v.s are strictly continuous, than they can be monotonically transformed into $U(0,1)$ variates. Monotonicity implies that iff $y_1 > y_2$, $u_1 > u_2$ where $u_1 = F_{Y_1}(y_1)$ etc. So if you can prove it for $U(0,1)$ variates, you've proved it for all strictly continuous variates. $\endgroup$
    – jbowman
    Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 20:56
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Because the $Y_i$ are iid, $\Pr(Y_1\gt Y_2)=\Pr(Y_2\gt Y_1)$. By continuity, $\Pr(Y_1=Y_2)=0$. By the axiom of Total Probability, these three quantities sum to $1$. Now solve. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 21:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's immediate: because the $Y_i$ are iid, you must get the same probabilities when you relabel them. Switching the labels $1$ and $2$ does the trick. No integration is needed--this is reasoning from the most basic possible principles. The actual mathematics--as well as the key insight--lies in the assertion that the event $Y_1=Y_2$ has zero probability, and that comes down to what you write about it having Lebesgue measure zero and the definition of (joint) continuity. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 22:58

2 Answers 2

8
$\begingroup$

There are three probabilities under consideration: $P\{Y_1 > Y_2\}$, $P\{Y_2 > Y_1\}$, and $P\{Y_1 = Y_2\}$. The sum of these three is $1$, and it must be that $$P\{Y_1 > Y_2\} = P\{Y_2 > Y_1\}. \tag{1}$$ One way to argue is to use symmetry, or fancier words such as exchangeable random variables. All of these essentially reduce to the argument that any alleged proof that anyone devises to show that $P\{Y_1 > Y_2\} > P\{Y_2 > Y_1\}$ can be changed to a proof that $P\{Y_1 > Y_2\} < P\{Y_2 > Y_1\}$ simply by interchanging $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ wherever they occur in the claimed proof. Since $P\{Y_1 > Y_2\}$ cannot be simultaneously be both larger than and also smaller than $P\{Y_2 > Y_1\}$ the alleged proof cannot be a valid proof at all: it must be the case that $(1)$ is true.

Now, as has been pointed out several times in the comments, $(1)$ does not imply that $$P\{Y_1 > Y_2\} = P\{Y_2 > Y_1\} = \frac 12 \tag{2}$$ unless we can also show that $P\{Y_1 = Y_2\} = 0$. A standard counterexample to $(2)$ is the case of discrete random variables for which $$P\{Y_1 = Y_2\} = \sum_{y} P\{Y_1 = y\}P\{Y_2 = y\} = \sum_y \left(P\{Y_1 = y\}\right)^2 > 0.$$ On the other hand, for continuous (iid) random variables, $P\{Y_1 = Y_2\} = 0$ as you already say you know (cf. your comment addressed to whuber), and so you can assert $(2)$ without needing to go through any integrations whatsoever.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, thanks: accepted your answer, which corresponds to whuber's comment.When you talk about alleged proofs, you are using reductio ad absurdum, right? You're not referring to my proof, which doesn't state that $P\{Y_1>Y_2\}>P\{Y_2>Y_1\}$. $\endgroup$
    – DeltaIV
    Commented Jan 9, 2016 at 8:20
2
$\begingroup$

There is a much simpler way to answer it: $Y_2$ and $Y_1$ are numbered arbitrarily (since they come from the same distribution). Thus it would make no sense to argue that, say the probability that $Y_1>Y_2$ is $0.6$, because the same argument would imply that the probability that $Y_2>Y_1$ is $0.6$. But plainly that's a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Except, of course, if Y1 and Y2 have some singularities (single real values with a non zero probability) For instance, if Y is a measurement with an instrument that does fail to detect a signal in half of the cases, you have 0.25 chance both measurements are zero, thus equal. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 22:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Another way to understand what @DirkHorsten is getting at is to observe that there is no contradiction at all in supposing $\Pr(Y_1\gt Y_2)=0.4$, say. This indicates your argument is incomplete. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 23:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But still, in many cases there are no singularities, so I upvoted the answer anyway. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 23:11

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.