8
$\begingroup$

I know that the Gaussian copula has a zero tail dependence (tail independence) due to the exponential behaviour at the tail. I am just wondering if there is a rigorous proof for this?

For simplicity sake, a bivariate Gaussian copula $C(X,Y)$ would do. In particular, there are no perfect correlations between $X$ and $Y$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ What definition of tail dependence do you have? $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Commented Nov 13, 2016 at 5:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Glen_b Limit as q->1 P[F(X) > q | F(Y) > q], where F is the standard normal marginal CDF. $\endgroup$
    – NicTam
    Commented Nov 13, 2016 at 5:40
  • $\begingroup$ In what sense do you assume that the faster that exponential decaying normal distributions' tails are "exponential"? Where do you get that from? $\endgroup$
    – Carl
    Commented Nov 13, 2016 at 5:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Carl I'm just assuming that might be the reason why the tail dependence is zero, since the normal PDF/CDF involves the exponential factor. $\endgroup$
    – NicTam
    Commented Nov 13, 2016 at 5:52
  • $\begingroup$ @NicTamHK Tail heaviness is usually adjudicated by survival function ratios. See, stats.stackexchange.com/questions/86429/… as an example. With respect to Cupolas, tail heaviness may be irrelevant. Why do you think it relevant? $\endgroup$
    – Carl
    Commented Nov 13, 2016 at 6:03

3 Answers 3

5
$\begingroup$

Consider a bivariate Gaussian copula $C(\cdot)$.

Because of the radial symmetry of a Gaussian copula we can consider just the lower tail dependence. We know that the lower tail dependence for this copula is:

$$\begin{align} \lambda&=\lim_{\,\,q\to 0^{+}} \frac{\partial C(q,q)}{\partial q}\\ &=\lim_{\,\,q\to 0^{+}} \text{Pr}(U_{2}\leq q\,|\,U_{1}=q)+ \lim_{\,\,q\to 0^{+}} \text{Pr}(U_{1}\leq q\,|\,U_{2}=q) \end{align}$$

Since a Gaussian copula is exchangeable, it follows that:

$$\lambda=2\lim_{\,\,q\to 0^{+}}\text{Pr}(U_{2}\leq q\,|\,U_{1}=q)$$

Now, let:

$$(X_{1},X_{2}):=\Big(\Phi^{-1}(U_{1}),\,\Phi^{-1}(U_{2})\Big)$$

This means that $(X_{1},X_{2})$ has a bivariate normal distribution with standard marginals and correlation $\rho$. Now:

$$\begin{align} \lambda&=2\lim_{\,\,q\to 0^{+}}\text{Pr}(\Phi^{-1}(U_{2})\leq \Phi^{-1}(q)\,|\,\Phi^{-1}(U_{1})=\Phi^{-1}(q))\\ &=2\lim_{x\to -\infty}\text{Pr}(X_{2}\leq x\,|\, X_{1}=x) \end{align}$$

Finally, we know that $X_{2}\,|\,X_{1}\sim N(\rho x,1-\rho^{2})$, so:

$$\lambda=2\lim_{x\to -\infty}\Phi\Bigg(x\sqrt{\frac{(1-\rho)}{(1 +\rho)}}\Bigg)=0$$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I was wondering why in the partial derivative of the Gaussian copula there are two terms in the sum: $\lambda=\lim_{\,\,q\to 0^{+}} \text{Pr}(U_{2}\leq q\,|\,U_{1}=q)+ \lim_{\,\,q\to 0^{+}} \text{Pr}(U_{1}\leq q\,|\,U_{2}=q)$ $\endgroup$
    – AlexMe
    Commented Mar 5, 2019 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexMe because both random variables have lower tails $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2019 at 13:21
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @StatsPlease, I'm just confused with how can one obtain the above mentioned sum as the partial derivative of the double integral (which is the form of the Gaussian copula). $\endgroup$
    – AlexMe
    Commented Mar 5, 2019 at 13:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexMe Might be worth raising another question related to this. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2019 at 22:05
10
$\begingroup$

For a non-technical, intuitive view of what the tail index is telling you, we can look at simulation and compute sample estimates of the quantity $P[F(Y) > q | F(X) > q]$ as $q$ increases.

Plots of y vs x given the x values are in the upper tail, with proportion of y in the upper tail marked, for correlated Gaussian

Here the original correlation is $0.96$, but as we get further into the upper tail of $X$ the correlation decreases, and the proportion where $F(Y) > q$ given $F(X) > q$ decreases.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I think a formal proof of this observed convergence is given in my answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 6:56
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, but often people looking at this also seek intuition about what's going on. I attempted to supply some. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 7:37
0
$\begingroup$

@AlexMe this is how you get the second line in @statsplease 's answer.

Apply Leibniz Integral Rule to get the derivative of C(q,q) with respect to q. You'll have to apply it twice because it is a double integral and the upper limits of integration of both integrals will be q. The result is:

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I appreciate the answer you have provided here. It may be better to write this out in LaTeX given the website supports it and makes your formulas much more readable. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 21, 2023 at 0:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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