3
$\begingroup$

Suppose $X=(X_1,X_2)^T \sim N(\mu, \Sigma)$ and $p=(p_1,p_2)^T = (e^{X_1}/(1+e^{X_1}),e^{X_2}/(1+e^{X_2}))^T$. $Cov(X_1,X_2)=\sigma_{12}$. Does the following hold ?

  1. $\sigma_{12}=0 \Leftrightarrow Cov(p1,p2)=0$
  2. $\sigma_{12} > 0 \Leftrightarrow Cov(p1,p2) > 0$
  3. $\sigma_{12} < 0 \Leftrightarrow Cov(p1,p2) < 0$

We only have the result that two uncorrelated normal random variables are independent, hence $\sigma_{12}=0 \Rightarrow Cov(p1,p2)=0$. I did several simulations and found no counter examples for the rest.

If we can claim that $p_1, p_2$ are independent when they are uncorrelated. Then first equivalence is immediate. So question is what additional conditions are needed for two uncorrelated r.v. to be independent ?

I am also trying to evaluate the following integrals to see if I can get some ideas(the first is solved, but the second is not).

$$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{1+e^x} e^{-x^2/2} dx$$

$$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{1+e^x} \frac{1}{1+e^y}e^{-\frac{x^2+y^2-2\rho xy}{2(1-\rho^2)}} dx dy$$

EDIT I plot the covariance against $\rho$: $$Cov(p1,p2)= \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{1+e^x} \frac{1}{1+e^y} \frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{1-\rho^2}}e^{-\frac{x^2+y^2-2\rho xy}{2(1-\rho^2)}} dx dy-(\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{1}{1+e^x} e^{-x^2/2} dx)^2 $$.

To my surprise, the curve is a linear function of $\rho$. And those three equivalence hold under this special case.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If they're jointly normal and uncorrelated they're independent, and consequently the transformed variates will be independent in turn, and hence uncorrelated. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Aug 15 '17 at 2:03
  • $\begingroup$ P1 and p2 are not jointly normal, uncorrelation does not imply independence. What you say is the proof for $\sigma_{12}=0 \Rightarrow Cov(p1,p2)=0$ $\endgroup$ – Statisfun Aug 15 '17 at 3:01
  • $\begingroup$ Your first sentence states that Xs are jointly normal and as I clearly stated if they're uncorrelated (i.e. $\sigma_{12}=0$) then $Cov$ of p's is 0. So I gave the reasoning why I would agree with that part. I don't see any reason to think any of the rest will be true all cases (though the correlation will often/usually be in the same direction). Indeed I think all other 5 will be false as general statements $\endgroup$ – Glen_b Aug 15 '17 at 3:03
  • $\begingroup$ This question is about a multivariate logit-normal distribution, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logit-normal_distribution $\endgroup$ – kjetil b halvorsen Aug 15 '17 at 10:43
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, so are uncorrelated logit normal r.v. independent? I think it is true for "standard" logit normal r.v.s with mean 0 and variance 1, but I don't know for the general case. $\endgroup$ – Statisfun Aug 15 '17 at 10:51
0
$\begingroup$

What you have could be called an multivariate logistic-normal distribution, but it is not the same as the multivariate distribution with that name discussed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logit-normal_distribution If $X$ is multinormal, the multivariate logit normal distribution we discuss here is the distribution of $Y$, where each component of $Y$ is the logistic transform of the corresponding component of $X$, $$ Y_i = l(X_i) = \frac{e^{X_i}}{1+e^{X_i}}= \frac1{1+e^{-X_i}} $$ By calculating the relevant jacobian (which is simple since in this case is the determinant of a diagonal matrix) we can find the density of $Y$ as $$ f(y)=\frac{\exp\left(-\frac12 (\log\frac{y}{1-y}-\mu_1)^T\Sigma^{-1}(\log\frac{y}{1-y}-\mu_2) \right)}{(2\pi)^{d/2}|\Sigma |^{1/2}\prod_{j=1}^d(y_j(1-y_j))} $$ where the parameters are the parameters of the multinormal distribution, $d$ is the dimension of $X$ and $Y$, and the log function is applied componentwise. A direct answer to your questions would be easy if we could find the moments in explicit form, but that seems impossible. Let us have a look at an example of this density in the bivariate case, with

enter image description here

$\mu_1=\mu_2=0, \sigma_1=\sigma_2=1$ and $\rho=0.5$. This case is exchangeable, which shows in that the density is symmetric around the line $y_1=y_2$. One way to investigate the correlation is by numerical integration, and for this symmetric case, but with varying $\rho$, this is done below, and the result is that the correlation is remarkably little influenced by the transformation, so to a good approximation the correlation in $Y$ is the same as that in $X$. Some R code:

mu  <-  c(0, 0)
sigma1  <-  1.0
sigma2 <-  1.0
rho <-  0.5

dmvlogist_norm  <-  function(x, y, mu, sigma1, sigma2, rho) {
    const  <- 2*pi*sigma1*sigma2*sqrt(1-rho^2)*y*x*(1-y)*(1-x)
    d <- exp(-(1/(2*(1-rho^2)))*( ((log(x/(1-x))-mu[1])/sigma1)^2 +
                                  ((log(y/(1-y))-mu[2])/sigma2)^2 -
                                  2*rho*(log(x/(1-x))-mu[1])*
                                  (log(y/(1-y))-mu[2])/(sigma1*sigma2) ) )/const
    return( d )
}

# Code for the contour plot:

x <- seq(0.0001,  0.9999,  length=101)
xy <- as.matrix(expand.grid(x, x))
d  <-  dmvlogist_norm(xy[, 1], xy[, 2], mu, sigma1, sigma2, rho)

d  <-  matrix(d, 101, 101)

image(x, x, d)
contour(x, x, d, nlevels=20, add=TRUE)
title("bivariate logit normal density")

Since there is little hope of finding the correlation via symbolic integration, we use numerical methods:

library(pracma)

calc_corr  <-  function(rho) {# we can simplify code using exchangeability
    m1  <-  m2 <- integral2(function(x, y) x*dmvlogist_norm(x, y, c(0, 0),
                                                       1, 1, rho), 0, 1, 0, 1)$Q
    s1 <- s2 <-  integral2(function(x, y) (x-m1)^2*dmvlogist_norm(x, y, c(0, 0),
                                                              1, 1, rho), 0, 1, 0, 1)$Q
    s12 <-  integral2(function(x, y) (x-m1)*(y-m2)*dmvlogist_norm(x, y, c(0, 0),
                                                                   1, 1, rho), 0, 1, 0, 1)$Q
    rhoout  <-  s12/s1 # using exchangeability
    rhoout
}

rho <-  seq(-0.99, 0.99, length=31)
rho_logist <- rho
for (r in seq(along=rho)) rho_logist[r] <- calc_corr(rho[r])

The results as a table:

> cbind(rho, rho_logist, rho_logist-rho)
         rho    rho_logist              
 [1,] -0.990 -9.320447e-01  5.795527e-02
 [2,] -0.924 -9.218907e-01  2.109328e-03
 [3,] -0.858 -8.541739e-01  3.826148e-03
 [4,] -0.792 -7.871561e-01  4.843921e-03
 [5,] -0.726 -7.203866e-01  5.613378e-03
 [6,] -0.660 -6.539386e-01  6.061385e-03
 [7,] -0.594 -5.877733e-01  6.226669e-03
 [8,] -0.528 -5.218579e-01  6.142147e-03
 [9,] -0.462 -4.561610e-01  5.838953e-03
[10,] -0.396 -3.906522e-01  5.347779e-03
[11,] -0.330 -3.253032e-01  4.696777e-03
[12,] -0.264 -2.600864e-01  3.913566e-03
[13,] -0.198 -1.949740e-01  3.025960e-03
[14,] -0.132 -1.299396e-01  2.060400e-03
[15,] -0.066 -6.495576e-02  1.044244e-03
[16,]  0.000  3.711409e-08  3.711409e-08
[17,]  0.066  6.495857e-02 -1.041433e-03
[18,]  0.132  1.299417e-01 -2.058303e-03
[19,]  0.198  1.949761e-01 -3.023938e-03
[20,]  0.264  2.600891e-01 -3.910861e-03
[21,]  0.330  3.253074e-01 -4.692627e-03
[22,]  0.396  3.906578e-01 -5.342230e-03
[23,]  0.462  4.561665e-01 -5.833508e-03
[24,]  0.528  5.218657e-01 -6.134344e-03
[25,]  0.594  5.877817e-01 -6.218258e-03
[26,]  0.660  6.539465e-01 -6.053502e-03
[27,]  0.726  7.203924e-01 -5.607636e-03
[28,]  0.792  7.871625e-01 -4.837515e-03
[29,]  0.858  8.542809e-01 -3.719148e-03
[30,]  0.924  9.218908e-01 -2.109192e-03
[31,]  0.990  9.909956e-01  9.956272e-04

In the third column the difference which is mainly in the third decimal.

$\endgroup$

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.