DOCSLIB.ORG

Insensitivity of Constraint-Based Causal Discovery Algorithms to Violations of the Assumption of Multivariate Normality Mark Voortman∗ and Marek J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Insensitivity of Constraint-Based Causal Discovery Algorithms to Violations of the Assumption of Multivariate Normality Mark Voortman∗ and Marek J Proceedings of the Twenty-First International FLAIRS Conference (2008) Insensitivity of Constraint-Based Causal Discovery Algorithms to Violations of the Assumption of Multivariate Normality Mark Voortman∗ and Marek J. Druzdzel∗† ∗Decision Systems Laboratory †Faculty of Computer Science School of Information Sciences and Intelligent Systems Program Białystok Technical University University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA Wiejska 45A, 15-351 Białystok, Poland {voortman,marek}@sis.pitt.edu Abstract then X and Y are said to be conditionally independent. Be- cause the multivariate Normal case is tractable, it is tempt- Constraint-based causal discovery algorithms, such as the PC ing to assume this distribution in practice. Druzdzel & Gly- algorithm, rely on conditional independence tests and are oth- erwise independent of the actual distribution of the data. In mour (1999), for example, use a data set obtained from the case of continuous variables, the most popular conditional in- US News & World Report Magazine to study causes of low dependence test used in practice is the partial correlation test, student retention in US Universities. Figure 1 presents his- applicable to variables that are multivariate Normal. Many tograms of all eight variables in that data set. It seems that researchers assume multivariate Normal distributions when few, if any, of the variables are Normally distributed, so the dealing with continuous variables, based on a common wis- question that naturally arises is whether they are ‘Normal dom that minor departures from multivariate Normality do enough’ to yield correct results when the partial correlation not have a too strong effect on the reliability of partial corre- tests are applied. Common wisdom says that partial cor- lation tests. We subject this common wisdom to a test in the relation is fairly insensitive to minor departures from Nor- context of causal discovery and show that partial correlation mality. What constitutes minor departures and when these tests are indeed quite insensitive to departures from multivari- ate Normality. They, therefore, provide conditional indepen- departures are large enough to weaken the power of partial dence tests that are applicable to a wide range of multivariate correlation, has, to our knowledge, not been tested system- continuous distributions. atically. In this paper, we describe a series of experiments that we conducted to test the sensitivity of the partial correla- Introduction tion test, and the resulting effect on a basic causal discovery Causal discovery algorithms based on constraint-based algorithm, the PC algorithm, to departures from multivariate search, such as SGS and PC (Spirtes, Glymour, & Scheines Normality. We will show empirically that the partial corre- 2000), perform a search for an equivalence class of causal lation test is very robust against departures from Normality, graphs that is identifiable from patterns of conditional inde- and thus, in practice the PC algorithm yields rather robust pendencies observed in the data. These algorithms depend results. on the probability distribution over the variables in question only indirectly, since they take a set of conditional indepen- The PC Algorithm dence statements as input, and will correctly identify the class of causal structures that are compatible with the ob- The PC algorithm (Spirtes, Glymour, & Scheines 2000) served data. As long as conditional independence between makes four basic assumptions that must be satisfied to yield random variables can be established, the algorithms produce correct results: provably correct results. The main problem to overcome is 1. The set of observed variables is causally sufficient. Causal finding conditional independence tests that are suitable for a sufficiency means that every common cause of two or given distribution. more variables is contained in the data set. This assump- While reliable independence tests exist for discrete data, tion is easily relaxed (see, for example, Spirtes, Glymour, there are no generally accepted tests for mixtures of discrete & Scheines (2000)), but this is not of much importance and continuous data and even no tests that cover the gen- for the current paper. eral continuous case. One special case that can be tackled in practice is when the set of variables in question follows 2. All records in the data set are drawn from the same joint a multivariate Normal distribution. In that case, there is a probability distribution. well established test of conditional independence, notably 3. The probability distribution P over the observed variables partial correlation. If the partial correlation between vari- is faithful to a directed acyclic graph G of the causal struc- ables X and Y conditional on a set of variables Z is zero, ture. Faithfulness means that all and only the conditional Copyright c 2008, Association for the Advancement of Artificial independence relations found in P are entailed by the Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. Markov condition applied to G. The Markov condition 690 Figure 2: (a) The underlying directed acyclic graph. (b) The complete undirected graph. (c) Graph with zero order con- ditional independencies removed. (d) Graph with second or- der conditional independencies removed. (e) The partially rediscovered graph. (f) The fully rediscovered graph. Figure 1: Marginal distributions of the 8 variables in the retention data set (Druzdzel & Glymour 1999). is satisfied if node X in graph G is independent of all its non-descendents minus its parents, given its parents. 4. The statistical decisions required by the algorithms are Figure 3: Resulting graph when the statistical test failed to correct for the population. find the independency A ⊥ B. It is the last assumption that we focus on in this paper. The PC algorithm works as follows: 1. Start with a complete undirected graph G with vertices V. In Step (1), we start out with a complete undirected graph, 2. For all ordered pairs hX, Y i that are adjacent in G, test shown in Figure 2b. In Step (2) we remove an edge when if they are conditionally independent given a subset of two variables are conditionally independent on a subset of Adjacencies(G, X) \{Y }. We increase the cardinal- adjacent variables. The graph in Figure 2 implies two (con- ity of the subsets incrementally, starting with the empty ditional) independencies (denoted by ⊥), namely A ⊥ B set. If the conditional independence test is positive, we and A ⊥ D|{B, C}, which leads to graphs in Figure 2c and remove the undirected link and set Sepset(X, Y ) and 2d, respectively. Step (3) is crucial, since it is in this step Sepset(Y, X) to the conditioning variables that made X where we orient the causal arcs. In our example, we have and Y conditionally independent. the triplet A − C − B and C is not in Sepset(A, B), so 3. For each triple of vertices X, Y, Z, such that the pairs we orient A → C and B → C in Figure 2e. In Step (4) {X, Y } and {Y, Z} are adjacent in G but {X, Z} is not, we have to orient C → D, otherwise A ⊥ D|{B, C} would orient X − Y − Z as X → Y ← Z if and only if Y is not not hold, and B → D to prevent a cycle. Figure 2(f) shows in Sepset(X, Z). the final result. In this example, we are able to rediscover 4. Orient the remaining edges in such a way that no new the complete causal structure, although this is not possible conditional independencies and no cycles are introduced. in general. If an edge could still be directed in two ways, leave it It is important to note the impact of an incorrect statis- undirected. tical decision. If, for example, our statistical test failed to We illustrate the PC algorithm by means of a simple ex- find A ⊥ B, the resulting graph would be that of Figure 3. ample (after Druzdzel & Glymour (1999)). Suppose we ob- In general, failing to find just one conditional independence tained a data set that is generated by the causal structure in could have a severe impact on the output of the PC algo- Figure 2a, and we want to rediscover this causal structure. rithm. 691 Partial Correlation Test mean, skewness, and kurtosis, respectively. Because both If P is a probability distribution linearly faithful to a graph central moments are zero for the Normal distribution, and G, then A and B are conditionally independent given C if most of the time non-zero for other distributions, this is one measure of closeness to Normality. and only if the partial correlation is zero, i.e., ρAB.C = 0. In the first experiment, we focus on the third central mo- Partial correlation ρAB.C is the correlation between residu- ment using the Pearson IV distribution, because it is capable als R1 and R2 resulting from the linear regression of A on C and B on C, respectively. of keeping the kurtosis constant and change the skewness. Since the sample partial correlation will almost never be The second experiment is the converse, namely fixing the exactly zero, we have to resort to a statistical test to make skewness and changing the kurtosis, using the Pearson VII a decision and this is where the assumption of multivariate distribution. The third experiment changes both of the mo- Normality shows up. Fisher’s z-transform (Fisher 1915) as- ments at the same time using the Gamma distribution. As a sumes a multivariate Normal distribution and is given by: last experiment, we investigate the effect of multiple condi- tioning variables on the partial correlation test. In the experiments, we measure the effect of using non- 1p 1 +ρ ˆAB.C Normal distribution by counting Type I and Type II errors. A z(ˆρAB.C) = n − |C| − 3 log , 2 1 − ρˆAB.C Type I error is committed when the null hypothesis is falsely rejected, and, conversely, a Type II error is committed when where ρˆAB.C is the sample partial correlation, n is the the null hypothesis is falsely accepted.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cos513 Lecture 2 Conditional Independence and Factorization
    COS513 LECTURE 2 CONDITIONAL INDEPENDENCE AND FACTORIZATION HAIPENG ZHENG, JIEQI YU Let {X1,X2, ··· ,Xn} be a set of random variables. Now we have a series of questions about them: • What are the conditional probabilities (answered by normalization / marginalization)? • What are the independencies (answered by factorization of the joint distribution)? For now, we assume that all random variables are discrete. Then the joint distribution is a table: (0.1) p(x1, x2, ··· , xn). Therefore, Graphic Model (GM) is a economic representation of joint dis- tribution taking advantage of the local relationships between the random variables. 1. DIRECTED GRAPHICAL MODELS (DGM) A directed GM is a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) G(V, E), where •V, the set of vertices, represents the random variables; •E, the edges, denotes the “parent of” relationships. We also define (1.1) Πi = set of parents of Xi. For example, in the graph shown in Figure 1.1, The random variables are X4 X4 X2 X2 X 6 X X1 6 X1 X3 X5 X3 X5 XZY XZY FIGURE 1.1. Example of Graphical Model 1 Y X Y Y X Y XZZ XZZ Y XYY XY XZZ XZZ XZY XZY 2 HAIPENG ZHENG, JIEQI YU {X1,X2 ··· ,X6}, and (1.2) Π6 = {X2,X3}. This DAG represents the following joint distribution: (1.3) p(x1:6) = p(x1)p(x2|x1)p(x3|x1)p(x4|x2)p(x5|x3)p(x6|x2, x5). In general, n Y (1.4) p(x1:n) = p(xi|xπi ) i=1 specifies a particular joint distribution. Note here πi stands for the set of indices of the parents of i.
    [Show full text]
  • Data-Mining Probabilists Or Experimental Determinists?
    Gopnik-CH_13.qxd 10/10/2006 1:39 PM Page 208 13 Data-Mining Probabilists or Experimental Determinists? A Dialogue on the Principles Underlying Causal Learning in Children Thomas Richardson, Laura Schulz, & Alison Gopnik This dialogue is a distillation of a real series of conver- Meno: Leaving aside the question of how children sations that took place at that most platonic of acade- learn for a while, can we agree on some basic prin- mies, the Center for Advanced Studies in the ciples for causal inference by anyone—child, Behavioral Sciences, between the first and third adult, or scientist? \edq1\ authors.\edq1\ The second author had determinist leanings to begin with and acted as an intermediary. Laplace: I think so. I think we can both generally agree that, subject to various caveats, two variables will not be dependent in probability unless there is Determinism, Faithfulness, and Causal some kind of causal connection present. Inference Meno: Yes—that’s what I’d call the weak causal Narrator: [Meno and Laplace stand in the corridor Markov condition. I assume that the kinds of of a daycare, observing toddlers at play through a caveats you have in mind are to restrict this princi- window.] ple to situations in which a discussion of cause and effect might be reasonable in the first place? Meno: Do you ever wonder how it is that children manage to learn so many causal relations so suc- Laplace: Absolutely. I don’t want to get involved in cessfully, so quickly? They make it all seem effort- discussions of whether X causes 2X or whether the less.
    [Show full text]
  • Bayesian Networks
    Bayesian Networks Read R&N Ch. 14.1-14.2 Next lecture: Read R&N 18.1-18.4 You will be expected to know • Basic concepts and vocabulary of Bayesian networks. – Nodes represent random variables. – Directed arcs represent (informally) direct influences. – Conditional probability tables, P( Xi | Parents(Xi) ). • Given a Bayesian network: – Write down the full joint distribution it represents. • Given a full joint distribution in factored form: – Draw the Bayesian network that represents it. • Given a variable ordering and some background assertions of conditional independence among the variables: – Write down the factored form of the full joint distribution, as simplified by the conditional independence assertions. Computing with Probabilities: Law of Total Probability Law of Total Probability (aka “summing out” or marginalization) P(a) = Σb P(a, b) = Σb P(a | b) P(b) where B is any random variable Why is this useful? given a joint distribution (e.g., P(a,b,c,d)) we can obtain any “marginal” probability (e.g., P(b)) by summing out the other variables, e.g., P(b) = Σa Σc Σd P(a, b, c, d) Less obvious: we can also compute any conditional probability of interest given a joint distribution, e.g., P(c | b) = Σa Σd P(a, c, d | b) = (1 / P(b)) Σa Σd P(a, c, d, b) where (1 / P(b)) is just a normalization constant Thus, the joint distribution contains the information we need to compute any probability of interest. Computing with Probabilities: The Chain Rule or Factoring We can always write P(a, b, c, … z) = P(a | b, c, ….
    [Show full text]
  • (Ω, F,P) Be a Probability Spac
    Lecture 9: Independence, conditional independence, conditional distribution Definition 1.7. Let (Ω, F,P ) be a probability space. (i) Let C be a collection of subsets in F. Events in C are said to be independent if and only if for any positive integer n and distinct events A1,...,An in C, P (A1 ∩ A2 ∩···∩ An)= P (A1)P (A2) ··· P (An). (ii) Collections Ci ⊂ F, i ∈ I (an index set that can be uncountable), are said to be independent if and only if events in any collection of the form {Ai ∈ Ci : i ∈ I} are independent. (iii) Random elements Xi, i ∈ I, are said to be independent if and only if σ(Xi), i ∈ I, are independent. A useful result for checking the independence of σ-fields. Lemma 1.3. Let Ci, i ∈ I, be independent collections of events. Suppose that each Ci has the property that if A ∈ Ci and B ∈ Ci, then A∩B ∈ Ci. Then σ(Ci), i ∈ I, are independent. Random variables Xi, i =1, ..., k, are independent according to Definition 1.7 if and only if k F(X1,...,Xk)(x1, ..., xk)= FX1 (x1) ··· FXk (xk), (x1, ..., xk) ∈ R Take Ci = {(a, b] : a ∈ R, b ∈ R}, i =1, ..., k If X and Y are independent random vectors, then so are g(X) and h(Y ) for Borel functions g and h. Two events A and B are independent if and only if P (B|A) = P (B), which means that A provides no information about the probability of the occurrence of B. Proposition 1.11.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bunched Logic for Conditional Independence
    A Bunched Logic for Conditional Independence Jialu Bao Simon Docherty University of Wisconsin–Madison University College London Justin Hsu Alexandra Silva University of Wisconsin–Madison University College London Abstract—Independence and conditional independence are fun- For instance, criteria ensuring that algorithms do not discrim- damental concepts for reasoning about groups of random vari- inate based on sensitive characteristics (e.g., gender or race) ables in probabilistic programs. Verification methods for inde- can be formulated using conditional independence [8]. pendence are still nascent, and existing methods cannot handle conditional independence. We extend the logic of bunched impli- Aiming to prove independence in probabilistic programs, cations (BI) with a non-commutative conjunction and provide a Barthe et al. [9] recently introduced Probabilistic Separation model based on Markov kernels; conditional independence can be Logic (PSL) and applied it to formalize security for several directly captured as a logical formula in this model. Noting that well-known constructions from cryptography. The key ingre- Markov kernels are Kleisli arrows for the distribution monad, dient of PSL is a new model of the logic of bunched implica- we then introduce a second model based on the powerset monad and show how it can capture join dependency, a non-probabilistic tions (BI), in which separation is interpreted as probabilistic analogue of conditional independence from database theory. independence. While PSL enables formal reasoning about Finally, we develop a program logic for verifying conditional independence, it does not support conditional independence. independence in probabilistic programs. The core issue is that the model of BI underlying PSL provides no means to describe the distribution of one set of variables I.
    [Show full text]
  • Week 2: Causal Inference
    Week 2: Causal Inference Marcelo Coca Perraillon University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus Health Services Research Methods I HSMP 7607 2020 These slides are part of a forthcoming book to be published by Cambridge University Press. For more information, go to perraillon.com/PLH. This material is copyrighted. Please see the entire copyright notice on the book's website. 1 Outline Correlation and causation Potential outcomes and counterfactuals Defining causal effects The fundamental problem of causal inference Solving the fundamental problem of causal inference: a) Randomization b) Statistical adjustment c) Other methods The ignorable treatment assignment assumption Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA) Assignment mechanism 2 Big picture We are going to review the basic framework for understanding causal inference This is a fairly new area of research, although some of the statistical methods have been used for over a century The \new" part is the development of a mathematical notation and framework to understand and define causal effects This new framework has many advantages over the traditional way of understanding causality. For me, the biggest advantage is that we can talk about causal effects without having to use a specific statistical model (design versus estimation) In econometrics, the usual way of understanding causal inference is linked to the linear model (OLS, \general" linear model) { the zero conditional mean assumption in Wooldridge: whether the additive error term in the linear model, i , is correlated with the
    [Show full text]
  • Conditional Independence and Its Representations*
    Kybernetika, Vol. 25:2, 33-44, 1989. TECHNICAL REPORT R-114-S CONDITIONAL INDEPENDENCE AND ITS REPRESENTATIONS* JUDEA PEARL, DAN GEIGER, THOMAS VERMA This paper summarizes recent investigations into the nature of informational dependencies and their representations. Axiomatic and graphical representations are presented which are both sound and complete for specialized types of independence statements. 1. INTRODUCTION A central requirement for managing reasoning systems is to articulate the condi­ tions under which one item of information is considered relevant to another, given what we already know, and to encode knowledge in structures that display these conditions vividly as the knowledge undergoes changes. Different formalisms give rise to different definitions of relevance. However, the essence of relevance can be captured by a structure common to all formalisms, which can be represented axio- matically or graphically. A powerful formalism for informational relevance is provided by probability theory, where the notion of relevance is identified with dependence or, more specifically, conditional independence. Definition. If X, Y, and Z are three disjoint subsets of variables in a distribution P, then X and Yare said to be conditionally independent given Z, denotedl(X, Z, Y)P, iff P(x, y j z) = P(x | z) P(y \ z) for all possible assignments X = x, Y = y and Z = z for which P(Z — z) > 0.1(X, Z, Y)P is called a (conditional independence) statement. A conditional independence statement a logically follows from a set E of such statements if a holds in every distribution that obeys I. In such case we also say that or is a valid consequence of I.
    [Show full text]
  • Causality, Conditional Independence, and Graphical Separation in Settable Systems
    ARTICLE Communicated by Terrence Sejnowski Causality, Conditional Independence, and Graphical Separation in Settable Systems Karim Chalak Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/neco/article-pdf/24/7/1611/1065694/neco_a_00295.pdf by guest on 26 September 2021 [email protected] Department of Economics, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, U.S.A. Halbert White [email protected] Department of Economics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, U.S.A. We study the connections between causal relations and conditional in- dependence within the settable systems extension of the Pearl causal model (PCM). Our analysis clearly distinguishes between causal notions and probabilistic notions, and it does not formally rely on graphical representations. As a foundation, we provide definitions in terms of suit- able functional dependence for direct causality and for indirect and total causality via and exclusive of a set of variables. Based on these founda- tions, we provide causal and stochastic conditions formally characterizing conditional dependence among random vectors of interest in structural systems by stating and proving the conditional Reichenbach principle of common cause, obtaining the classical Reichenbach principle as a corol- lary. We apply the conditional Reichenbach principle to show that the useful tools of d-separation and D-separation can be employed to estab- lish conditional independence within suitably restricted settable systems analogous to Markovian PCMs. 1 Introduction This article studies the connections between
    [Show full text]
  • The Hardness of Conditional Independence Testing and the Generalised Covariance Measure
    The Hardness of Conditional Independence Testing and the Generalised Covariance Measure Rajen D. Shah∗ Jonas Peters† University of Cambridge, UK University of Copenhagen, Denmark [email protected] [email protected] March 24, 2021 Abstract It is a common saying that testing for conditional independence, i.e., testing whether whether two random vectors X and Y are independent, given Z, is a hard statistical problem if Z is a continuous random variable (or vector). In this paper, we prove that conditional independence is indeed a particularly difficult hypothesis to test for. Valid statistical tests are required to have a size that is smaller than a predefined significance level, and different tests usually have power against a different class of alternatives. We prove that a valid test for conditional independence does not have power against any alternative. Given the non-existence of a uniformly valid conditional independence test, we argue that tests must be designed so their suitability for a particular problem may be judged easily. To address this need, we propose in the case where X and Y are univariate to nonlinearly regress X on Z, and Y on Z and then compute a test statistic based on the sample covariance between the residuals, which we call the generalised covariance measure (GCM). We prove that validity of this form of test relies almost entirely on the weak requirement that the regression procedures are able to estimate the conditional means X given Z, and Y given Z, at a slow rate. We extend the methodology to handle settings where X and Y may be multivariate or even high-dimensional.
    [Show full text]
  • STAT 535 Lecture 2 Independence and Conditional Independence C
    STAT 535 Lecture 2 Independence and conditional independence c Marina Meil˘a [email protected] 1 Conditional probability, total probability, Bayes’ rule Definition of conditional distribution of A given B. PAB(a, b) PA|B(a|b) = PB(b) whenever PB(b) = 0 (and PA|B(a|b) undefined otherwise). Total probability formula. When A, B are events, and B¯ is the complement of B P (A) = P (A, B)+ P (A, B¯) = P (A|B)P (B)+ P (A|B¯)P (B¯) When A, B are random variables, the above gives the marginal distribution of A. PA(a) = X PAB(a, b) = X PA|B(a|b)PB(b) b∈Ω(B) b∈Ω(B) Bayes’ rule PAPB|A PA|B = PB The chain rule Any multivariate distribution over n variables X1,X2,...Xn can be decomposed as: PX1,X2,...Xn = PX1 PX2|X1 PX3|X1X2 PX4|X1X2X3 ...PXn|X1...Xn−1 1 2 Probabilistic independence A ⊥ B ⇐⇒ PAB = PA.PB We read A ⊥ B as “A independent of B”. An equivalent definition of independence is: A ⊥ B ⇐⇒ PA|B = PA The above notation are shorthand for for all a ∈ Ω(A), b ∈ Ω(B), PA|B(a|b) = PA(a) whenever PB =0 PAB(a, b) = PA(a) whenever PB =0 PB(b) PAB(a, b) = PA(a)PB(b) Intuitively, probabilistic independence means that knowing B does not bring any additional information about A (i.e. doesn’t change what we already be- lieve about A). Indeed, the mutual information1 of two independent variables is zero.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview Examples Probability Review Probability Review Independence
    Overview CS 287: Advanced Robotics Thus far: Fall 2009 Optimal control and reinforcement learning We always assumed we got to observe the state at each time and the challenge was to choose a good action Lecture 21: HMMs, Bayes filter, smoother, Kalman filters Current and next set of lectures The state is not observed Instead, we get some sensory information about the state Pieter Abbeel UC Berkeley EECS Challenge: compute a probability distribution over the state which accounts for the sensory information (“evidence”) which we have observed. Examples Probability review Helicopter For any random variables X, Y we have: A choice of state: position, orientation, velocity, angular rate Definition of conditional probability: Sensors: GPS : noisy estimate of position (sometimes also velocity) P(X=x | Y=y) = P(X=x, Y=y) / P(Y=y) Inertial sensing unit: noisy measurements from (i) 3-axis gyro [=angular rate sensor], (ii) 3-axis accelerometer [=measures acceleration + gravity; e.g., measures (0,0,0) in Chain rule: (follows directly from the above) free-fall], (iii) 3-axis magnetometer Mobile robot inside building P(X=x, Y=y) = P(X=x) P(Y=y | X=x ) A choice of state: position and heading = P(Y=y) P(X=x | Y=y) Sensors: Bayes rule: (really just a re-ordering of terms in the above) Odometry (=sensing motion of actuators): e.g., wheel encoders Laser range finder: measures time of flight of a laser beam between departure and return (return is typically happening when hitting a surface that reflects the beam back P(X=x | Y=y) = P(Y=y
    [Show full text]
  • Contents 7 Conditioning
    Probability for mathematicians DEPENDENCE TAU 2013 61 Contents 7 Conditioning 61 7a Whatistheproblem ....................... 61 7b Discretecase ........................... 63 7c Conditionalexpectation . 64 7d Aconvergencetheorem. 66 7e Conditionalmeasures. .. .. 66 7f Markov property as conditional independence . 74 7 Conditioning 7a What is the problem First, three results announced. They are rather trivial is such special cases as discrete distributions or absolutely continuous distributions, but nontrivial for singular (and mixed) distributions. We’ll see that the general theory holds for all distributions, and generalizes to high and even infinite dimension. 7a1 Proposition. Every 2-dimensional random variable (X,Y ) is distributed like f(U),g(U, V ) for some Lebesgue measurable functions f : (0, 1) → R and g : (0, 1) × (0,1) → R such that f is increasing on (0, 1), and g(u, ·) is increasing on (0, 1) for each u ∈ (0, 1); here U, V are independent random variables distributed uniformly on (0, 1). Such f is called the quantile function of X; and g(u, ·) is the conditional quantile function of Y given X = f(u). 7a2 Proposition. Let (X1,Y1) be a 2-dimensional random variable (on some probability space), and (Y2,Z2) another 2-dimensional random variable (on another probability space) such that Y1 and Y2 are identically distributed. Then there exists (on some probability space) a 3-dimensional random vari- able (X,Y,Z) such that (X,Y ) is distributed like (X1,Y1), and (Y,Z) is distributed like (Y2,Z2). The idea is simple: X and Z are conditionally independent given Y . But what exactly does it mean? 7a3 Theorem (disintegration of measure).
    [Show full text]