guide:379e0dcd67: Difference between revisions

From Stochiki
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 147: Line 147:
</math>
</math>
</div>
</div>
\label{app:RCS}
 
This appendix provides basic definitions and results from random set theory that are used throughout this chapter.<ref group="Notes" >The treatment here summarizes a few of the topics presented in <ref name="mol:mol18"></ref>.</ref>
This appendix provides basic definitions and results from random set theory that are used throughout this chapter.<ref group="Notes" >The treatment here summarizes a few of the topics presented in {{ref|name=mol:mol18}}.</ref>
I refer to <ref name="mo1"></ref> for a textbook presentation of random set theory, and to <ref name="mol:mol18"></ref> for a discussion focusing on its applications in econometrics.
I refer to <ref name="mo1"><span style="font-variant-caps:small-caps">Molchanov, I.</span>  (2017): ''Theory of Random Sets''. Springer, London,  2 edn.</ref> for a textbook presentation of random set theory, and to <ref name="mol:mol18"><span style="font-variant-caps:small-caps">Molchanov, I.,  <span style="font-variant-caps:normal">and</span> F.Molinari</span>  (2018): ''Random Sets in Econometrics''. Econometric  Society Monograph Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.</ref> for a discussion focusing on its applications in econometrics.
The theory of random closed sets generally applies to the space of closed subsets of a locally compact Hausdorff second countable topological space <math>\carrier</math>, see <ref name="mo1"></ref>.  
The theory of random closed sets generally applies to the space of closed subsets of a locally compact Hausdorff second countable topological space <math>\carrier</math>, see <ref name="mo1"/>.  
In this chapter I let <math>\carrier = \R^d</math> to simplify the exposition.
In this chapter I let <math>\carrier = \R^d</math> to simplify the exposition.
Closedness is a property satisfied by random points (singleton sets), so that the theory of random closed sets includes the classical case of random points or random vectors as a special case.  
Closedness is a property satisfied by random points (singleton sets), so that the theory of random closed sets includes the classical case of random points or random vectors as a special case.  
A random closed set is a measurable map <math>\eX:\Omega\mapsto\cF</math>, where measurability is defined by specifying the family of functionals of <math>\eX</math> that are random variables.
A random closed set is a measurable map <math>\eX:\Omega\mapsto\cF</math>, where measurability is defined by specifying the family of functionals of <math>\eX</math> that are random variables.
{{defncard|label=Random closed set|id=def:rcs|
{{defncard|label=Random closed set|id=def:rcs|A map <math>\eX</math> from a probability space <math>(\Omega,\salg,\P)</math> to the family <math>\cF</math> of closed subsets of <math>\R^d</math> is  called a ''random closed set'' if
A map <math>\eX</math> from a probability space <math>(\Omega,\salg,\P)</math> to the family <math>\cF</math> of closed subsets of <math>\R^d</math> is  called a ''random closed set'' if
   
   
<math display="block">
<math display="block">
Line 163: Line 162:
  \end{equation}
  \end{equation}
</math>
</math>
belongs to the <math>\sigma</math>-algebra <math>\salg</math> on <math>\Omega</math> for each compact set <math>K</math> in <math>\R^d</math>.}}
belongs to the <math>\sigma</math>-algebra <math>\salg</math> on <math>\Omega</math> for each compact set <math>K</math> in <math>\R^d</math>.}}
A random ''compact'' set is a random closed set which is compact with probability one, so that almost all values of <math>\eX</math> are compact sets.  
A random ''compact'' set is a random closed set which is compact with probability one, so that almost all values of <math>\eX</math> are compact sets.  
A random ''convex'' closed set is defined similarly, so that <math>\eX(\omega)</math> is a convex closed set for almost all <math>\omega</math>.
A random ''convex'' closed set is defined similarly, so that <math>\eX(\omega)</math> is a convex closed set for almost all <math>\omega</math>.
[[#def:rcs |Definition~]] means that <math>\eX</math> is explored by its hitting events, i.e., the events where <math>\eX</math> hits a compact set <math>K</math>. The corresponding hitting probabilities are very important in random set theory, because they uniquely determine the probability distribution of a random closed set <math>\eX</math>, see <ref name="mo1"></ref>{{rp|at=Section 1.1.3}}. The formal definition of the hitting probabilities, and the closely related containment probabilities, follows.
[[#def:rcs |Definition]] means that <math>\eX</math> is explored by its hitting events, i.e., the events where <math>\eX</math> hits a compact set <math>K</math>. The corresponding hitting probabilities are very important in random set theory, because they uniquely determine the probability distribution of a random closed set <math>\eX</math>, see <ref name="mo1"/>{{rp|at=Section 1.1.3}}. The formal definition of the hitting probabilities, and the closely related containment probabilities, follows.
{{defncard|label=Capacity functional and containment functional|id=def:capacity|
{{defncard|label=Capacity functional and containment functional|id=def:capacity|  <ul><li> A functional <math>\sT_\eX(K):\cK\mapsto[0,1]</math> given by  
{\color{white}0}
  <ul><li> A functional <math>\sT_\eX(K):\cK\mapsto[0,1]</math> given by  
   
   
<math display="block">
<math display="block">
Line 184: Line 181:
  </li>
  </li>
</ul>
</ul>
I write <math>\sT(K)</math> instead of <math>\sT_{\eX}(K)</math> and <math>\sC(K)</math> instead of <math>\sC_{\eX}(K)</math> where no ambiguity occurs.}}
I write <math>\sT(K)</math> instead of <math>\sT_{\eX}(K)</math> and <math>\sC(K)</math> instead of <math>\sC_{\eX}(K)</math> where no ambiguity occurs.}}
Ever since the seminal work of <ref name="aum65"></ref>, it has been common to think of random sets as bundles of random variables -- the selections of the random sets.
Ever since the seminal work of <ref name="aum65"><span style="font-variant-caps:small-caps">Aumann, R.J.</span>  (1965): “Integrals of set-valued functions”  ''Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications'', 12(1), 1--12.</ref>, it has been common to think of random sets as bundles of random variables -- the selections of the random sets.
{{defncard|label=Measurable selection|id=def:selection|  
{{defncard|label=Measurable selection|id=def:selection|For any random set <math>\eX</math>, a (measurable) ''selection'' of <math>\eX</math> is a random element <math>\ex</math> with values in <math>\R^d</math> such that <math>\ex(\omega)\in\eX(\omega)</math> almost surely. I denote by <math>\Sel(\eX)</math> the set of all selections from <math>\eX</math>.}}
  For any random set <math>\eX</math>, a (measurable) ''selection'' of <math>\eX</math> is a random element <math>\ex</math> with values in <math>\R^d</math> such that <math>\ex(\omega)\in\eX(\omega)</math> almost surely. I denote by <math>\Sel(\eX)</math> the set of all selections from <math>\eX</math>.}}
The space of closed sets is not linear, which causes substantial difficulties in defining the expectation of a random set.  
The space of closed sets is not linear, which causes substantial difficulties in defining the expectation of a random set.  
One approach, inspired by <ref name="aum65"></ref> and pioneered by <ref name="art:vit75"></ref>, relies on representing a random set using the family of its selections, and considering the set formed by their expectations.  
One approach, inspired by <ref name="aum65"/> and pioneered by <ref name="art:vit75"><span style="font-variant-caps:small-caps">Artstein, Z.,  <span style="font-variant-caps:normal">and</span> R.A. Vitale</span>  (1975): “A strong law of  large numbers for random compact sets” ''Annals of Probabability'', 3,  879--882.</ref>, relies on representing a random set using the family of its selections, and considering the set formed by their expectations.  
If <math>\eX</math> possesses at least one integrable selection, then <math>\eX</math> is called ''integrable''. The family of all integrable selections of <math>\eX</math> is denoted by <math>\Sel^1(\eX)</math>.
If <math>\eX</math> possesses at least one integrable selection, then <math>\eX</math> is called ''integrable''. The family of all integrable selections of <math>\eX</math> is denoted by <math>\Sel^1(\eX)</math>.
{{defncard|label=Unconditional and conditional Aumann --or selection-- expectation|id=def:sel-exp|
{{defncard|label=Unconditional and conditional Aumann --or selection-- expectation|id=def:sel-exp|The ''(selection or) Aumann expectation'' of an integrable random closed set <math>\eX</math> is given by
The ''(selection or) Aumann expectation'' of an integrable random closed set <math>\eX</math> is given by
   
   
<math display="block"> \E \eX = \cl \left\{ \int_\Omega \ex d\P: \; \ex \in \Sel^1(\eX) \right\}.  </math>
<math display="block"> \E \eX = \cl \left\{ \int_\Omega \ex d\P: \; \ex \in \Sel^1(\eX) \right\}.  </math>
For each sub-<math>\sigma</math>-algebra <math>\ssalg \subset \salg</math>, the ''conditional (selection or) Aumann expectation'' of <math>\eX</math> given <math>\ssalg</math> is the <math>\ssalg</math>-measurable random closed set <math>\eY=\E(\eX|\ssalg)</math> such that the family of <math>\ssalg</math>-measurable integrable selections of <math>\eY</math>, denoted <math>\Sel^1_\ssalg(\eY)</math>, satisfies
For each sub-<math>\sigma</math>-algebra <math>\ssalg \subset \salg</math>, the ''conditional (selection or) Aumann expectation'' of <math>\eX</math> given <math>\ssalg</math> is the <math>\ssalg</math>-measurable random closed set <math>\eY=\E(\eX|\ssalg)</math> such that the family of <math>\ssalg</math>-measurable integrable selections of <math>\eY</math>, denoted <math>\Sel^1_\ssalg(\eY)</math>, satisfies
   
   
<math display="block">
<math display="block">
Line 202: Line 197:
  \end{equation*}
  \end{equation*}
</math>
</math>
where the closure in the right-hand side is taken in <math>\mathbf{L}^1</math>.}}
where the closure in the right-hand side is taken in <math>\mathbf{L}^1</math>.}}
If <math>\eX</math> is almost surely non-empty and its norm <math>\|\eX\|=\sup\{\|\ex\|:\; \ex\in \eX\}</math> is an integrable random variable, then <math>\eX</math> is said to be ''integrably bounded'' and all its selections are integrable.  
If <math>\eX</math> is almost surely non-empty and its norm <math>\|\eX\|=\sup\{\|\ex\|:\; \ex\in \eX\}</math> is an integrable random variable, then <math>\eX</math> is said to be ''integrably bounded'' and all its selections are integrable.  
In this case, since <math>\eX</math> takes its realizations in <math>\R^d</math>, the family of expectations of these integrable selections is already closed and there is no need to take an additional closure as required in [[#def:sel-exp |Definition~]], see <ref name="mo1"></ref>{{rp|at=Theorem~2.1.37}}.
In this case, since <math>\eX</math> takes its realizations in <math>\R^d</math>, the family of expectations of these integrable selections is already closed and there is no need to take an additional closure as required in [[#def:sel-exp |Definition]], see <ref name="mo1"/>{{rp|at=Theorem2.1.37}}.
The selection expectation depends on the probability space used to define <math>\eX</math>, see <ref name="mo1"></ref>{{rp|at=Section 2.1.2}} and <ref name="mol:mol18"></ref>{{rp|at=Section 3.1}}.  
The selection expectation depends on the probability space used to define <math>\eX</math>, see <ref name="mo1"/>{{rp|at=Section 2.1.2}} and <ref name="mol:mol18"/>{{rp|at=Section 3.1}}.  
In particular, if the probability space is non-atomic and <math>\eX</math> is integrably bounded, the selection expectation <math>\E \eX</math> is a convex set regardless of whether or not <math>\eX</math> might be non-convex itself <ref name="mol:mol18"></ref>{{rp|at=Theorem 3.4}}.  
In particular, if the probability space is non-atomic and <math>\eX</math> is integrably bounded, the selection expectation <math>\E \eX</math> is a convex set regardless of whether or not <math>\eX</math> might be non-convex itself <ref name="mol:mol18"/>{{rp|at=Theorem 3.4}}.  
This convexification property of the selection expectation implies that the expectation of the closed convex hull of <math>\eX</math> equals the closed convex hull of <math>\E \eX</math>, which in turn equals <math>\E \eX</math>.  
This convexification property of the selection expectation implies that the expectation of the closed convex hull of <math>\eX</math> equals the closed convex hull of <math>\E \eX</math>, which in turn equals <math>\E \eX</math>.  
It is then natural to describe the Aumann expectation through its support function, because this function traces out a convex set's boundary and therefore knowing the support function is equivalent to knowing the set itself, see equation ([[#eq:rocka |eq:rocka]]) below.{{defncard|label=Support function|id=def:sup-fun|
It is then natural to describe the Aumann expectation through its support function, because this function traces out a convex set's boundary and therefore knowing the support function is equivalent to knowing the set itself, see equation ([[#eq:rocka |eq:rocka]]) below.{{defncard|label=Support function|id=def:sup-fun|Let <math>K</math> be a convex set. The ''support function'' of <math>K</math> is
Let <math>K</math> be a convex set. The ''support function'' of <math>K</math> is
    
    
<math display="block">
<math display="block">
     h_K(u)=\sup\{k^\top u:\; k\in K\}\,, \qquad u\in\R^d\,,
     h_K(u)=\sup\{k^\top u:\; k\in K\}\,, \qquad u\in\R^d\,,
   </math>
   </math>
where <math>k^\top u</math> denotes the scalar product. }}
where <math>k^\top u</math> denotes the scalar product. }}
The support function is finite for all <math>u</math> if <math>K</math> is bounded, and is sublinear (positively homogeneous and subadditive) in <math>u</math>.  
The support function is finite for all <math>u</math> if <math>K</math> is bounded, and is sublinear (positively homogeneous and subadditive) in <math>u</math>.  
Hence, it can be considered only for <math>u \in \Ball</math> or <math>u \in \Sphere</math>.  
Hence, it can be considered only for <math>u \in \Ball</math> or <math>u \in \Sphere</math>.  
Line 248: Line 242:
  \|K\|=\rhoH(K,\{0\})=\sup\big\{|h_K(u)|:\; \|u\|=1\big\}.
  \|K\|=\rhoH(K,\{0\})=\sup\big\{|h_K(u)|:\; \|u\|=1\big\}.
</math>
</math>
Finally, I define independently and identically distributed random closed sets (see <ref name="mo1"></ref>{{rp|at=Proposition 1.1.40 and Theorem 1.3.20, respectively}}):
Finally, I define independently and identically distributed random closed sets (see <ref name="mo1"/>{{rp|at=Proposition 1.1.40 and Theorem 1.3.20, respectively}}):
{{defncard|label=i.i.d. random closed sets|id=|Random closed sets <math>\eX_1,\dots,\eX_n</math> in <math>\R^d</math> are independent if and only if <math>\Prob{\eX_1\cap K_1 \ne \emptyset,\dots,\eX_n\cap K_n \ne \emptyset}=\prod_{i=1}^n\sT_{\eX_i}(K_i)</math> for all <math>K_1,\dots,K_n \in \cK</math>.
{{defncard|label=i.i.d. random closed sets|id=|Random closed sets <math>\eX_1,\dots,\eX_n</math> in <math>\R^d</math> are independent if and only if <math>\Prob{\eX_1\cap K_1 \ne \emptyset,\dots,\eX_n\cap K_n \ne \emptyset}=\prod_{i=1}^n\sT_{\eX_i}(K_i)</math> for all <math>K_1,\dots,K_n \in \cK</math>.
They are identically distributed if and only if for each open set <math>G</math>, <math>\Prob{\eX_1\cap G \ne \emptyset}=\Prob{\eX_2\cap G \ne \emptyset}= \dots =\Prob{\eX_n\cap G \ne \emptyset}</math>.}}
They are identically distributed if and only if for each open set <math>G</math>, <math>\Prob{\eX_1\cap G \ne \emptyset}=\Prob{\eX_2\cap G \ne \emptyset}= \dots =\Prob{\eX_n\cap G \ne \emptyset}</math>.}}
With these definitions in hand, I can state the theorems used throughout the chapter.
With these definitions in hand, I can state the theorems used throughout the chapter.
The first is a dominance condition due to <ref name="art83"></ref> (and <ref name="nor92"></ref>) that characterizes probability distributions of selections (see <ref name="mol:mol18"></ref>{{rp|at=Section 2.2}}):
The first is a dominance condition due to <ref name="art83"><span style="font-variant-caps:small-caps">Artstein, Z.</span>  (1983): “Distributions of random sets and random  selections” ''Israel Journal of Mathematics'', 46, 313--324.</ref> (and <ref name="nor92"><span style="font-variant-caps:small-caps">Norberg, T.</span>  (1992): “On the existence of ordered couplings of random  sets --- with applications” ''Israel Journal of Mathematics'', 77,  241--264.</ref>) that characterizes probability distributions of selections (see <ref name="mol:mol18"/>{{rp|at=Section 2.2}}):
 
 
{{proofcard|Theorem (Artstein)|thr:artstein|A probability distribution <math>\mu</math> on <math>\R^d</math> is the distribution of a selection of a random closed set <math>\eX</math> in <math>\R^d</math> if and only if
{{proofcard|Theorem (Artstein)|thr:artstein|A probability distribution <math>\mu</math> on <math>\R^d</math> is the distribution of a selection of a random closed set <math>\eX</math> in <math>\R^d</math> if and only if
   
   
Line 261: Line 257:
  \end{equation}
  \end{equation}
</math>
</math>
for all compact sets <math>K\subseteq\R^d</math>. Equivalently, if and only if  
for all compact sets <math>K\subseteq\R^d</math>. Equivalently, if and only if  
   
   
<span id{{=}}"eq:dom-c"/>
<math display="block">
<math display="block">
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
Line 269: Line 266:
  \end{equation}
  \end{equation}
</math>
</math>
for all closed sets <math>F\subset\R^d</math>. If <math>\eX</math> is a compact random closed set, it suffices to check \eqref{eq:dom-c} for compact sets <math>F</math> only.|}}
for all closed sets <math>F\subset\R^d</math>. If <math>\eX</math> is a compact random closed set, it suffices to check \eqref{eq:dom-c} for compact sets <math>F</math> only.|}}
If <math>\mu</math> from [[#thr:artstein |Theorem~]] is the distribution of some random vector <math>\ex</math>, then it is not guaranteed that <math>\ex\in \eX</math> a.s., e.g. <math>\ex</math> can be independent of <math>\eX</math>.
 
[[#thr:artstein |Theorem~]] means that for each such <math>\mu</math>, it is possible to construct <math>\ex</math> with distribution <math>\mu</math> that belongs to <math>\eX</math> almost surely. In other words, <math>\ex</math> and <math>\eX</math> can be realized on the same probability space (coupled) as random elements <math>\ex^\prime</math> and <math>\eX^\prime</math> such that <math>\ex\edis\ex^\prime</math> and <math>\eX\edis\eX^\prime</math> with <math>\ex^\prime \in \eX^\prime</math> a.s.
If <math>\mu</math> from [[#thr:artstein |Theorem]] is the distribution of some random vector <math>\ex</math>, then it is not guaranteed that <math>\ex\in \eX</math> a.s., e.g. <math>\ex</math> can be independent of <math>\eX</math>.
[[#thr:artstein |Theorem]] means that for each such <math>\mu</math>, it is possible to construct <math>\ex</math> with distribution <math>\mu</math> that belongs to <math>\eX</math> almost surely. In other words, <math>\ex</math> and <math>\eX</math> can be realized on the same probability space (coupled) as random elements <math>\ex^\prime</math> and <math>\eX^\prime</math> such that <math>\ex\edis\ex^\prime</math> and <math>\eX\edis\eX^\prime</math> with <math>\ex^\prime \in \eX^\prime</math> a.s.
The definition of the distribution of a random closed set [[#def:capacity |(Definition]]) and the characterization results for its selections in [[#thr:artstein |Theorem]] require working with functionals defined on the family of all compact sets, which in general is very rich.   
The definition of the distribution of a random closed set [[#def:capacity |(Definition]]) and the characterization results for its selections in [[#thr:artstein |Theorem]] require working with functionals defined on the family of all compact sets, which in general is very rich.   
It is therefore important to reduce the family of all compact sets required to describe the distribution of the random closed set or to characterize its selections.
It is therefore important to reduce the family of all compact sets required to describe the distribution of the random closed set or to characterize its selections.
{{defncard|label=|id=def:core-det|
{{defncard|label=|id=def:core-det|A family of compact sets <math>\cM</math> is said to be a ''core determining class'' for a random closed set <math>\eX</math> if any probability measure <math>\mu</math> satisfying the inequalities
A family of compact sets <math>\cM</math> is said to be a ''core determining class'' for a random closed set <math>\eX</math> if any probability
measure <math>\mu</math> satisfying the inequalities
   
   
<math display="block">
<math display="block">
Line 284: Line 280:
  \end{equation}
  \end{equation}
</math>
</math>
for all <math>K\in\cM</math>, is the distribution of a selection of <math>\eX</math>, implying that \eqref{eq:cdclass} holds for all compact sets <math>K</math>.}}
for all <math>K\in\cM</math>, is the distribution of a selection of <math>\eX</math>, implying that \eqref{eq:cdclass} holds for all compact sets <math>K</math>.}}
The notion of a core determining class was introduced by <ref name="gal:hen06"></ref>.
The notion of a core determining class was introduced by <ref name="gal:hen06"><span style="font-variant-caps:small-caps">Galichon, A.,  <span style="font-variant-caps:normal">and</span> M.Henry</span>  (2006): “Inference in  Incomplete Models” available at  [http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.886907 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.886907].</ref>.
A simple and general, but still mostly too rich, core determining class is obtained as a subfamily of all compact sets that is dense in a certain sense in the family <math>\cK</math>.  
A simple and general, but still mostly too rich, core determining class is obtained as a subfamily of all compact sets that is dense in a certain sense in the family <math>\cK</math>.  
For instance, in the Euclidean space, it suffices to consider compact sets obtained as finite unions of closed balls with rational centers and radii (e.g., <ref name="gal:hen06"></ref>{{rp|at=Theorem 3c}}).
For instance, in the Euclidean space, it suffices to consider compact sets obtained as finite unions of closed balls with rational centers and radii (e.g., <ref name="gal:hen06"/>{{rp|at=Theorem 3c}}).
For the case that <math>\eX</math> is a subset of a finite space, <ref name="ber:mol:mol08"></ref>{{rp|at=Algorithm 5.1}} propose a simple algorithm to compute core determining classes.
For the case that <math>\eX</math> is a subset of a finite space, <ref name="ber:mol:mol08"><span style="font-variant-caps:small-caps">Beresteanu, A., I.Molchanov,  <span style="font-variant-caps:normal">and</span> F.Molinari</span>  (2008):  “Sharp Identification Regions in Games” CeMMAP working paper CWP15/08,  available at [https://www.cemmap.ac.uk/publication/id/4264 https://www.cemmap.ac.uk/publication/id/4264].</ref>{{rp|at=Algorithm 5.1}} propose a simple algorithm to compute core determining classes.
<ref name="che:ros12"></ref> provide a related algorithm.
<ref name="che:ros12"><span style="font-variant-caps:small-caps">Chesher, A.,  <span style="font-variant-caps:normal">and</span> A.M. Rosen</span>  (2012): “Simultaneous  equations for discrete outcomes: coherence, completeness, and  identification” CeMMAP working paper CWP21/12, available at  [https://www.cemmap.ac.uk/publication/id/6297 https://www.cemmap.ac.uk/publication/id/6297].</ref> provide a related algorithm.
Throughout this chapter, several results are mentioned where the class of sets over which \eqref{eq:domin-t} is verified is reduced from the class of compact subsets of the carrier space, to a (significantly) smaller collection.
Throughout this chapter, several results are mentioned where the class of sets over which \eqref{eq:domin-t} is verified is reduced from the class of compact subsets of the carrier space, to a (significantly) smaller collection.
The next result characterizes a dominance condition that can be used to verify the existence of selections of <math>\eX</math> with specific properties for their means (see <ref name="mol:mol18"></ref>{{rp|at=Sections 3.2-3.3}})
The next result characterizes a dominance condition that can be used to verify the existence of selections of <math>\eX</math> with specific properties for their means (see <ref name="mol:mol18"/>{{rp|at=Sections 3.2-3.3}})
 
{{proofcard|Theorem (Convexification in <math>\R^d</math>)|thr:exp-supp|Let <math>\eX</math> be an integrable random set. If <math>\eX</math> is defined on a non-atomic probability space, or if <math>\eX</math> is almost surely convex, then <math>\E \eX=\E \conv\eX</math> and
{{proofcard|Theorem (Convexification in <math>\R^d</math>)|thr:exp-supp|Let <math>\eX</math> be an integrable random set. If <math>\eX</math> is defined on a non-atomic probability space, or if <math>\eX</math> is almost surely convex, then <math>\E \eX=\E \conv\eX</math> and
   
   
Line 300: Line 297:
  \end{equation}
  \end{equation}
</math>
</math>
If <math>\P</math> is atomless over <math>\ssalg</math>,<ref group="Notes" >An event <math>A'\in\ssalg</math> is called a <math>\ssalg</math>-atom if <math>\Prob{0 < \P(A|\ssalg) < \P(A'|\ssalg)}=0</math> for all <math>A\subset A'</math> such that <math>A\in\salg</math>.</ref> then <math>\E(\eX|\ssalg)</math> is convex and   
 
If <math>\P</math> is atomless over <math>\ssalg</math>,<ref group="Notes" >An event <math>A'\in\ssalg</math> is called a <math>\ssalg</math>-atom if <math>\Prob{0 < \P(A|\ssalg) < \P(A'|\ssalg)}=0</math> for all <math>A\subset A'</math> such that <math>A\in\salg</math>.</ref> then <math>\E(\eX|\ssalg)</math> is convex and   
   
   
<math display="block">
<math display="block">
Line 308: Line 306:
  \end{equation}
  \end{equation}
</math>
</math>
Hence, for any vector <math>b\in\R^d</math>, it holds that
 
Hence, for any vector <math>b\in\R^d</math>, it holds that
   
   
<span id {{=}} "eq:dom_Aumann:cond"/>
<math display="block">
<math display="block">
\begin{align}
\begin{align}
  b \in \E \eX &\Leftrightarrow b^\top u \le \E h_\eX(u)~~\forall u\in\Sphere,\label{eq:dom_Aumann}\\
  b \in \E \eX &\Leftrightarrow b^\top u \le \E h_\eX(u)\forall u\in\Sphere,\label{eq:dom_Aumann}\\
  b \in \E(\eX|\ssalg) &\Leftrightarrow b^\top u \le \E(h_\eX(u)|\ssalg)~~\forall u\in\Sphere.\label{eq:dom_Aumann:cond}
  b \in \E(\eX|\ssalg) &\Leftrightarrow b^\top u \le \E(h_\eX(u)|\ssalg)\forall u\in\Sphere.\label{eq:dom_Aumann:cond}
  \end{align}
  \end{align}
</math>|}}
</math>|}}
An important consequence of [[#thr:exp-supp |Theorem]] is that it allows one to verify whether <math>b \in \E \eX</math> without having to compute <math>\E \eX</math> but only <math>\E h_\eX(u)</math> (and similarly for the conditional case), a substantially easier task.
An important consequence of [[#thr:exp-supp |Theorem]] is that it allows one to verify whether <math>b \in \E \eX</math> without having to compute <math>\E \eX</math> but only <math>\E h_\eX(u)</math> (and similarly for the conditional case), a substantially easier task.
Finally, i.i.d. random closed sets satisfy a law of large numbers and a central limit theorem that are similar to the ones for random singletons.
Finally, i.i.d. random closed sets satisfy a law of large numbers and a central limit theorem that are similar to the ones for random singletons.
Recall that the ''Minkowski sum''\label{def:mink:sum} of two sets <math>K</math> and <math>L</math> in a linear space (which in this chapter I assume to be the Euclidean space <math>\R^d</math>) is obtained by adding each point from <math>K</math> to each point from <math>L</math>, formally,
Recall that the ''Minkowski sum'' <span id = "def:mink:sum"/> of two sets <math>K</math> and <math>L</math> in a linear space (which in this chapter I assume to be the Euclidean space <math>\R^d</math>) is obtained by adding each point from <math>K</math> to each point from <math>L</math>, formally,


<math display="block">
<math display="block">
Line 340: Line 342:
\begin{align}
\begin{align}
  \Gamma_\eX(u,v)\equiv\E\left[(h_\eX(u)-h_{\E \eX}(u))(h_\eX(v)-h_{\E \eX}(v))\right],
  \Gamma_\eX(u,v)\equiv\E\left[(h_\eX(u)-h_{\E \eX}(u))(h_\eX(v)-h_{\E \eX}(v))\right],
  ~~u,v\in\Sphere.  
  u,v\in\Sphere.  
  \label{eq:cov-Gamma}
  \label{eq:cov-Gamma}
\end{align}
\end{align}
</math>
</math>
Let <math>\zeta(u)</math> be a centered Gaussian random field on <math>\Sphere</math> with the same covariance structure as <math>\eX</math>, i.e. <math>\E\big[\zeta(u)\zeta(v)\big]=\Gamma_\eX(u,v),~u,v\in\Sphere</math>.
Let <math>\zeta(u)</math> be a centered Gaussian random field on <math>\Sphere</math> with the same covariance structure as <math>\eX</math>, i.e. <math>\E\big[\zeta(u)\zeta(v)\big]=\Gamma_\eX(u,v),u,v\in\Sphere</math>.
Since the support function of a compact set is Lipschitz, it is easy to show that the random field <math>\zeta</math> has a continuous modification by bounding the moments of <math>|\zeta(u)-\zeta(v)|</math>.  
Since the support function of a compact set is Lipschitz, it is easy to show that the random field <math>\zeta</math> has a continuous modification by bounding the moments of <math>|\zeta(u)-\zeta(v)|</math>.  
{{proofcard|Theorem (Central limit theorem)|thr:clt|Let <math>\eX_1,\eX_2,\dots</math> be i.i.d. copies of a random closed set <math>\eX</math> in <math>\R^d</math> such that <math>\E \|\eX\|^2 < \infty</math>, and let <math>\eS_n=\eX_1+\cdots+\eX_n</math>. Then as <math>n\to\infty</math>,
{{proofcard|Theorem (Central limit theorem)|thr:clt|Let <math>\eX_1,\eX_2,\dots</math> be i.i.d. copies of a random closed set <math>\eX</math> in <math>\R^d</math> such that <math>\E \|\eX\|^2 < \infty</math>, and let <math>\eS_n=\eX_1+\cdots+\eX_n</math>. Then as <math>n\to\infty</math>,
Line 354: Line 356:
  \end{equation}
  \end{equation}
</math>
</math>
in the space of continuous functions on the unit sphere with the uniform metric. Furthermore,  
 
in the space of continuous functions on the unit sphere with the uniform metric. Furthermore,  
   
   
<math display="block">
<math display="block">
Line 363: Line 366:
  \end{equation}
  \end{equation}
</math>|}}
</math>|}}
\bibliography{EwPI_biblio3}
 
\label{biblio}
\end{document}
==General references==
==General references==
{{cite arXiv|last1=Molinari|first1=Francesca|year=2020|title=Microeconometrics with Partial Identification|eprint=2004.11751|class=econ.EM}}
{{cite arXiv|last1=Molinari|first1=Francesca|year=2020|title=Microeconometrics with Partial Identification|eprint=2004.11751|class=econ.EM}}

Latest revision as of 22:17, 19 June 2024

[math] \newcommand{\edis}{\stackrel{d}{=}} \newcommand{\fd}{\stackrel{f.d.}{\rightarrow}} \newcommand{\dom}{\operatorname{dom}} \newcommand{\eig}{\operatorname{eig}} \newcommand{\epi}{\operatorname{epi}} \newcommand{\lev}{\operatorname{lev}} \newcommand{\card}{\operatorname{card}} \newcommand{\comment}{\textcolor{Green}} \newcommand{\B}{\mathbb{B}} \newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\G}{\mathbb{G}} \newcommand{\M}{\mathbb{M}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}} \newcommand{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\T}{\mathbb{T}} \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\E}{\mathbb{E}} \newcommand{\W}{\mathbb{W}} \newcommand{\bU}{\mathfrak{U}} \newcommand{\bu}{\mathfrak{u}} \newcommand{\bI}{\mathfrak{I}} \newcommand{\cA}{\mathcal{A}} \newcommand{\cB}{\mathcal{B}} \newcommand{\cC}{\mathcal{C}} \newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D}} \newcommand{\cE}{\mathcal{E}} \newcommand{\cF}{\mathcal{F}} \newcommand{\cG}{\mathcal{G}} \newcommand{\cg}{\mathcal{g}} \newcommand{\cH}{\mathcal{H}} \newcommand{\cI}{\mathcal{I}} \newcommand{\cJ}{\mathcal{J}} \newcommand{\cK}{\mathcal{K}} \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}} \newcommand{\cM}{\mathcal{M}} \newcommand{\cN}{\mathcal{N}} \newcommand{\cO}{\mathcal{O}} \newcommand{\cP}{\mathcal{P}} \newcommand{\cQ}{\mathcal{Q}} \newcommand{\cR}{\mathcal{R}} \newcommand{\cS}{\mathcal{S}} \newcommand{\cT}{\mathcal{T}} \newcommand{\cU}{\mathcal{U}} \newcommand{\cu}{\mathcal{u}} \newcommand{\cV}{\mathcal{V}} \newcommand{\cW}{\mathcal{W}} \newcommand{\cX}{\mathcal{X}} \newcommand{\cY}{\mathcal{Y}} \newcommand{\cZ}{\mathcal{Z}} \newcommand{\sF}{\mathsf{F}} \newcommand{\sM}{\mathsf{M}} \newcommand{\sG}{\mathsf{G}} \newcommand{\sT}{\mathsf{T}} \newcommand{\sB}{\mathsf{B}} \newcommand{\sC}{\mathsf{C}} \newcommand{\sP}{\mathsf{P}} \newcommand{\sQ}{\mathsf{Q}} \newcommand{\sq}{\mathsf{q}} \newcommand{\sR}{\mathsf{R}} \newcommand{\sS}{\mathsf{S}} \newcommand{\sd}{\mathsf{d}} \newcommand{\cp}{\mathsf{p}} \newcommand{\cc}{\mathsf{c}} \newcommand{\cf}{\mathsf{f}} \newcommand{\eU}{{\boldsymbol{U}}} \newcommand{\eb}{{\boldsymbol{b}}} \newcommand{\ed}{{\boldsymbol{d}}} \newcommand{\eu}{{\boldsymbol{u}}} \newcommand{\ew}{{\boldsymbol{w}}} \newcommand{\ep}{{\boldsymbol{p}}} \newcommand{\eX}{{\boldsymbol{X}}} \newcommand{\ex}{{\boldsymbol{x}}} \newcommand{\eY}{{\boldsymbol{Y}}} \newcommand{\eB}{{\boldsymbol{B}}} \newcommand{\eC}{{\boldsymbol{C}}} \newcommand{\eD}{{\boldsymbol{D}}} \newcommand{\eW}{{\boldsymbol{W}}} \newcommand{\eR}{{\boldsymbol{R}}} \newcommand{\eQ}{{\boldsymbol{Q}}} \newcommand{\eS}{{\boldsymbol{S}}} \newcommand{\eT}{{\boldsymbol{T}}} \newcommand{\eA}{{\boldsymbol{A}}} \newcommand{\eH}{{\boldsymbol{H}}} \newcommand{\ea}{{\boldsymbol{a}}} \newcommand{\ey}{{\boldsymbol{y}}} \newcommand{\eZ}{{\boldsymbol{Z}}} \newcommand{\eG}{{\boldsymbol{G}}} \newcommand{\ez}{{\boldsymbol{z}}} \newcommand{\es}{{\boldsymbol{s}}} \newcommand{\et}{{\boldsymbol{t}}} \newcommand{\ev}{{\boldsymbol{v}}} \newcommand{\ee}{{\boldsymbol{e}}} \newcommand{\eq}{{\boldsymbol{q}}} \newcommand{\bnu}{{\boldsymbol{\nu}}} \newcommand{\barX}{\overline{\eX}} \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon} \newcommand{\Eps}{\mathcal{E}} \newcommand{\carrier}{{\mathfrak{X}}} \newcommand{\Ball}{{\mathbb{B}}^{d}} \newcommand{\Sphere}{{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}} \newcommand{\salg}{\mathfrak{F}} \newcommand{\ssalg}{\mathfrak{B}} \newcommand{\one}{\mathbf{1}} \newcommand{\Prob}[1]{\P\{#1\}} \newcommand{\yL}{\ey_{\mathrm{L}}} \newcommand{\yU}{\ey_{\mathrm{U}}} \newcommand{\yLi}{\ey_{\mathrm{L}i}} \newcommand{\yUi}{\ey_{\mathrm{U}i}} \newcommand{\xL}{\ex_{\mathrm{L}}} \newcommand{\xU}{\ex_{\mathrm{U}}} \newcommand{\vL}{\ev_{\mathrm{L}}} \newcommand{\vU}{\ev_{\mathrm{U}}} \newcommand{\dist}{\mathbf{d}} \newcommand{\rhoH}{\dist_{\mathrm{H}}} \newcommand{\ti}{\to\infty} \newcommand{\comp}[1]{#1^\mathrm{c}} \newcommand{\ThetaI}{\Theta_{\mathrm{I}}} \newcommand{\crit}{q} \newcommand{\CS}{CS_n} \newcommand{\CI}{CI_n} \newcommand{\cv}[1]{\hat{c}_{n,1-\alpha}(#1)} \newcommand{\idr}[1]{\mathcal{H}_\sP[#1]} \newcommand{\outr}[1]{\mathcal{O}_\sP[#1]} \newcommand{\idrn}[1]{\hat{\mathcal{H}}_{\sP_n}[#1]} \newcommand{\outrn}[1]{\mathcal{O}_{\sP_n}[#1]} \newcommand{\email}[1]{\texttt{#1}} \newcommand{\possessivecite}[1]{\ltref name="#1"\gt\lt/ref\gt's \citeyear{#1}} \newcommand\xqed[1]{% \leavevmode\unskip\penalty9999 \hbox{}\nobreak\hfill \quad\hbox{#1}} \newcommand\qedex{\xqed{$\triangle$}} \newcommand\independent{\protect\mathpalette{\protect\independenT}{\perp}} \DeclareMathOperator{\Int}{Int} \DeclareMathOperator{\conv}{conv} \DeclareMathOperator{\cov}{Cov} \DeclareMathOperator{\var}{Var} \DeclareMathOperator{\Sel}{Sel} \DeclareMathOperator{\Bel}{Bel} \DeclareMathOperator{\cl}{cl} \DeclareMathOperator{\sgn}{sgn} \DeclareMathOperator{\essinf}{essinf} \DeclareMathOperator{\esssup}{esssup} \newcommand{\mathds}{\mathbb} \renewcommand{\P}{\mathbb{P}} [/math]

This appendix provides basic definitions and results from random set theory that are used throughout this chapter.[Notes 1] I refer to [1] for a textbook presentation of random set theory, and to [2] for a discussion focusing on its applications in econometrics. The theory of random closed sets generally applies to the space of closed subsets of a locally compact Hausdorff second countable topological space [math]\carrier[/math], see [1]. In this chapter I let [math]\carrier = \R^d[/math] to simplify the exposition. Closedness is a property satisfied by random points (singleton sets), so that the theory of random closed sets includes the classical case of random points or random vectors as a special case. A random closed set is a measurable map [math]\eX:\Omega\mapsto\cF[/math], where measurability is defined by specifying the family of functionals of [math]\eX[/math] that are random variables.

Definition (Random closed set)

A map [math]\eX[/math] from a probability space [math](\Omega,\salg,\P)[/math] to the family [math]\cF[/math] of closed subsets of [math]\R^d[/math] is called a random closed set if

[[math]] \begin{equation} \label{eq:X-} \eX^-(K)=\{\omega\in\Omega:\; \eX(\omega)\cap K\neq\emptyset\} \end{equation} [[/math]]
belongs to the [math]\sigma[/math]-algebra [math]\salg[/math] on [math]\Omega[/math] for each compact set [math]K[/math] in [math]\R^d[/math].

A random compact set is a random closed set which is compact with probability one, so that almost all values of [math]\eX[/math] are compact sets. A random convex closed set is defined similarly, so that [math]\eX(\omega)[/math] is a convex closed set for almost all [math]\omega[/math]. Definition means that [math]\eX[/math] is explored by its hitting events, i.e., the events where [math]\eX[/math] hits a compact set [math]K[/math]. The corresponding hitting probabilities are very important in random set theory, because they uniquely determine the probability distribution of a random closed set [math]\eX[/math], see [1](Section 1.1.3). The formal definition of the hitting probabilities, and the closely related containment probabilities, follows.

Definition (Capacity functional and containment functional)

  • A functional [math]\sT_\eX(K):\cK\mapsto[0,1][/math] given by
    [[math]] \sT_\eX(K)=\Prob{\eX\cap K\neq\emptyset},\quad K\in\cK, [[/math]]
    is called capacity (or hitting) functional of [math]\eX[/math].
  • A functional [math]\sC_\eX(F):\cF\mapsto[0,1][/math] given by
    [[math]] \sC_\eX(F)=\Prob{\eX\subset F},\quad F\in\cF, [[/math]]
    is called the containment functional of [math]\eX[/math].

I write [math]\sT(K)[/math] instead of [math]\sT_{\eX}(K)[/math] and [math]\sC(K)[/math] instead of [math]\sC_{\eX}(K)[/math] where no ambiguity occurs.

Ever since the seminal work of [3], it has been common to think of random sets as bundles of random variables -- the selections of the random sets.

Definition (Measurable selection)

For any random set [math]\eX[/math], a (measurable) selection of [math]\eX[/math] is a random element [math]\ex[/math] with values in [math]\R^d[/math] such that [math]\ex(\omega)\in\eX(\omega)[/math] almost surely. I denote by [math]\Sel(\eX)[/math] the set of all selections from [math]\eX[/math].

The space of closed sets is not linear, which causes substantial difficulties in defining the expectation of a random set. One approach, inspired by [3] and pioneered by [4], relies on representing a random set using the family of its selections, and considering the set formed by their expectations. If [math]\eX[/math] possesses at least one integrable selection, then [math]\eX[/math] is called integrable. The family of all integrable selections of [math]\eX[/math] is denoted by [math]\Sel^1(\eX)[/math].

Definition (Unconditional and conditional Aumann --or selection-- expectation)

The (selection or) Aumann expectation of an integrable random closed set [math]\eX[/math] is given by

[[math]] \E \eX = \cl \left\{ \int_\Omega \ex d\P: \; \ex \in \Sel^1(\eX) \right\}. [[/math]]
For each sub-[math]\sigma[/math]-algebra [math]\ssalg \subset \salg[/math], the conditional (selection or) Aumann expectation of [math]\eX[/math] given [math]\ssalg[/math] is the [math]\ssalg[/math]-measurable random closed set [math]\eY=\E(\eX|\ssalg)[/math] such that the family of [math]\ssalg[/math]-measurable integrable selections of [math]\eY[/math], denoted [math]\Sel^1_\ssalg(\eY)[/math], satisfies

[[math]] \begin{equation*} \Sel^1_\ssalg(\eY)=\cl\Big\{\E(\ex|\ssalg): \, \ex \in \Sel^1(\eX)\Big\}, \end{equation*} [[/math]]
where the closure in the right-hand side is taken in [math]\mathbf{L}^1[/math].

If [math]\eX[/math] is almost surely non-empty and its norm [math]\|\eX\|=\sup\{\|\ex\|:\; \ex\in \eX\}[/math] is an integrable random variable, then [math]\eX[/math] is said to be integrably bounded and all its selections are integrable. In this case, since [math]\eX[/math] takes its realizations in [math]\R^d[/math], the family of expectations of these integrable selections is already closed and there is no need to take an additional closure as required in Definition, see [1](Theorem2.1.37). The selection expectation depends on the probability space used to define [math]\eX[/math], see [1](Section 2.1.2) and [2](Section 3.1). In particular, if the probability space is non-atomic and [math]\eX[/math] is integrably bounded, the selection expectation [math]\E \eX[/math] is a convex set regardless of whether or not [math]\eX[/math] might be non-convex itself [2](Theorem 3.4). This convexification property of the selection expectation implies that the expectation of the closed convex hull of [math]\eX[/math] equals the closed convex hull of [math]\E \eX[/math], which in turn equals [math]\E \eX[/math].

It is then natural to describe the Aumann expectation through its support function, because this function traces out a convex set's boundary and therefore knowing the support function is equivalent to knowing the set itself, see equation (eq:rocka) below.

Definition (Support function)

Let [math]K[/math] be a convex set. The support function of [math]K[/math] is

[[math]] h_K(u)=\sup\{k^\top u:\; k\in K\}\,, \qquad u\in\R^d\,, [[/math]]
where [math]k^\top u[/math] denotes the scalar product.

The support function is finite for all [math]u[/math] if [math]K[/math] is bounded, and is sublinear (positively homogeneous and subadditive) in [math]u[/math]. Hence, it can be considered only for [math]u \in \Ball[/math] or [math]u \in \Sphere[/math]. Moreover, one has

[[math]] \begin{equation} \label{eq:rocka} K=\cap_{u \in \Ball}\{k: k^\top u \leq h_K(u) \} =\cap_{u \in \Sphere}\{k: k^\top u \leq h_K(u)\}. \end{equation} [[/math]]


Next, I define the Hausdorff metric, a distance on the family [math]\cK[/math] of compact sets:

Definition (Hausdorff metric)

Let [math]K,L\in\cK[/math]. The Hausdorff distance between [math]K[/math] and [math]L[/math] is

[[math]] \rhoH(K,L)=\inf\Big\{r \gt 0:\; K\subseteq L^r,\; L\subseteq K^r\Big\}, [[/math]]
where [math]K^r=\{x: \dist(x,K)\le r\}[/math] is the [math]r[/math]-envelope of [math]K[/math].

Since [math]K\subseteq L[/math] if and only if [math]h_K(u)\leq h_L(u)[/math] for all [math]u\in\Sphere[/math] and [math]h_{K^r}(u)=h_K(u)+r[/math], the uniform metric for support functions on the sphere turns into the Hausdorff distance between compact convex sets. Namely,

[[math]] \begin{align} \rhoH(K,L)=\sup\Big\{|h_K(u)-h_L(u)|:\; \|u\|=1\Big\}. \label{eq:Hormander} \end{align} [[/math]]

It follows that

[[math]] \|K\|=\rhoH(K,\{0\})=\sup\big\{|h_K(u)|:\; \|u\|=1\big\}. [[/math]]

Finally, I define independently and identically distributed random closed sets (see [1](Proposition 1.1.40 and Theorem 1.3.20, respectively)):

Definition (i.i.d. random closed sets)

Random closed sets [math]\eX_1,\dots,\eX_n[/math] in [math]\R^d[/math] are independent if and only if [math]\Prob{\eX_1\cap K_1 \ne \emptyset,\dots,\eX_n\cap K_n \ne \emptyset}=\prod_{i=1}^n\sT_{\eX_i}(K_i)[/math] for all [math]K_1,\dots,K_n \in \cK[/math]. They are identically distributed if and only if for each open set [math]G[/math], [math]\Prob{\eX_1\cap G \ne \emptyset}=\Prob{\eX_2\cap G \ne \emptyset}= \dots =\Prob{\eX_n\cap G \ne \emptyset}[/math].

With these definitions in hand, I can state the theorems used throughout the chapter. The first is a dominance condition due to [5] (and [6]) that characterizes probability distributions of selections (see [2](Section 2.2)):


Theorem (Artstein)

A probability distribution [math]\mu[/math] on [math]\R^d[/math] is the distribution of a selection of a random closed set [math]\eX[/math] in [math]\R^d[/math] if and only if

[[math]] \begin{equation} \label{eq:domin-t} \mu(K)\leq \sT(K)=\Prob{\eX\cap K\neq\emptyset} \end{equation} [[/math]]
for all compact sets [math]K\subseteq\R^d[/math]. Equivalently, if and only if

[[math]] \begin{equation} \label{eq:dom-c} \mu(F)\geq \sC(F)=\Prob{\eX\subset F} \end{equation} [[/math]]
for all closed sets [math]F\subset\R^d[/math]. If [math]\eX[/math] is a compact random closed set, it suffices to check \eqref{eq:dom-c} for compact sets [math]F[/math] only.

If [math]\mu[/math] from Theorem is the distribution of some random vector [math]\ex[/math], then it is not guaranteed that [math]\ex\in \eX[/math] a.s., e.g. [math]\ex[/math] can be independent of [math]\eX[/math]. Theorem means that for each such [math]\mu[/math], it is possible to construct [math]\ex[/math] with distribution [math]\mu[/math] that belongs to [math]\eX[/math] almost surely. In other words, [math]\ex[/math] and [math]\eX[/math] can be realized on the same probability space (coupled) as random elements [math]\ex^\prime[/math] and [math]\eX^\prime[/math] such that [math]\ex\edis\ex^\prime[/math] and [math]\eX\edis\eX^\prime[/math] with [math]\ex^\prime \in \eX^\prime[/math] a.s. The definition of the distribution of a random closed set (Definition) and the characterization results for its selections in Theorem require working with functionals defined on the family of all compact sets, which in general is very rich. It is therefore important to reduce the family of all compact sets required to describe the distribution of the random closed set or to characterize its selections.

Definition

A family of compact sets [math]\cM[/math] is said to be a core determining class for a random closed set [math]\eX[/math] if any probability measure [math]\mu[/math] satisfying the inequalities

[[math]] \begin{equation} \label{eq:cdclass} \mu(K)\leq \Prob{\eX\cap K\neq\emptyset} \end{equation} [[/math]]
for all [math]K\in\cM[/math], is the distribution of a selection of [math]\eX[/math], implying that \eqref{eq:cdclass} holds for all compact sets [math]K[/math].

The notion of a core determining class was introduced by [7]. A simple and general, but still mostly too rich, core determining class is obtained as a subfamily of all compact sets that is dense in a certain sense in the family [math]\cK[/math]. For instance, in the Euclidean space, it suffices to consider compact sets obtained as finite unions of closed balls with rational centers and radii (e.g., [7](Theorem 3c)). For the case that [math]\eX[/math] is a subset of a finite space, [8](Algorithm 5.1) propose a simple algorithm to compute core determining classes. [9] provide a related algorithm. Throughout this chapter, several results are mentioned where the class of sets over which \eqref{eq:domin-t} is verified is reduced from the class of compact subsets of the carrier space, to a (significantly) smaller collection. The next result characterizes a dominance condition that can be used to verify the existence of selections of [math]\eX[/math] with specific properties for their means (see [2](Sections 3.2-3.3))

Theorem (Convexification in [math]\R^d[/math])

Let [math]\eX[/math] be an integrable random set. If [math]\eX[/math] is defined on a non-atomic probability space, or if [math]\eX[/math] is almost surely convex, then [math]\E \eX=\E \conv\eX[/math] and

[[math]] \begin{equation} \E h_\eX(u)=h_{\E \eX}(u),\quad u\in\R^d. \label{eq:supf} \end{equation} [[/math]]

If [math]\P[/math] is atomless over [math]\ssalg[/math],[Notes 2] then [math]\E(\eX|\ssalg)[/math] is convex and

[[math]] \begin{equation} \E(h_\eX(u)|\ssalg)=h_{\E(\eX|\ssalg)}(u),\quad u\in\R^d. \label{eq:supf:cond} \end{equation} [[/math]]

Hence, for any vector [math]b\in\R^d[/math], it holds that

[[math]] \begin{align} b \in \E \eX &\Leftrightarrow b^\top u \le \E h_\eX(u)\forall u\in\Sphere,\label{eq:dom_Aumann}\\ b \in \E(\eX|\ssalg) &\Leftrightarrow b^\top u \le \E(h_\eX(u)|\ssalg)\forall u\in\Sphere.\label{eq:dom_Aumann:cond} \end{align} [[/math]]

An important consequence of Theorem is that it allows one to verify whether [math]b \in \E \eX[/math] without having to compute [math]\E \eX[/math] but only [math]\E h_\eX(u)[/math] (and similarly for the conditional case), a substantially easier task. Finally, i.i.d. random closed sets satisfy a law of large numbers and a central limit theorem that are similar to the ones for random singletons. Recall that the Minkowski sum of two sets [math]K[/math] and [math]L[/math] in a linear space (which in this chapter I assume to be the Euclidean space [math]\R^d[/math]) is obtained by adding each point from [math]K[/math] to each point from [math]L[/math], formally,

[[math]] K+L=\big\{x+y:\; x\in K,\;y\in L\big\}. [[/math]]

Below, [math]\eX_1+\cdots+\eX_n[/math] denotes the Minkowski sum of the random closed sets [math]\eX_1,\dots,\eX_n[/math], and [math](\eX_1+\cdots+\eX_n)/n[/math] denotes their Minkowski average.

Theorem (Law of large numbers for integrably bounded random sets)

Let [math]\eX,\eX_1,\eX_2,\ldots[/math] be i.i.d. integrably bounded random compact sets. Define [math]\eS_n=\eX_1+\cdots+\eX_n[/math]. Then

[[math]] \begin{align} \label{eq:LLN} \rhoH\left(\frac{\eS_n}{n},\E \eX\right)\to 0 \quad \text{a.s. as }\ n\to\infty. \end{align} [[/math]]

The support function of a random closed set [math]\eX[/math] such that [math]\E\|\eX\|^2 \lt \infty[/math], is a random continuous function [math]h_\eX(u)[/math] on [math]\Sphere[/math] with square integrable values. Define its covariance function as

[[math]] \begin{align} \Gamma_\eX(u,v)\equiv\E\left[(h_\eX(u)-h_{\E \eX}(u))(h_\eX(v)-h_{\E \eX}(v))\right], u,v\in\Sphere. \label{eq:cov-Gamma} \end{align} [[/math]]

Let [math]\zeta(u)[/math] be a centered Gaussian random field on [math]\Sphere[/math] with the same covariance structure as [math]\eX[/math], i.e. [math]\E\big[\zeta(u)\zeta(v)\big]=\Gamma_\eX(u,v),u,v\in\Sphere[/math]. Since the support function of a compact set is Lipschitz, it is easy to show that the random field [math]\zeta[/math] has a continuous modification by bounding the moments of [math]|\zeta(u)-\zeta(v)|[/math].

Theorem (Central limit theorem)

Let [math]\eX_1,\eX_2,\dots[/math] be i.i.d. copies of a random closed set [math]\eX[/math] in [math]\R^d[/math] such that [math]\E \|\eX\|^2 \lt \infty[/math], and let [math]\eS_n=\eX_1+\cdots+\eX_n[/math]. Then as [math]n\to\infty[/math],

[[math]] \begin{equation} \label{eq:h-weak} \sqrt{n}\Big(h_{\frac{\eS_n}{n}}(u)-h_{\E\eX}(u)\Big)\Rightarrow \zeta \end{equation} [[/math]]

in the space of continuous functions on the unit sphere with the uniform metric. Furthermore,

[[math]] \begin{equation} \label{eq:clt-basic} \sqrt{n}\rhoH\left(\frac{\eS_n}{n},\E \eX\right)\Rightarrow \|\zeta\|_\infty=\sup\big\{|\zeta(u)|:\; u\in\Sphere\big\}. \end{equation} [[/math]]

General references

Molinari, Francesca (2020). "Microeconometrics with Partial Identification". arXiv:2004.11751 [econ.EM].

Notes

  1. The treatment here summarizes a few of the topics presented in [1].
  2. An event [math]A'\in\ssalg[/math] is called a [math]\ssalg[/math]-atom if [math]\Prob{0 \lt \P(A|\ssalg) \lt \P(A'|\ssalg)}=0[/math] for all [math]A\subset A'[/math] such that [math]A\in\salg[/math].

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Molchanov, I. (2017): Theory of Random Sets. Springer, London, 2 edn.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Molchanov, I., and F.Molinari (2018): Random Sets in Econometrics. Econometric Society Monograph Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Aumann, R.J. (1965): “Integrals of set-valued functions” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 12(1), 1--12.
  4. Artstein, Z., and R.A. Vitale (1975): “A strong law of large numbers for random compact sets” Annals of Probabability, 3, 879--882.
  5. Artstein, Z. (1983): “Distributions of random sets and random selections” Israel Journal of Mathematics, 46, 313--324.
  6. Norberg, T. (1992): “On the existence of ordered couplings of random sets --- with applications” Israel Journal of Mathematics, 77, 241--264.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Galichon, A., and M.Henry (2006): “Inference in Incomplete Models” available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.886907.
  8. Beresteanu, A., I.Molchanov, and F.Molinari (2008): “Sharp Identification Regions in Games” CeMMAP working paper CWP15/08, available at https://www.cemmap.ac.uk/publication/id/4264.
  9. Chesher, A., and A.M. Rosen (2012): “Simultaneous equations for discrete outcomes: coherence, completeness, and identification” CeMMAP working paper CWP21/12, available at https://www.cemmap.ac.uk/publication/id/6297.