Abstract
Let be the distribution function of a finite real population of size N. Let be the empirical distribution function of a sample of size n drawn from the population without replacement. Let be any product of the moments or cumulants of , let denote the sample version, and let denote the expected value of with respect to . We prove the following remarkable inversion principle that the expected value of is equal to . We also obtain an explicit expression for for all of orders up to six.
MSC:
62G05; 62G20
1. Introduction
Products of moments and products of cumulants arise in many areas, for example, in dependence measures like the correlation coefficient and in sampling theory. We are not aware of recent papers giving unbiased estimates for the quantities. The authors are aware of only Blagouchine and Moreau [1,2] and Withers and Nadarajah [3], where unbiased estimates for moments and cumulants (not for their products) were given. The aim of this paper to give general unbiased estimates, applicable for products of moments and products of cumulants.
Given a random sample of size n without replacement from a finite real population with distribution function mean , rth moment , rth central moment and rth cumulant , we obtain unbiased estimates (UEs) for products of them
and for products of the joint central moments
and for products of the corresponding joint cumulants , for a weight less than or equal to six, where the weight is
that is, for , a partition of r. We assume all partitions are put into ascending order . For example, we write or rather than or .
We have used the notation for both and the product in (1) and similarly for . The distinctions should be clear from the context.
Our UEs are given in terms of
and
where
and , which is the sample distribution function.
We discover a remarkable inversion principle. A result of this is that these UEs do not require the inversion of any matrices or the solution of any sets of linear equations. Set
In Section 3, we derive a matrix from Sukhatme [5], such that
so is a UE of . So, expressing cumulants in terms of moments as , where is a matrix of constants, we have
where
The inversion principle proved in Section 7 states the following amazing result:
This implies that for , a product of moments or cumulants, if then . In a later paper, we shall extend this result to more general functionals.
Section 5 gives and a UE of up to a total order of six, in particular, UEs for . MAPLE was used to simplify the UE of given by Dwyer and Tracy [6] for and to confirm it agrees with our results. Earlier, Nath [7,8] gave for and 4 and UEs for them.
Section 6 gives and a UE of up to a total order of six.
Section 7 also proves a multivariate inversion principle: in this case, the dimension in (2) jumps to , where is the number of partitions of r,
and, for sums over partitions of r, is the partition function
for .
Section 8 proves the following related result. The only functionals for which does not depend on F are of the form
where
where X, Y and Z are independent with distribution function F. For these three cases, , and .
We shall use for a partition of r, for a partition of r excluding with , and for a partition of r including at least one 1.
We also partition vectors and matrices using subscripts + and . For example,
and
since .
The number of parts in is denoted by :
Set .
Financial returns are known to be dependent, and their skewness plays a relevant role in optimal portfolio selection (Kraus and Litzenberger [9], Jondeau and Rockinger [10]). De Luca and Loperfido [11] proposed an estimate based on a parametric model, but is not proven to be unbiased, and the same holds for other estimates of the skewness of financial returns. Future work is to investigate the unbiasedness of these estimates.
2. Products of Noncentral Moments
In this section, we derive the result
Skellam [4] showed that
for
where the partition function is given by (6), , , etc., and sums over all such terms and is the Carver function (Carver [12,13]). For example,
and
where
where . He wrote (8) out in full for . We extend this to in Appendix E of Withers and Nadarajah [14]. Set
and similarly for . We have from (9) that
where
and are as follows:
By the inversion principle
so
is a UE of . For example,
so is a UE of , where is with n and N reversed.
Example 1.
Suppose that the population consists of ones and zeros. Then, for , so
So,
where
and a UE of is . This implies another inversion principle: ; with for has inverse . The first six are given by
where are
The block matrix has , where . So, if then if and only if , and .
3. Products of Powers of the Mean and Central Moments and the Inversion Principle
In this section, we derive and the UE of , where . We also elaborate on the inversion principle (4).
By Sukhatme [5],
where is given for in terms of .
Set
where , the order of . In particular,
Let , , denote their sample versions, that is, with F replaced by .
Then, the result (13) can be written as
where . So,
is a UE of . The coefficients of are given in Appendix A of Withers and Nadarajah [14] for .
Sukhatme [5] gave , such that
for . To obtain , we just expand , where . So, we obtain
that is,
where and
for partitions excluding ones with , and the left-hand side of (15) is zero if . For completeness, are given in Appendix A of Withers and Nadarajah [14] for . A UE of is . So, by (17) below,
is a UE of .
Note that, for partitions of
where
for , , etc. So, has the form , where and has UE , where . For example, in this way, we can write down UEs for for .
Since has the form with , its inverse is
with , and .
However, this dimension-reduction method to obtain is not necessary due to the inversion principle, . This implies as noted in (7). This result was discovered using MAPLE and has been verified for the , of Appendix A of Withers and Nadarajah [14], that is, for , . Its proof is given in Section 7. Setting and , we can write these as and .
We now show how to obtain UEs for products of cumulants. The rth cumulant may be written as
for , where , , and . So, is a UE for . Sukhatme obtained using Fisher [15]’s method.
Wishart [16] gave tables for the polykays, , the UE of , in terms of the symmetric functions. This is reproduced in Appendix Table 11 of Stuart and Ord [17] who use for . The symmetric functions are given by their Appendix Table 10 in terms of the power sums . However, no explicit formulae for the polykays in terms of the sample moments or cumulants appear to be available. We rectify this in Appendix D of Withers and Nadarajah [14], not by using Tables 10 and 11 but by writing
where . So, the UE of is or .
In Section 12.22, Stuart and Ord [17] gave a number of references on this subject and said that Dwyer and Tracy [6] gave UEs for products of central moments. This is not so: they gave the multivariate equivalent of the UE for for . They also gave and for by a different method, or rather the equivalent multivariate results.
An alternative method of obtaining UEs for , and indeed for , is to note that
and, so, by (3), has UE
where
and .
Set . Given a partition of r and a set of numbers , the set can be divided into groups of sizes in ways. Let summed over the jth group. By (13),
Skellam [4] checked Sukhatme’s first seventeen formulas using (13) and also checked all his . We now use (13) to obtain the formula for overlooked by Sukhatme. Note that
By (18),
and so on. Collecting terms, , where are given in Appendix A of Withers and Nadarajah [14].
4. Multivariate Extensions
For the multivariate case, we consider the population to be in not . For , define its cross-moments as
and cross-cumulants as . (The subscript serves to avoid confusion with the univariate notation.)
Fisher noted that the UE of follows from that of for the univariate problem. In the same way, for , in , is just the coefficient of in for . But for in any function and , the UE of is as given previously with replaced by . For example, implies is a UE of , where . The same method gives expectations for products of sample cross-moments and UEs for products of cross-moments for the multivariate versions of , , , , , , , , … but fails for the multivariate versions of
For example, the coefficient of in
is
and in
is
but the coefficient of in is
where . However, from (9) we might surmise that
which is correct. Similarly, the analogous results for (8) and (13) also hold. These can be written for fixed in as
and
where, for , where , and is similarly defined,
and
are now operators. For example,
so
Similarly,
Set
For example,
This form is most useful for : other cases where two or more of are equal could have their dimension reduced. But we shall achieve this shortly anyway from (22).
Because is also the number of multivariate symmetric functions, the proof of the univariate invariance principle given in Section 7 extends immediately to prove the multivariate invariance principle:
satisfy
So, is a UE of , and is a UE of . That is,
is a UE of and
is a UE of .
Taking , and as in (21) gives , , and
As , it is not practical (or necessary) to write out any other in full.
If , then (19), (20), (23) and (24) reduce to the univariate formulas. However, to apply them at the intermediate level when between 2 and of are equal, we need to be clear what means and so what means. This can be found by reinterpreting the expressions for in Appendix E of Withers and Nadarajah [14].
For example, the contribution from to is and to is , so
In this way, the expressions in Appendix E of Withers and Nadarajah [14] can be interpreted to give or a UE for . Set , . Then,
and so on.
We end this section with UEs for multinomial parameters.
Example 2.
Suppose F is multinomial , that is, for , of equal , the ith unit vector in .
Take . Then, Set . Taking , in Appendix E of Withers and Nadarajah [14], discarding all terms with + as a subscript and setting , , we have
If the expression for is , then is a UE for .
This generates a new set of matrices satisfying the invariance principle :
from , ;
from , , ;
from , , , ;
from , ;
from , ;
from , ;
from , ;
from , ; and so on.
Raghunandanan and Srinivasan [18] gave multivariate analogs of for in terms of symmetric functions with tables to express these in terms of noncentral moments and for . The latter agree with Sukhatme, except for , where Sukhatme has in the coefficient of in . Sukhatme’s version is the correct one since is in the notation of Dwyer and Tracy. They also gave the multivariate analogs of the UE of in terms of and and the UE of in terms of and .
5. UEs of Products of Central Moments
In this section, we express the joint central moments of (1) as a linear combination of and so obtain
and UEs of for a total order less than or equal to six. We derive coefficients such that
This enables us to express in the form
We begin with and give the UE of in the order
We omit as Sukhatme omitted .
The needed in (26) for the UE of are as follows. For , . For , . For ,
For ,
For ,
Now in the expansion for in terms of , the coefficient of is 1. So, in the expansion of , the coefficient of is 1. So,
For example, is equal to the right-hand side of (25) with
Since ,
So, , , and . For ,
Also,
So, for , as given by (28), and . For ,
For ,
For ,
For ,
For ,
For ,
For ,
For ,
Also,
For ,
For ,
Also, for ,
and
so
Now, we consider products of two central moments , in the order
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
so
Finally, we have one product of three central moments of order six: has
6. UEs of Products of Cumulants
In this section, we give and UEs of for joint cumulants up to a total order of six not covered by Section 2, Section 3 and Section 5.
We first give coefficients , such that
for of order . Its UE is then (26) for of (27) with . For , since ,
so
For , similarly,
For ,
For , since ,
Similarly, we can write down UEs for products of cumulants up to order six not covered by Section 2 and Section 4. These are
Similarly, we can write down a UE for .
7. Proof of the Inversion Principles
We begin by following a false trail that leads to Section 8. A proof for would follow if
where , the eigenvalues of , and satisfies the inversion principle, that is,
If does not depend on , we call an r-eigenfunction. Since and for all r, there is always an r-eigenfunction with .
Other examples we have seen are (with ) for or 3. In each case, satisfies (31).
For , we can choose in (30) to be constant, so that the number of eigenfunctions equals the number of partitions of r, , that is, the dimension of . Unfortunately, this is false for . In fact, in Section 8, we show that the only r-eigenfunctions apart from (up to a constant multiple) are with for or 3, where .
For , , so . For , we can take , , and , so and . For , we can take , , ,
and
so , and .
This was derived using the following result.
Theorem 1.
Suppose for that is with and that , have no eigenvalues in common. Then, for any matrix
where
and the th element of is equal to the th element of divided by .
The proof uses the following easily proved lemma.
Lemma 1.
Suppose for that is and is satisfying
Then, (32) holds with , .
Proof of Theorem 1.
Put , so (33) becomes . □
The theorem can be extended to the case where an eigenvalue of has multiplicity greater than 1. If has a repeated eigenvalue, then in place of (30) we have
where
But , so does not satisfy the inversion principle, so a different proof is needed.
The symmetric functions are
where sums over , which is distinct in . The standardised function = satisfies the invariance principle
So, for every partition of r,
Now,
so
Similarly, we can write
where
The constant column vector is given by the columns of Appendix Table 10 of Stuart and Ord [17] for . The rows of this table give . We can write (35) as
where is . Now, , where . That is, as before, is the number of partitions in . Also,
where
This proves the univariate inversion principles. We now prove the multivariate inversion principle.
For , an ordered partition of r, now depends on the order of . Put another way, for , an unordered partition, we need to consider not just but all distinct for a any permutation of .
For , this gives , so the dimension of is 5, whereas that for was only 3.
As in (35), there exists a constant vector , such that . Also, , where is as before but with dimensions . Redefine similarly. So,
So,
where and is n UE of . This proves the multivariate inversion principle for . follows since , where is a constant nonsingular matrix.
The eigenvalues of satisfy
where
Since and are diagonal and is lower-triangular, the eigenvalues of are , where , with having multiplicity equal to the number of partitions of r with .
Example 3.
, so
has eigenvalues , that is, . But
has eigenvalues , and . So, has eigenvalues and , as was confirmed using MAPLE.
To see that for is not constant, it suffices to show that for is not constant. Set . Then, if and only if , if and only if we can take proportional to
or
So, if is constant for , then and are constants. For , and , but, for , and depend on n and N.
8. Symmetric Functions and Eigenfunctions
In this section, we extend the usual expressions for symmetric functions in terms of products of power sums and use these relations to show that the only eigenfunctions are the noncentral moments and the second- and third-order generalised central moments.
The symmetric function is well defined for for any real or complex numbers.
The constants in (35) tabled in Stuart and Ord can be derived as follows. We use an obvious notation:
so
so
so
so
Setting
and
where , we can write these pairs of equations more compactly as
In this way, we replace and extend the last row and column of the rth table in Appendix Table 10 of Stuart and Ord by a pair of equations.
The general expression for is
where can be written down from the expression for the partial exponential Bell polynomial tabled on page 307 of Comtet [19].
In this way, we obtain
The coefficients of the reverse series are most easily obtained from the coefficients of the terms in the expansion of in Appendix Table 10. In this way, we obtain
More generally, reading their rth table horizontally gives in terms of , while reading vertically gives the reverse. These expressions for can be used to prove our assertion in Section 6 that the only r-eigenfunctions are (with ), , where , with and , where (with ). We have
So, for to be proportional to an eigenfunction for some constant , it must equal for some constant , in which case, since ,
where
So, we need to solve . This gives , which proves that (to within a multiplicative constant), is the only eigenfunction of this type. Taking makes it an r-eigenfunction.
A similar argument shows that for to be proportional to an eigenfunction, the eigenfunction must be and that .
However, when looking for a linear combination of say proportional to an eigenfunction, we find that the only solutions have eigenfunctions of the form or or .
We now give a much more general meaning to the symmetric function relations (36)–(43). The functions and are defined in terms of the functions and , respectively, where .
Let be an arbitrary function. Replace in the definition of by and in the definition of by , where sums over in and sums over distinct in . Then, the relations (36)–(43) remain true.
For example, (38) gives
where
Similarly, (39) gives
where
If we choose , we obtain our original (36)–(43). However, the population need no longer be real numbers: can now belong to any space , and is any real or complex function on . The preceding results on r-eigenfunctions may be similarly extended. Let us say that is an eigenfunction with eigenvalue if
Then, for any functions , set
and
where are independent with distribution function F. Then, for , is an eigenfunction with . We call and generalised second- and third-order central moments. If
then and . By the same argument as before, there are no other eigenfunctions of the form
But any smooth functional can be expanded about a fixed distribution function as
where is the rth functional von Mises derivative of .
Author Contributions
Methodology, C.S.W. and S.N.; Investigation, C.S.W. and S.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Both authors gave consent.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Editor and the two referees for careful reading and comments, which improved this paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Blagouchine, I.V.; Moreau, E. Unbiased adaptive estimations of the fourth-order cumulant for real random zero-mean signal. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2009, 57, 3330–3346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blagouchine, I.V.; Moreau, E. Unbiased efficient estimator of the fourth-order cumulant for random zero-mean non-i.i.d. signals: Particular case of MA stochastic process. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 2010, 56, 6450–6458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Withers, C.S.; Nadarajah, S. Unbiased estimates for moments and cumulants in linear regression. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 2011, 141, 3867–3875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skellam, J.G. The distribution of moment statistics of samples drawn without replacement from a finite population. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 1949, 11, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukhatme, P.V. Moments and product moments of moment-statistics for samples of the finite and infinite populations. Sankhyā 1944, 6, 363–382. [Google Scholar]
- Dwyer, P.S.; Tracy, D.S. Expectation and estimation of product moments in sampling from a finite population. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1980, 75, 431–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nath, S.N. On product moments from a finite universe. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1968, 63, 535–541. [Google Scholar]
- Nath, S.N. More results on product moments from a finite universe. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1969, 64, 864–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, A.; Litzenberger, R.H. Skewness preference and the valuation of risk assets. J. Financ. 1976, 31, 1085–1100. [Google Scholar]
- Jondeau, E.; Rockinger, M. Optimal portfolio allocation under higher moments. Eur. Financ. Manag. 2006, 12, 29–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Luca, G.; Loperfido, N. A skew-in-mean GARCH model for financial returns. In Skew-Elliptical Distributions and Their Applications: A Journey beyond Normality; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 2004; pp. 205–222. [Google Scholar]
- Carver, H.C. Fundamentals of the theory of sampling. Ann. Math. Stat. 1930, 1, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carver, H.C. Fundamentals of the theory of sampling. Ann. Math. Stat. 1930, 1, 260–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Withers, C.S.; Nadarajah, S. Unbiased Estimates for Products of Moments and Cumulants for Finite and Infinite Populations. arXiv 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Fisher, R.A. Moments and product moments of sampling distributions. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. Ser. 1929, 30, 199–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wishart, J. Moment coefficients of the k-statistics in samples from a finite population. Biometrika 1952, 39, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stuart, A.; Ord, J.K. Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, 5th ed.; Griffin: London, UK, 1987; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Raghunandanan, K.; Srinivasan, R. Some product moments useful in sampling theory. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1973, 68, 409–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comtet, L. Advanced Combinatorics; Reidel: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1974. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).