A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_integrability below:

Uniform integrability - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematical concept

In mathematics, uniform integrability is an important concept in real analysis, functional analysis and measure theory, and plays a vital role in the theory of martingales.

Measure-theoretic definition[edit]

Uniform integrability is an extension to the notion of a family of functions being dominated in L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} which is central in dominated convergence. Several textbooks on real analysis and measure theory use the following definition:[1][2]

Definition A: Let ( X , M , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathfrak {M}},\mu )} be a positive measure space. A set Φ ⊂ L 1 ( μ ) {\displaystyle \Phi \subset L^{1}(\mu )} is called uniformly integrable if sup f ∈ Φ ‖ f ‖ L 1 ( μ ) < ∞ {\displaystyle \sup _{f\in \Phi }\|f\|_{L_{1}(\mu )}<\infty } , and to each ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} there corresponds a δ > 0 {\displaystyle \delta >0} such that

∫ E | f | d μ < ε {\displaystyle \int _{E}|f|\,d\mu <\varepsilon }

whenever f ∈ Φ {\displaystyle f\in \Phi } and μ ( E ) < δ . {\displaystyle \mu (E)<\delta .}

Definition A is rather restrictive for infinite measure spaces. A more general definition[3] of uniform integrability that works well in general measures spaces was introduced by G. A. Hunt.

Definition H: Let ( X , M , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathfrak {M}},\mu )} be a positive measure space. A set Φ ⊂ L 1 ( μ ) {\displaystyle \Phi \subset L^{1}(\mu )} is called uniformly integrable if and only if

inf g ∈ L + 1 ( μ ) sup f ∈ Φ ∫ { | f | > g } | f | d μ = 0 {\displaystyle \inf _{g\in L_{+}^{1}(\mu )}\sup _{f\in \Phi }\int _{\{|f|>g\}}|f|\,d\mu =0}

where L + 1 ( μ ) = { g ∈ L 1 ( μ ) : g ≥ 0 } {\displaystyle L_{+}^{1}(\mu )=\{g\in L^{1}(\mu ):g\geq 0\}} .


Since Hunt's definition is equivalent to Definition A when the underlying measure space is finite (see Theorem 2 below), Definition H is widely adopted in Mathematics.

The following result[4] provides another equivalent notion to Hunt's. This equivalency is sometimes given as definition for uniform integrability.

Theorem 1: If ( X , M , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathfrak {M}},\mu )} is a (positive) finite measure space, then a set Φ ⊂ L 1 ( μ ) {\displaystyle \Phi \subset L^{1}(\mu )} is uniformly integrable if and only if

inf g ∈ L + 1 ( μ ) sup f ∈ Φ ∫ ( | f | − g ) + d μ = 0 {\displaystyle \inf _{g\in L_{+}^{1}(\mu )}\sup _{f\in \Phi }\int (|f|-g)^{+}\,d\mu =0}

If in addition μ ( X ) < ∞ {\displaystyle \mu (X)<\infty } , then uniform integrability is equivalent to either of the following conditions

1. inf a > 0 sup f ∈ Φ ∫ ( | f | − a ) + d μ = 0 {\displaystyle \inf _{a>0}\sup _{f\in \Phi }\int (|f|-a)_{+}\,d\mu =0} .

2. inf a > 0 sup f ∈ Φ ∫ { | f | > a } | f | d μ = 0 {\displaystyle \inf _{a>0}\sup _{f\in \Phi }\int _{\{|f|>a\}}|f|\,d\mu =0}

When the underlying space ( X , M , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathfrak {M}},\mu )} is σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -finite, Hunt's definition is equivalent to the following:

Theorem 2: Let ( X , M , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathfrak {M}},\mu )} be a σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -finite measure space, and h ∈ L 1 ( μ ) {\displaystyle h\in L^{1}(\mu )} be such that h > 0 {\displaystyle h>0} almost everywhere. A set Φ ⊂ L 1 ( μ ) {\displaystyle \Phi \subset L^{1}(\mu )} is uniformly integrable if and only if sup f ∈ Φ ‖ f ‖ L 1 ( μ ) < ∞ {\displaystyle \sup _{f\in \Phi }\|f\|_{L_{1}(\mu )}<\infty } , and for any ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} , there exits δ > 0 {\displaystyle \delta >0} such that

sup f ∈ Φ ∫ A | f | d μ < ε {\displaystyle \sup _{f\in \Phi }\int _{A}|f|\,d\mu <\varepsilon }

whenever ∫ A h d μ < δ {\displaystyle \int _{A}h\,d\mu <\delta } .

A consequence of Theorems 1 and 2 is that equivalence of Definitions A and H for finite measures follows. Indeed, the statement in Definition A is obtained by taking h ≡ 1 {\displaystyle h\equiv 1} in Theorem 2.

Probability definition[edit]

In the theory of probability, Definition A or the statement of Theorem 1 are often presented as definitions of uniform integrability using the notation expectation of random variables.,[5][6][7] that is,

1. A class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} of random variables is called uniformly integrable if:

or alternatively

2. A class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} of random variables is called uniformly integrable (UI) if for every ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} there exists K ∈ [ 0 , ∞ ) {\displaystyle K\in [0,\infty )} such that E ⁡ ( | X | I | X | ≥ K ) ≤ ε    for all  X ∈ C {\displaystyle \operatorname {E} (|X|I_{|X|\geq K})\leq \varepsilon \ {\text{ for all }}X\in {\mathcal {C}}} , where I | X | ≥ K {\displaystyle I_{|X|\geq K}} is the indicator function I | X | ≥ K = { 1 if  | X | ≥ K , 0 if  | X | < K . {\displaystyle I_{|X|\geq K}={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}|X|\geq K,\\0&{\text{if }}|X|<K.\end{cases}}} .

Tightness and uniform integrability[edit]

Another concept associated with uniform integrability is that of tightness. In this article tightness is taken in a more general setting.

Definition: Suppose measurable space ( X , M , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathfrak {M}},\mu )} is a measure space. Let K ⊂ M {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}\subset {\mathfrak {M}}} be a collection of sets of finite measure. A family Φ ⊂ L 1 ( μ ) {\displaystyle \Phi \subset L_{1}(\mu )} is tight with respect to K {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}} if

inf K ∈ K sup f ∈ Φ ∫ X ∖ K | f | μ = 0 {\displaystyle \inf _{K\in {\mathcal {K}}}\sup _{f\in \Phi }\int _{X\setminus K}|f|\,\mu =0}

A tight family with respect to Φ = M ∩ L 1 ( u ) {\displaystyle \Phi ={\mathfrak {M}}\cap L_{1}(\,u)} is just said to be tight.

When the measure space ( X , M , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathfrak {M}},\mu )} is a metric space equipped with the Borel σ {\displaystyle \sigma } algebra, μ {\displaystyle \mu } is a regular measure, and K {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}} is the collection of all compact subsets of X {\displaystyle X} , the notion of K {\displaystyle {\mathcal {K}}} -tightness discussed above coincides with the well known concept of tightness used in the analysis of regular measures in metric spaces

For σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -finite measure spaces, it can be shown that if a family Φ ⊂ L 1 ( μ ) {\displaystyle \Phi \subset L_{1}(\mu )} is uniformly integrable, then Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } is tight. This is capture by the following result which is often used as definition of uniform integrabiliy in the Analysis literature:

Theorem 3: Suppose ( X , M , μ ) {\displaystyle (X,{\mathfrak {M}},\mu )} is a σ {\displaystyle \sigma } finite measure space. A family Φ ⊂ L 1 ( μ ) {\displaystyle \Phi \subset L_{1}(\mu )} is uniformly integrable if and only if

  1. sup f ∈ Φ ‖ f ‖ 1 < ∞ {\displaystyle \sup _{f\in \Phi }\|f\|_{1}<\infty } .
  2. inf a > 0 sup f ∈ Φ ∫ { | f | > a } | f | d μ = 0 {\displaystyle \inf _{a>0}\sup _{f\in \Phi }\int _{\{|f|>a\}}|f|\,d\mu =0}
  3. Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } is tight.

When μ ( X ) < ∞ {\displaystyle \mu (X)<\infty } , condition 3 is redundant (see Theorem 1 above).

Uniform absolute continuity[edit]

There is another notion of uniformity, slightly different than uniform integrability, which also has many applications in probability and measure theory, and which does not require random variables to have a finite integral

Definition: Suppose ( Ω , F , P ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {F}},P)} is a probability space. A class C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} of random variables is uniformly absolutely continuous with respect to P {\displaystyle P} if for any ε > 0 {\displaystyle \varepsilon >0} , there is δ > 0 {\displaystyle \delta >0} such that E [ | X | I A ] < ε {\displaystyle E[|X|I_{A}]<\varepsilon } whenever P ( A ) < δ {\displaystyle P(A)<\delta } .

It is equivalent to uniform integrability if the measure is finite and has no atoms.

The term "uniform absolute continuity" is not standard,[citation needed] but is used by some authors.[9][10]

The following results apply to the probabilistic definition.

Non-UI sequence of RVs. The area under the strip is always equal to 1, but X n → 0 {\displaystyle X_{n}\to 0} pointwise.

In the following we use the probabilistic framework, but regardless of the finiteness of the measure, by adding the boundedness condition on the chosen subset of L 1 ( μ ) {\displaystyle L^{1}(\mu )} .

Uniform integrability and stochastic ordering[edit]

A family of random variables { X i } i ∈ I {\displaystyle \{X_{i}\}_{i\in I}} is uniformly integrable if and only if[16] there exists a random variable X {\displaystyle X} such that E X < ∞ {\displaystyle EX<\infty } and | X i | ≤ i c x X {\displaystyle |X_{i}|\leq _{\mathrm {icx} }X} for all i ∈ I {\displaystyle i\in I} , where ≤ i c x {\displaystyle \leq _{\mathrm {icx} }} denotes the increasing convex stochastic order defined by A ≤ i c x B {\displaystyle A\leq _{\mathrm {icx} }B} if E ϕ ( A ) ≤ E ϕ ( B ) {\displaystyle E\phi (A)\leq E\phi (B)} for all nondecreasing convex real functions ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } .

Relation to convergence of random variables[edit]

A sequence { X n } {\displaystyle \{X_{n}\}} converges to X {\displaystyle X} in the L 1 {\displaystyle L_{1}} norm if and only if it converges in measure to X {\displaystyle X} and it is uniformly integrable. In probability terms, a sequence of random variables converging in probability also converge in the mean if and only if they are uniformly integrable.[17] This is a generalization of Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem, see Vitali convergence theorem.

  1. ^ Rudin, Walter (1987). Real and Complex Analysis (3 ed.). Singapore: McGraw–Hill Book Co. p. 133. ISBN 0-07-054234-1.
  2. ^ Royden, H.L. & Fitzpatrick, P.M. (2010). Real Analysis (4 ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-13-143747-0.
  3. ^ Hunt, G. A. (1966). Martingales et Processus de Markov. Paris: Dunod. p. 254.
  4. ^ Klenke, A. (2008). Probability Theory: A Comprehensive Course. Berlin: Springer Verlag. pp. 134–137. ISBN 978-1-84800-047-6.
  5. ^ Williams, David (1997). Probability with Martingales (Repr. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 126–132. ISBN 978-0-521-40605-5.
  6. ^ Gut, Allan (2005). Probability: A Graduate Course. Springer. pp. 214–218. ISBN 0-387-22833-0.
  7. ^ Bass, Richard F. (2011). Stochastic Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 356–357. ISBN 978-1-107-00800-7.
  8. ^ Benedetto, J. J. (1976). Real Variable and Integration. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner. p. 89. ISBN 3-519-02209-5.
  9. ^ Burrill, C. W. (1972). Measure, Integration, and Probability. McGraw-Hill. p. 180. ISBN 0-07-009223-0.
  10. ^ Dunford, Nelson (1938). "Uniformity in linear spaces". Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. 44 (2): 305–356. doi:10.1090/S0002-9947-1938-1501971-X. ISSN 0002-9947.
  11. ^ Dunford, Nelson (1939). "A mean ergodic theorem". Duke Mathematical Journal. 5 (3): 635–646. doi:10.1215/S0012-7094-39-00552-1. ISSN 0012-7094.
  12. ^ Meyer, P.A. (1966). Probability and Potentials, Blaisdell Publishing Co, N. Y. (p.19, Theorem T22).
  13. ^ Poussin, C. De La Vallee (1915). "Sur L'Integrale de Lebesgue". Transactions of the American Mathematical Society. 16 (4): 435–501. doi:10.2307/1988879. hdl:10338.dmlcz/127627. JSTOR 1988879.
  14. ^ Leskelä, L.; Vihola, M. (2013). "Stochastic order characterization of uniform integrability and tightness". Statistics and Probability Letters. 83 (1): 382–389. arXiv:1106.0607. doi:10.1016/j.spl.2012.09.023.
  15. ^ Bogachev, Vladimir I. (2007). "The spaces Lp and spaces of measures". Measure Theory Volume I. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. p. 268. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-34514-5_4. ISBN 978-3-540-34513-8.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4