5
$\begingroup$

Kendall's tau is an association measure between two random variables, say $X$ and $Y$. If $X$ and $Y$ are independent, then $\tau = 0$. However, $\tau = 0$ does not imply independence because kendall's tau only captures monotonic association. Is there some conditions under which one has equivalence?

Edit to account for @Cardinal's comment

Say that $X > 0$ and $Y > 0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There are quite a few, actually. Some come from statistics and other come from closely allied fields, like information theory. Specifying your model in a little more detail can yield more precise suggestions. $\endgroup$ – cardinal Mar 27 '12 at 15:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question needs disambiguation. Does it ask whether (a) there are conditions on $X$ and $Y$ that assure $\tau=0$ implies independence of $X$ and $Y$ or (b) there are alternative statistics other than $\tau$ whose vanishing implies independence of $X$ and $Y$, not matter how $(X,Y)$ are distributed? $\endgroup$ – whuber Mar 27 '12 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ Check out distance correlation. $\endgroup$ – Cyan Mar 28 '12 at 17:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Normally, $\tau$ is a sample statistic and is not considered a parameter of a joint distribution. Therefore, when $X$ and $Y$ are independent with joint distribution $F$ and $(x_i,y_i)$ is an iid sample from $(X,Y)$, $\tau$ is a function of this sample and we can say $\tau$ is $0$ only in expectation: $\mathbb{E}_F[\tau]=0$. In particular, $\tau=0$ does not even imply lack of correlation of $X$ and $Y$: it merely is statistical evidence of lack of correlation. If these considerations lead you to want to modify your question, then please go ahead and edit it. $\endgroup$ – whuber Mar 29 '12 at 17:51
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @whuber: I think you might be thinking of the sample version of Kendall's $\tau$. As a population quantity, this is defined as $\tau = \mathbb P((X-X')(Y-Y') > 0) - \mathbb P((X-X')(Y-Y')<0)$ where $(X,Y)$ and $(X',Y')$ are iid bivariate vectors with continuous distributions. From this definition, it is clear that if $X$ and $Y$ are independent, then $\tau = 0$. The OP seems to be asking for a characterization of the reverse implication. $\endgroup$ – cardinal Mar 29 '12 at 23:55
16
+50
$\begingroup$

I am going to interpret your question as one regarding a hypothesis on the population quantity $\tau$. If this is not what you intended, please comment to that effect and I will revise the answer accordingly.

Definition and equivalent expressions

Let $(X,Y)$ by a bivariate random vector with a continuous joint distribution function and let $(X',Y')$ be an independent copy. Kendall's tau is defined as $$ \renewcommand{\Pr}{\mathbb P} \tau = \Pr( (X-X')(Y-Y') > 0 ) - \Pr( (X-X')(Y-Y') < 0) \>. $$

Here are some equivalent definitions under the stated hypotheses that help elucidate this quantity.

  1. $\newcommand{\sgn}{\mathrm{sgn}}\tau = \Pr( \sgn(X-X') = \sgn(Y-Y') ) - \Pr( \sgn(X-X')) \neq \sgn(Y-Y'))$.
  2. $\tau = \mathbb E \sgn(X-X')\sgn(Y-Y') = \mathrm{Cov}(\sgn(X-X'),\sgn(Y-Y'))$.
  3. $\tau = 4 \Pr(X<X',Y<Y') - 1$.

Note that $X-X'$ and $Y-Y'$ are symmetric about zero. From this and either (1) or (3), it is clear that if $X$ and $Y$ are independent then $\tau = 0$.

The question at hand, as I understand it, is to characterize the reverse implication.

A first characterization

Using (3) above, we have that $\tau = 0$ implies that $$ \Pr(X-X' < 0, Y-Y' < 0) = \Pr(X-X'<0)\Pr(Y-Y'<0) = 1/4 \>. $$ By symmetry, this implies that the probability in each of the four quadrants of the distribution of $(X-X',Y-Y')$ is 1/4.

We can give the following interpretation: $\tau = 0$ if and only if the event that $X-X'$ is positive or negative is independent of the event that $Y-Y'$ is positive or negative.

This is, at least on the surface, much weaker than what (full) independence of the random variables $X-X'$ and $Y-Y'$ would require, which is that, for each $(a,b) \in \mathbb R^2$, $$ \Pr(X-X'<a,Y-Y'<b) = \Pr(X-X'<a)\Pr(Y-Y'<b) \>. $$

A useful reduction by sufficiency

Since $X$ is assumed to have continuous distribution $F$, say, and $Y$ has continuous distribution $G$, say, then we can restate each of the above in terms of $U = F(X)$ and $V = G(Y)$. For example, (3) above becomes $$ \tau = 4 \Pr(X < X', Y < Y' ) - 1 = 4 \Pr( F(X) < F(X'), G(Y) < G(Y') ) - 1 \>, $$ which by substitution gives $$ \tau = 4 \Pr( U < U', V < V' ) - 1 \>. $$ Note that $U$ and $V$ are both (marginally) $\mathcal U(0,1)$ random variables.

Thus, without loss of generality we can consider bivariate distributions on the unit cube with uniform marginals. Such a distribution, usually denoted $C(u,v)$ in the bivariate case, is called a copula.

This also shows why Kendall's tau is invariant to monotone transformations.

A (partially) explicit answer in terms of copulas

Let $(U,V)$ have distribution function $C(u,v)$ with uniform marginals. The reformulation of (3) can be written in terms of $C$ as $$ \tau = 4 \Pr(U<U',V<V')-1 = 4 \mathbb E C(U,V) - 1 \>, $$ which provides us with a fairly explicit answer:

Lemma: For $(X,Y)$ with continuous marginals, $\tau = 0$ if and only if $\mathbb E C(U,V) = 1/4$ where $(U,V) = (F(X),G(Y))$ and $C$ is the distribution function of $(U,V)$.

Relation to independence and a counterexample

If $X$ and $Y$ are independent, so are $U = F(X)$ and $V = G(Y)$, in which case $C(u,v) = uv$. Clearly $\mathbb E C(U,V) = \iint_{[0,1]^2} u v \,\mathrm du \,\mathrm dv = 1/4$. But do other examples exist?

Counterexample: Consider the family of copulas $$ C(u,v) = uv + \alpha u(u-1)(2u-1)v(v-1)(2v-1) $$ indexed by the parameter $-1 \leq \alpha \leq 2$. For every value of $\alpha \in [-1,2]$, we have $\tau = 0$. Note that the subcase of independence corresponds to $\alpha = 0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean to say that Kendall's $\tau$ is invariant to all monotone transformations, or only strictly increasing transformations? From copula theory, we know that if $f(\cdot)$ and $g(\cdot)$ are strictly increasing functions, then $C_{f(X)g(Y)}(u,v) = C_{XY}(u,v)$. However, if $f(\cdot)$ and $g(\cdot)$ are strictly decreasing functions, then $C_{f(X)g(Y)}(u,v) = u+v-1 + C_{XY}(1-u,1-v)$. This is from Theorem's 2.6 and 2.7 of the reference: people.math.ethz.ch/~embrecht/ftp/copchapter.pdf $\endgroup$ – Kiran K. Dec 15 '16 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ I am wondering if the $\tau$ being invariant to decreasing transformationss holds, considering Theorem's 2.6 and 2.7 in the reference above? $\endgroup$ – Kiran K. Dec 15 '16 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Kiran: Thank you for a careful reading. I think if you look at the definition of $\tau$ (or restatements 1 or 2 above), you will see that the invariance holds in the cases of decreasing $f$ and $g$. $\endgroup$ – cardinal Dec 15 '16 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ thank you. I think what you are saying is: $P[sgn(X-X')] = P[sgn(f(X)-f(X'))]$, regardless of whether $f(\cdot)$ is increasing or decreasing, and same with $g(\cdot)$ applied to $Y$? $\endgroup$ – Kiran K. Dec 15 '16 at 20:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not quite. I'm saying that if the sign of $X - X'$ matches that of $Y -Y'$, then the signs of $f(X)-f(X')$ and $g(Y)-g(Y')$ will match (even though, in the monotone decreasing case, the signs themselves will get flipped). $\endgroup$ – cardinal Dec 15 '16 at 20:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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