Tuesday, 22 December 2009

pr.probability - Probability of one binomial variable being greater than another.

Edit: I've filled in a few more details.



The Hoeffding bound from expressing YX as the sum of n differences between Bernoulli random variables Bq(i)Bp(i) is



Prob(YXge0)=Prob(YX+n(pq)gen(pq))leexpbigg(frac2n2(pq)24nbigg)



Prob(YXge0)leexpbigg(frac(pq)22nbigg)



I see three reasons you might be unhappy with this.



  • The Hoeffding bound just isn't sharp. It's based on a Markov bound, and that is generally far from sharp.

  • The Hoeffding bound is even worse than usual on this type of random variable.

  • The amount by which the Hoeffding bound is not sharp is worse when p and q are close to 0 or 1 than when they are close to frac12. The bound depends on pq but not how extreme p is.

I think you might address some of these by going back to the proof of Hoeffding's estimate, or the Bernstein inequalities, to get another estimate which fits this family of variables better.



For example, if p=0.6, q=0.5, or p=0.9, q=0.8, and you want to know when the probability is at most 106, the Hoeffding inequality tells you this is achieved with nge2764.



For comparison, the actual minimal values of n required are 1123 and 569, respectively, by brute force summation.



One version of the Berry-Esseen theorem is that the Gaussian approximation to a cumulative distribution function is off by at most



0.71fracrhosigma3sqrtn


where rho/sigma3 is an easily computed function of the distribution which is not far from 1 for the distributions of interest. This only drops as n1/2 which is unacceptably slow for the purpose of getting a sharp estimate on the tail. At n=2764, the error estimate from Berry-Esseen would be about 0.02. While you get effective estimates for the rate of convergence, those estimates are not sharp near the tails, so the Berry-Esseen theorem gives you far worse estimates than the Hoeffding inequality.



Instead of trying to fix Hoeffding's bound, another alternative would be to express YX as a sum of a (binomial) random number of pm1s by looking at the nonzero terms of sum(Bq(i)Bp(i)). You don't need a great lower bound on the number of nonzero terms, and then you can use a sharper estimate on the tail of a binomial distribution.



The probability that Bq(i)Bp(i)ne0 is p(1q)+q(1p)=t. For simplicity, let's assume for the moment that there are nt nonzero terms and that this is odd. The conditional probability that
Bq(i)Bp(i)=+1 is w=fracq(1p)p(1q)+q(1p).



The Chernoff bound on the probability that the sum is positive is exp(2(wfrac12)2tn).



exp(2bigg(fracq(1p)p(1q)+q(1p)frac12bigg)2big(p(1q)+q(1p)big)n)



is not rigorous, but we need to adjust n by a factor of 1+o(1), and we can compute the adjustment with another Chernoff bound.



For p=0.6,q=0.5, we get nge1382. For p=0.9,q=0.8, we get nge719.



The Chernoff bound isn't particularly sharp. Comparison with a geometric series with ratio fracw1w gives that the probability that there are more +1s than 1s is at most



ntchoosent/2wnt/2(1w)nt/2frac1w12w



This gives us nonrigorous bounds of ntgt564.4,nge1129 for p=0.6,q=0.5 and
ntgt145.97,nge562 for p=0.9,q=0.8. Again, these need to be adjusted by a factor of 1+o(1) to get a rigorous estimate (determine n so that there are at least 565 or 146 nonzero terms with high probability, respectively), so it's not a contradiction that the actual first acceptable n was 569, greater than the estimate of 562.



I haven't gone through all of the details, but this shows that the technique I described gets you much closer to the correct values of n than the Hoeffding bound.

No comments:

Post a Comment