14
$\begingroup$

Consider two populations, $A$ and $B$. $A + B = C$. Meaning $A$ and $B$ are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive of $C$.

Given the above if I calculate the 90th percentile of some metric for all populations is it possible that

$P90_C \ge P90_A$ and
$P90_C \ge P90_B$

I'm not good at combining P90s in my head and can't mathematically prove it.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "mutually exclusive"? That the values that appear in $A$ are all different from the values that appear in $B$? Or something else? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ Taking an example of income. If I had a population of people C where each person has an income. Groups A and B are "mutually exclusive" if any person in A is NOT in B (and vice versa). But income values could exists in both sets (i.e. a person in group A makes 50K and a different person in group B also makes 50K) $\endgroup$
    – sedavidw
    Commented Jan 18 at 14:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're using "$+$" to indicate a union of disjoint (multi)sets here? Then yes, that can happen. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Commented Jan 18 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ "Meaning $A$ and $B$ are partitions of $C$." This is the same as what you wrote (as long as both $A$, $B$ are non-empty). $\endgroup$
    – smci
    Commented Jan 19 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, and it is not difficult to arrange that. See my paper from 2003: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10479-006-0050-7 $\endgroup$
    – Yossi Levy
    Commented Jan 21 at 13:00

3 Answers 3

7
$\begingroup$

it's possible

set.seed(0)
N = 1000
i = 0
max_iter = 100
while (i < max_iter) {
  i = i + 1
  p = runif(1)
  g = runif(N) < p
  x = rnorm(N)
  q = quantile(x, 0.90) # group C
  q1 = quantile(x[g], 0.90) # group A
  q2 = quantile(x[!g], 0.90) # group B
  if ((q > q1) && (q > q2)) {
    print(sprintf("i:%i, q:%.4f, q1:%.4f, q2:%.4f", i, q, q1, q2))
    break
  }
} 

result is

i:11, q:1.2368, q1:1.2351, q2:1.2360 
$\endgroup$
1
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps worth noting that this is only due to the values being averaged, because the N does not work out such that there is any population member at exactly the 90th percentile. This can't happen with exact quantiles - if you set the subgroup and full population sizes to something evenly divisible by the quantile (say 500/500/1000), you'll never find that both subpopulations' 90th quantiles are higher than the full population's. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18 at 17:13
17
$\begingroup$

This is possible when we consider computations of quantiles that are not exact.

Example

A = c(1,2,3,4,5)
B = c(1,2,3,4,5)
C = c(x,y)
quantile(A,0.9) # this computes as 4.6        
quantile(B,0.9) # this computes as 4.6        
quantile(C,0.9) # this computes as 5

It if we have instead the condition that the populations A and B are with $10k_A +1$ and $10k_B +1$ members* then the 90-th percentile should be equal to or in-between the 90-th percentiles of A and B.


*in this case the 90-th percentiles are exactly the (9k+1)-th order statistics.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

It is certainly possible.

As an example, consider finite populations or two finite samples. Let $x^A_{(0.9n)}$ be the 90th percentile of sample $A$ that has $n$ members, and $x^B_{(0.9m)}$ be the 90th percentile of sample $B$ that has $m$ members.

Suppose now that it holds $${\rm condition\;1:}\quad x^A_{(0.9n)} < x^B_{(0.9m)}.$$

Suppose also that the following holds

$${\rm condition\; 2:}\quad \forall\, x^A: x^A > x^A_{(0.9n)} \implies x^A > x^B_{(0.9m)}.$$

Namely, it so happens that all members of $A$ with value higher than its 90th percentile, are also higher in value than the 90th percentile of sample $B$.

If we pool the two samples creating $C$, there will be $0.1\times (n+m)$ elements higher than $x^B_{(0.9m)}$ in $C$.

Hence we will get $$x^A_{(0.9n)} < x^B_{(0.9m)} = x^C_{(0.9(n+m))}.$$

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ I don't follow the final bit of notation, what does it mean to find the 90th percentile of sample B with n+m members? Subpopulation B doesn't have n+m members. I also don't see any expression showing that Subpopulation B's 90th percentile is smaller than the full population's. I don't think the condition that A's >90th percentile members be uniformly higher than B's is sufficient - if A = {0,0,0,10,10,10,10) and B={0,0,0,1,1,1,1), all of A's >50th percentile is higher than B's >50th percentile, and A's 50th percentile is greater than the full population's, but B's is 50th percentile is not. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ @NuclearHoagie apologies, that was just a typo. Corrected. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ But this still doesn't show that both A's and B's Nth percentile can be lower than C's. It seems to show that if one's is, the other's isn't. The final line states that B's 90th percentile is not less than C's 90th percentile. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ @NuclearHoagie Your numerical example does not obey the conditions explicitly stated in my post. In your example the 90th percentile of $B$ is not higher than the 90th percentile of $A$, but it should be, to match my reasoning. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18 at 17:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, you are using the equality. I missed that and interpreted the question as the stronger statement $$P90_C > P90_A \qquad \text{and} \qquad P90_C > P90_B$$ instead of $$P90_C \ge P90_A \qquad \text{and} \qquad P90_C \ge P90_B$$ That makes it even possible for infinite populations. For $P90_B \geq P90_A$ we have $$P90_A \leq P90_C \leq P90_B$$ and if also $P90_B = P90_A$ then $$P90_A = P90_C = P90_B$$ The finite populations make it extra interesting because we do not need neccesarily $P90_B = P90_A$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 19 at 9:00

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.