2
$\begingroup$

When considering some cdf $F_X(x)$ — e.g. from here — I’m having a hard time trying to understand what $F_X(X)$ really means.

Expanding gives $P(X \leq X)$, which at first glance should always equal $1$; the only other possibility I can think of is $1/2$, assuming that the two $X$’s are actually different (bad notation?). But then we’d have $W = F_X(X) = 1$ (or $=1/2$) from the question linked above, which makes no sense.

So how can we understand the quantity $F_X(X)$?

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

This is a case where you are confusing yourself with incorrect use of notation. The function $F_X: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow [0,1]$ describes the distribution of the random variable $X$, but it does not use this random variable as an implicit or explicit argument. From the probabilistic definition of the CDF, for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$ we can validly say that:

$$F_X(x) = \mathbb{P}(X \leqslant x) \ \quad \quad \quad (\text{Valid equation}) \quad \ \ \ $$

However, it is not valid to bring the random variable $X$ in both as the descriptor in the probabilistic definition of the function and also as its argument value. Doing so leads you to the erroneous equation:

$$F_X(X) = \mathbb{P}(X \leqslant X) \quad \quad \quad (\text{Erroneous equation})$$

You are correct that $\mathbb{P}(X \leqslant X) = 1$,$^\dagger$ but you are incorrect to equate this expression to the CDF evaluated using the random variable as its input. A better way to proceed is to note that if we let $Y = F_X(X)$ then for all $0 \leqslant y \leqslant 1$ we have:

$$\begin{align} F_Y(y) &= \mathbb{P}(Y \leqslant y) \\[6pt] &= \mathbb{P}(F_X(X) \leqslant y) \\[6pt] &= \mathbb{P}(X \leqslant F_X^{-1}(y)) \\[6pt] &= F_X(F_X^{-1}(y)) \\[6pt] &= y, \\[6pt] \end{align}$$

which is the CDF of the continuous uniform distribution on the unit interval. (In this working I have assumed that $X$ is continuous, so that its distribution funciton is invertible. If $X$ is not continuous then the resulting distribution is not uniform. In this case the distribution has one or more discrete "lumps" corresponding to the discrete values of the distribution.)


$^\dagger$ Indeed, the antisymmetry property of the total order $\leqslant$ means that the statement $X \leqslant X$ is a tautology. This is an even stronger finding than saying that $\mathbb{P}(X \leqslant X) = 1$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I understand the algebra of setting $Y = F_X(X)$ and the manipulations that follow. My issue is more...philosophical? As far as I can tell, cdfs are defined like so: $F_X(x) = \Pr(X \leq x)$; so if we cannot equate $F_X(X)$ and $\Pr(X \leq X)$ (and my burning question is "why not?"), does everything not break down? Why should it be valid to set $Y = F_X(X)$ in the first place, if the argument $X$ is a random variable and not a real number? (P.S. Hi from UNSW) $\endgroup$ Feb 25, 2021 at 3:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, consider the following similar case. Suppose we define the function $g: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by $g(x) \equiv \int_0^x rx \ dr$. Solving this integral gives the simpler form $g(x) = x^3/2$. However, suppose we substitute $x=r$ and assert that $g(r) = \int_0^r r^2 \ dr = r^3/3 \neq r^3/2$. What went wrong there? Why doesn't that work? If you can answer that then you will also see why we can't say that $F_X(X) = \mathbb{P}(X \leqslant X)$. $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Feb 25, 2021 at 3:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, in general, if we have a function $f$ and a random variable $X$ then we can form a new random variable $Y=f(X)$ and examine its distribution. (There is a slight technical requirement pertaining to "measurability" of the function, but this is not an issue here.) $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Feb 25, 2021 at 3:46
0
$\begingroup$

For any random variable $X$, and any function $g$ defined on $\mathrm{Supp}(X)$ the support of $X$, you can create a new random variable $Y=g(X)$. This variable is random because $X$ is. The CDF $F_X$ maps the set $\mathrm{Supp}(X)$ to the interval $[0,1]$. Think of $F_X$ as some function. You can set $g = F_X$ in my example.

Your notation is indeed confusing. I suggest having two identically distributed variables $X$ and $\tilde{X}$ and thinking about the quantity $F_X(\tilde{X})$ which is $P(X\leq \tilde{X})$ which is a random variable with support in $[0,1]$.

For example, here is an empirical CDF $\hat{F}$ for $\mathcal{N}(1,2.2)$:

ecdf

If I now sample new data from the same distribution and plot the histogram of $U=\hat{F}(X)$ I get the following:

uhist

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unfortunately, thinking about this quantity as $\mathbb{P}(X \leqslant \tilde{X})$ is also no good, since $\mathbb{P}(X \leqslant \tilde{X}) \geqslant \tfrac{1}{2}$ for any IID random variables $X$ and $\tilde{X}$ (which does not correspond to the uniform distribution). $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Feb 22, 2021 at 9:07
  • $\begingroup$ Can you provide a hint of the proof that $P(X\leq \tilde{X}) \geq 1/2$ ? $\endgroup$
    – ArnoV
    Feb 22, 2021 at 9:42
  • $\begingroup$ Hint: Use the condition of exchangeability of IID random variables. $\endgroup$
    – Ben
    Feb 22, 2021 at 21:36

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