what does conditioning on a random variable mean?Bayesian Statistical Conclusions: We Implicitly Condition On...
Quenching swords in dragon blood; why?
Number of FLOP (Floating Point Operations) for exponentiation
Does the "particle exchange" operator have any validity?
High pressure canisters of air as gun-less projectiles
En Passant For Beginners
How do you funnel food off a cutting board?
What kind of hardware implements Fourier transform?
Avoiding morning and evening handshakes
Issues with new Macs: Hardware makes them difficult for me to use. What options might be available in the future?
I am on the US no-fly list. What can I do in order to be allowed on flights which go through US airspace?
When does coming up with an idea constitute sufficient contribution for authorship?
Vacuum of Space Question
Eww, those bytes are gross
Please help me understand the following solution
What to do when being responsible for data protection in your lab, yet advice is ignored?
Strange Sign on Lab Door
What do you call a fact that doesn't match the settings?
How can I introduce myself to a party without saying that I am a rogue?
Rear brake cable temporary fix possible?
How can I improve my fireworks photography?
What is the wife of a henpecked husband called?
what does conditioning on a random variable mean?
Why is button three on trumpet almost never used alone?
Is there any differences between “gucken” and “schauen”?
what does conditioning on a random variable mean?
Bayesian Statistical Conclusions: We Implicitly Condition On the Known Values of Any Covariates, $x$?Field or method to understand what independent variable affect the response variable the mostHow to find the CDF of a random variable uniformly distributed around another random variable?“Let random variables $X_1,dots, X_n$ be a iid random sample from $f(x)$” - what does it mean?What is the difference between sample space and random variable?What does it mean for the t-distribution to be “best” that we can do for modeling when we don't know $sigma$?CDF of a random variable evaluated at a differently distributed random variableWhat does a truncated distribution mean?Does MCMC method can be used to calculate the mean and variance of the distribution of random variable functions?Example of a non-negative discrete distribution where the mean (or another moment) does not exist?Does conditioning on a random variable yield a random variable?
$begingroup$
I have confusion about what conditioning on a random variable means? For example: p(X|Y),X and Y are the random variable, so here conditioning on Y means Y is fixed(or non-random)?
Thanks in advanced!
mathematical-statistics
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have confusion about what conditioning on a random variable means? For example: p(X|Y),X and Y are the random variable, so here conditioning on Y means Y is fixed(or non-random)?
Thanks in advanced!
mathematical-statistics
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
wondering what a conditional random variable means, normally a conditioned random variable means known value, such as P(X|Y=1), but I also noticed sometimes Y is unspecified as P(X|Y=y), so in this case, what does a condition really mean?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have confusion about what conditioning on a random variable means? For example: p(X|Y),X and Y are the random variable, so here conditioning on Y means Y is fixed(or non-random)?
Thanks in advanced!
mathematical-statistics
New contributor
$endgroup$
I have confusion about what conditioning on a random variable means? For example: p(X|Y),X and Y are the random variable, so here conditioning on Y means Y is fixed(or non-random)?
Thanks in advanced!
mathematical-statistics
mathematical-statistics
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
Peter Leopold
636116
636116
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
YneedtobeseriousYneedtobeserious
162
162
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
wondering what a conditional random variable means, normally a conditioned random variable means known value, such as P(X|Y=1), but I also noticed sometimes Y is unspecified as P(X|Y=y), so in this case, what does a condition really mean?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
wondering what a conditional random variable means, normally a conditioned random variable means known value, such as P(X|Y=1), but I also noticed sometimes Y is unspecified as P(X|Y=y), so in this case, what does a condition really mean?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
wondering what a conditional random variable means, normally a conditioned random variable means known value, such as P(X|Y=1), but I also noticed sometimes Y is unspecified as P(X|Y=y), so in this case, what does a condition really mean?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
wondering what a conditional random variable means, normally a conditioned random variable means known value, such as P(X|Y=1), but I also noticed sometimes Y is unspecified as P(X|Y=y), so in this case, what does a condition really mean?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It means that the value of the random variable Y is known. For example, suppose $E(X|Y)=10+Y^2$. Then if $Y=2, $E(X|Y=2)=14.$
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for your explanation, I found that E(X|Y=y) is also possible, so here the y is still unspecified and E(X|Y=y)=10+y^2, in this case, do the condition only remove the randomness of the Y?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conditioning on a random variable is much more subtle than conditioning on an event.
Conditioning on an Event
Recall that for an event $B$ with $P(B) > 0$ we define the conditional probability given $B$ by
$$
P(A mid B) = frac{P(A cap B)}{P(B)}
$$
for every event $A$. This defines a new probability measure $P( cdotmid B)$ on the underlying probability space, and if $X$ is a random variable which is either non-negative or $P$-integrable on $A$, then we have
$$
E[X mid B]
= int X , dP( cdotmid B)
= frac{1}{P(B)} int X mathbf{1}_B , dP.
$$
The intuitive interpretation is that $E[X mid B]$ is the "best guess" for what value $X$ takes, knowing that the event $B$ actually happens.
This intuition is justified by the last integral above: we integrate $X$ with respect to $P$, but only on the event $B$ (and dividing by $P(B)$ is due to us concentrating all our attention on $B$ and hence re-weighting $B$ to have probability $1$).
That's the easy case. To understand conditioning on a random variable, we need the more general idea of conditioning on information. A probability measure by itself gives us prior probabilities for all possible events. But probabilities that certain events happen change if we know that certain other events do or do not happen. That is, when we have information about whether certain events happen or not, we can update our probabilities for the remaining events.
Conditioning on a Collection of Events
Formally, suppose $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events. Assume that it is known whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not.
We want to define the conditional probability $P( cdotmid mathcal{G})$ and the conditional expectation $E[ cdotmid mathcal{G}]$.
The conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ should reflect our updated probability of an event $A$ after knowing the information contained in $mathcal{G}$, and $E[X midmathcal{G}]$ should be our "best guess" for the value of a random variable $X$ using the information contained in $mathcal{G}$.
(NB: Why should $mathcal{G}$ be a $sigma$-algebra and not a more general collection of events? Because if $mathcal{G}$ weren't a $sigma$ algebra but we know whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, then we would know whether each event in the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, so we might as well replace $mathcal{G}$ with $sigma(mathcal{G})$.)
Conditional Probability
Here's where things get interesting. $P(A midmathcal{G})$ is no longer just a number: it is a random variable!. We define $P(A midmathcal{G})$ to be any $mathcal{G}$-measurable random variable $X$ such that
$$
E[X mathbf{1}_B] = P(A cap B)
$$
for every event $B in mathcal{G}$.
Moreover, if $X$ and $X^prime$ are two random variables satisfying this definition, then $X = X^prime$ almost surely.
That is pretty abstract stuff, so hopefully an example can shed some light on the abstraction.
Example.
Let $(Omega, mathcal{F}, P)$ be a probability space, and let $B in mathcal{F}$ be an event with $0 < P(B) < 1$.
Suppose $mathcal{G} = {emptyset, B, B^c, Omega}$.
That is, $mathcal{G}$ is the $sigma$-algebra containing all the information about whether $B$ happens or not.
Then for any event $A in mathcal{F}$ we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})
= P(A mid B) mathbf{1}_B + P(A mid B^c) mathbf{1}_{B^c}.
$$
That is, for an outcome $omega in Omega$, we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B)
$$
if $omega in B$ (i.e., if $B$ happens), and
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B^c)
$$
if $omega notin B$ (i.e., if $B$ doesn't happen).
It is easy to check that this random variable actually satisfies the definition of the conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ defined above.
Conditional Expectation
I mentioned already that conditional probabilities aren't unique, but they are unique almost surely.
It turns out that if $X$ is a nonnegative or integrable random variable, $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events, and $Q$ is the distribution of $X$ (a Borel probability measure on $mathbb{R}$) then it is possible to choose versions of conditional probabilities $Q(B mid mathcal{G})$ for all Borel subsets $B$ of $mathbb{R}$ such that $Q( cdot mid mathcal{G})(omega)$ is a probability measure for each outcome $omega$. Given this possibility, we may define
$$
E[Xmidmathcal{G}]=int_{mathbb{R}} x , Q(dxmidmathcal{G}),
$$
which is again a random variable.
It can be shown that this is the almost surely unique random variable $Y$ which is $mathcal{G}$-measurable and satisfies
$$
E[Y mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for all $A in mathcal{G}$.
Conditioning on a Random Variable
Given the general definitions of conditional probability and conditional expectation given above, we may easily define what it means to condition on a random variable $Y$: it means conditioning on the $sigma$-algebra generated by $Y$:
$$
sigma(Y)
= big{{Y in B} : text{$B$ is a Borel subset of $mathbb{R}$}big}.
$$
I said "easy to define," but I am aware that that doesn't mean "easy to understand."
But at least we can now say what an expression like $E[X mid Y]$ means: it is a random variable that satisfies
$$
E[E[X mid Y] mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for every event $A$ of the form $A = {Y in B}$ for some Borel subset $B$ of $mathbb{R}$.
Wow, that's abstract!
Fortunately, there are easy ways to work with $E[X mid Y]$ if $Y$ is discrete or absolutely continuous.
$Y$ Discrete
Suppose $Y$ takes values in a countable set $S subseteq mathbb{R}$.
Then it can be shown that
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
The right-hand side above is shorthand for the more verbose
$$
P(A mid {Y = Y(omega)})
$$
where ${Y = Y(omega)}$ is the event
$$
{Y = Y(omega)}
= {omega^prime : Y(omega^prime) = Y(omega)}.
$$
That is, if our outcome is $omega$, and $Y(omega) = k$, then
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = k) = frac{P(A cap {Y = k})}{P(Y = k)}.
$$
Similarly, if $X$ is another random variable taking values in $S$, then we have
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)] = sum_{x in S} x P(X = x mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
$Y$ Absolutely Continuous
Suppose now that $Y$ is absolutely continuous with density $f_Y$.
Let $X$ be another absolutely continuous random variable, with density $f_X$.
Let $f_{X, Y}$ be the joint density of $X$ and $Y$.
Then we define the conditional density of $X$ given $Y = y$ by
$$
f_{Xmid Y}(x mid y) = frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{f_Y(y)}
= frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{int_{mathbb{R}} x^prime f_{X, Y}(x^prime, y) , dx^prime}.
$$
Now we may define a function $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ given by
$$
g(y)
= E[X mid Y = y]
= int_{mathbb{R}} x f_{X mid Y}(x mid y) , dx.
$$
In particular, $g(y) = E[X mid Y = y]$ is a real number for each $y$.
Using this $g$, we can show that
$$
E[X mid Y] = g(Y),
$$
meaning that
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = g(Y(omega)) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)]
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
This is just scratching the surface of the theory of conditioning.
For a great reference, see chapters 21 and 23 of A Modern Approach to Probability by Fristedt and Gray.
Some Takeaways
- Conditioning on a random variable is different from conditioning on an event.
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y)$ and $E[X mid Y]$ are random variables
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y = y)$ and $E[X mid Y = y]$ are real numbers.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conditioning on an event (such as a particular specification of a random variable) means that this event is treated as being known to have occurred. This still allows us to specify conditioning on an event ${ Y=y }$ where the actual value $y$ falls within some range. For example, we might specify the conditional density:
$$f_{X|Y}(x|y) = p(X=x | Y=y) = frac{1}{sqrt{2 pi}} exp Big( - frac{1}{2} y^2 Big)
quad quad quad text{for all } y in mathbb{R}.$$
This refers to the probability density for the random variable $X$ conditional on the known event ${ Y=y }$, where we are free to set any $y in mathbb{R}$. The use of the variable $y$ in this formulation simply means that the conditional distribution has a form that allows us to substitute a range of values for this variable, so we write it as a function of the conditioning value as well as the argument value for the random variable $X$. Regardless of which particular value $y in mathbb{R}$ we choose, the resulting density is conditional on that event being treated as known ---i.e., no longer random.
As I have stated in another answer here, it is also worth noting that many theories of probability regard all probability to be conditional on implicit information. This idea is most famously associated with the axiomatic approach of the mathematician Alfréd Rényi (see e.g., Kaminski 1984). Rényi argued that every probability measure must be interpreted as being conditional on some underlying information, and that reference to marginal probabilities was merely a reference to probability where the underlying conditions are implicit, rather than explicit.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Yneedtobeserious is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f395310%2fwhat-does-conditioning-on-a-random-variable-mean%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It means that the value of the random variable Y is known. For example, suppose $E(X|Y)=10+Y^2$. Then if $Y=2, $E(X|Y=2)=14.$
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for your explanation, I found that E(X|Y=y) is also possible, so here the y is still unspecified and E(X|Y=y)=10+y^2, in this case, do the condition only remove the randomness of the Y?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It means that the value of the random variable Y is known. For example, suppose $E(X|Y)=10+Y^2$. Then if $Y=2, $E(X|Y=2)=14.$
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for your explanation, I found that E(X|Y=y) is also possible, so here the y is still unspecified and E(X|Y=y)=10+y^2, in this case, do the condition only remove the randomness of the Y?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It means that the value of the random variable Y is known. For example, suppose $E(X|Y)=10+Y^2$. Then if $Y=2, $E(X|Y=2)=14.$
New contributor
$endgroup$
It means that the value of the random variable Y is known. For example, suppose $E(X|Y)=10+Y^2$. Then if $Y=2, $E(X|Y=2)=14.$
New contributor
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
user239680user239680
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Thanks for your explanation, I found that E(X|Y=y) is also possible, so here the y is still unspecified and E(X|Y=y)=10+y^2, in this case, do the condition only remove the randomness of the Y?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks for your explanation, I found that E(X|Y=y) is also possible, so here the y is still unspecified and E(X|Y=y)=10+y^2, in this case, do the condition only remove the randomness of the Y?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for your explanation, I found that E(X|Y=y) is also possible, so here the y is still unspecified and E(X|Y=y)=10+y^2, in this case, do the condition only remove the randomness of the Y?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for your explanation, I found that E(X|Y=y) is also possible, so here the y is still unspecified and E(X|Y=y)=10+y^2, in this case, do the condition only remove the randomness of the Y?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conditioning on a random variable is much more subtle than conditioning on an event.
Conditioning on an Event
Recall that for an event $B$ with $P(B) > 0$ we define the conditional probability given $B$ by
$$
P(A mid B) = frac{P(A cap B)}{P(B)}
$$
for every event $A$. This defines a new probability measure $P( cdotmid B)$ on the underlying probability space, and if $X$ is a random variable which is either non-negative or $P$-integrable on $A$, then we have
$$
E[X mid B]
= int X , dP( cdotmid B)
= frac{1}{P(B)} int X mathbf{1}_B , dP.
$$
The intuitive interpretation is that $E[X mid B]$ is the "best guess" for what value $X$ takes, knowing that the event $B$ actually happens.
This intuition is justified by the last integral above: we integrate $X$ with respect to $P$, but only on the event $B$ (and dividing by $P(B)$ is due to us concentrating all our attention on $B$ and hence re-weighting $B$ to have probability $1$).
That's the easy case. To understand conditioning on a random variable, we need the more general idea of conditioning on information. A probability measure by itself gives us prior probabilities for all possible events. But probabilities that certain events happen change if we know that certain other events do or do not happen. That is, when we have information about whether certain events happen or not, we can update our probabilities for the remaining events.
Conditioning on a Collection of Events
Formally, suppose $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events. Assume that it is known whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not.
We want to define the conditional probability $P( cdotmid mathcal{G})$ and the conditional expectation $E[ cdotmid mathcal{G}]$.
The conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ should reflect our updated probability of an event $A$ after knowing the information contained in $mathcal{G}$, and $E[X midmathcal{G}]$ should be our "best guess" for the value of a random variable $X$ using the information contained in $mathcal{G}$.
(NB: Why should $mathcal{G}$ be a $sigma$-algebra and not a more general collection of events? Because if $mathcal{G}$ weren't a $sigma$ algebra but we know whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, then we would know whether each event in the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, so we might as well replace $mathcal{G}$ with $sigma(mathcal{G})$.)
Conditional Probability
Here's where things get interesting. $P(A midmathcal{G})$ is no longer just a number: it is a random variable!. We define $P(A midmathcal{G})$ to be any $mathcal{G}$-measurable random variable $X$ such that
$$
E[X mathbf{1}_B] = P(A cap B)
$$
for every event $B in mathcal{G}$.
Moreover, if $X$ and $X^prime$ are two random variables satisfying this definition, then $X = X^prime$ almost surely.
That is pretty abstract stuff, so hopefully an example can shed some light on the abstraction.
Example.
Let $(Omega, mathcal{F}, P)$ be a probability space, and let $B in mathcal{F}$ be an event with $0 < P(B) < 1$.
Suppose $mathcal{G} = {emptyset, B, B^c, Omega}$.
That is, $mathcal{G}$ is the $sigma$-algebra containing all the information about whether $B$ happens or not.
Then for any event $A in mathcal{F}$ we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})
= P(A mid B) mathbf{1}_B + P(A mid B^c) mathbf{1}_{B^c}.
$$
That is, for an outcome $omega in Omega$, we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B)
$$
if $omega in B$ (i.e., if $B$ happens), and
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B^c)
$$
if $omega notin B$ (i.e., if $B$ doesn't happen).
It is easy to check that this random variable actually satisfies the definition of the conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ defined above.
Conditional Expectation
I mentioned already that conditional probabilities aren't unique, but they are unique almost surely.
It turns out that if $X$ is a nonnegative or integrable random variable, $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events, and $Q$ is the distribution of $X$ (a Borel probability measure on $mathbb{R}$) then it is possible to choose versions of conditional probabilities $Q(B mid mathcal{G})$ for all Borel subsets $B$ of $mathbb{R}$ such that $Q( cdot mid mathcal{G})(omega)$ is a probability measure for each outcome $omega$. Given this possibility, we may define
$$
E[Xmidmathcal{G}]=int_{mathbb{R}} x , Q(dxmidmathcal{G}),
$$
which is again a random variable.
It can be shown that this is the almost surely unique random variable $Y$ which is $mathcal{G}$-measurable and satisfies
$$
E[Y mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for all $A in mathcal{G}$.
Conditioning on a Random Variable
Given the general definitions of conditional probability and conditional expectation given above, we may easily define what it means to condition on a random variable $Y$: it means conditioning on the $sigma$-algebra generated by $Y$:
$$
sigma(Y)
= big{{Y in B} : text{$B$ is a Borel subset of $mathbb{R}$}big}.
$$
I said "easy to define," but I am aware that that doesn't mean "easy to understand."
But at least we can now say what an expression like $E[X mid Y]$ means: it is a random variable that satisfies
$$
E[E[X mid Y] mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for every event $A$ of the form $A = {Y in B}$ for some Borel subset $B$ of $mathbb{R}$.
Wow, that's abstract!
Fortunately, there are easy ways to work with $E[X mid Y]$ if $Y$ is discrete or absolutely continuous.
$Y$ Discrete
Suppose $Y$ takes values in a countable set $S subseteq mathbb{R}$.
Then it can be shown that
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
The right-hand side above is shorthand for the more verbose
$$
P(A mid {Y = Y(omega)})
$$
where ${Y = Y(omega)}$ is the event
$$
{Y = Y(omega)}
= {omega^prime : Y(omega^prime) = Y(omega)}.
$$
That is, if our outcome is $omega$, and $Y(omega) = k$, then
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = k) = frac{P(A cap {Y = k})}{P(Y = k)}.
$$
Similarly, if $X$ is another random variable taking values in $S$, then we have
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)] = sum_{x in S} x P(X = x mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
$Y$ Absolutely Continuous
Suppose now that $Y$ is absolutely continuous with density $f_Y$.
Let $X$ be another absolutely continuous random variable, with density $f_X$.
Let $f_{X, Y}$ be the joint density of $X$ and $Y$.
Then we define the conditional density of $X$ given $Y = y$ by
$$
f_{Xmid Y}(x mid y) = frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{f_Y(y)}
= frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{int_{mathbb{R}} x^prime f_{X, Y}(x^prime, y) , dx^prime}.
$$
Now we may define a function $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ given by
$$
g(y)
= E[X mid Y = y]
= int_{mathbb{R}} x f_{X mid Y}(x mid y) , dx.
$$
In particular, $g(y) = E[X mid Y = y]$ is a real number for each $y$.
Using this $g$, we can show that
$$
E[X mid Y] = g(Y),
$$
meaning that
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = g(Y(omega)) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)]
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
This is just scratching the surface of the theory of conditioning.
For a great reference, see chapters 21 and 23 of A Modern Approach to Probability by Fristedt and Gray.
Some Takeaways
- Conditioning on a random variable is different from conditioning on an event.
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y)$ and $E[X mid Y]$ are random variables
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y = y)$ and $E[X mid Y = y]$ are real numbers.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conditioning on a random variable is much more subtle than conditioning on an event.
Conditioning on an Event
Recall that for an event $B$ with $P(B) > 0$ we define the conditional probability given $B$ by
$$
P(A mid B) = frac{P(A cap B)}{P(B)}
$$
for every event $A$. This defines a new probability measure $P( cdotmid B)$ on the underlying probability space, and if $X$ is a random variable which is either non-negative or $P$-integrable on $A$, then we have
$$
E[X mid B]
= int X , dP( cdotmid B)
= frac{1}{P(B)} int X mathbf{1}_B , dP.
$$
The intuitive interpretation is that $E[X mid B]$ is the "best guess" for what value $X$ takes, knowing that the event $B$ actually happens.
This intuition is justified by the last integral above: we integrate $X$ with respect to $P$, but only on the event $B$ (and dividing by $P(B)$ is due to us concentrating all our attention on $B$ and hence re-weighting $B$ to have probability $1$).
That's the easy case. To understand conditioning on a random variable, we need the more general idea of conditioning on information. A probability measure by itself gives us prior probabilities for all possible events. But probabilities that certain events happen change if we know that certain other events do or do not happen. That is, when we have information about whether certain events happen or not, we can update our probabilities for the remaining events.
Conditioning on a Collection of Events
Formally, suppose $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events. Assume that it is known whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not.
We want to define the conditional probability $P( cdotmid mathcal{G})$ and the conditional expectation $E[ cdotmid mathcal{G}]$.
The conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ should reflect our updated probability of an event $A$ after knowing the information contained in $mathcal{G}$, and $E[X midmathcal{G}]$ should be our "best guess" for the value of a random variable $X$ using the information contained in $mathcal{G}$.
(NB: Why should $mathcal{G}$ be a $sigma$-algebra and not a more general collection of events? Because if $mathcal{G}$ weren't a $sigma$ algebra but we know whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, then we would know whether each event in the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, so we might as well replace $mathcal{G}$ with $sigma(mathcal{G})$.)
Conditional Probability
Here's where things get interesting. $P(A midmathcal{G})$ is no longer just a number: it is a random variable!. We define $P(A midmathcal{G})$ to be any $mathcal{G}$-measurable random variable $X$ such that
$$
E[X mathbf{1}_B] = P(A cap B)
$$
for every event $B in mathcal{G}$.
Moreover, if $X$ and $X^prime$ are two random variables satisfying this definition, then $X = X^prime$ almost surely.
That is pretty abstract stuff, so hopefully an example can shed some light on the abstraction.
Example.
Let $(Omega, mathcal{F}, P)$ be a probability space, and let $B in mathcal{F}$ be an event with $0 < P(B) < 1$.
Suppose $mathcal{G} = {emptyset, B, B^c, Omega}$.
That is, $mathcal{G}$ is the $sigma$-algebra containing all the information about whether $B$ happens or not.
Then for any event $A in mathcal{F}$ we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})
= P(A mid B) mathbf{1}_B + P(A mid B^c) mathbf{1}_{B^c}.
$$
That is, for an outcome $omega in Omega$, we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B)
$$
if $omega in B$ (i.e., if $B$ happens), and
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B^c)
$$
if $omega notin B$ (i.e., if $B$ doesn't happen).
It is easy to check that this random variable actually satisfies the definition of the conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ defined above.
Conditional Expectation
I mentioned already that conditional probabilities aren't unique, but they are unique almost surely.
It turns out that if $X$ is a nonnegative or integrable random variable, $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events, and $Q$ is the distribution of $X$ (a Borel probability measure on $mathbb{R}$) then it is possible to choose versions of conditional probabilities $Q(B mid mathcal{G})$ for all Borel subsets $B$ of $mathbb{R}$ such that $Q( cdot mid mathcal{G})(omega)$ is a probability measure for each outcome $omega$. Given this possibility, we may define
$$
E[Xmidmathcal{G}]=int_{mathbb{R}} x , Q(dxmidmathcal{G}),
$$
which is again a random variable.
It can be shown that this is the almost surely unique random variable $Y$ which is $mathcal{G}$-measurable and satisfies
$$
E[Y mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for all $A in mathcal{G}$.
Conditioning on a Random Variable
Given the general definitions of conditional probability and conditional expectation given above, we may easily define what it means to condition on a random variable $Y$: it means conditioning on the $sigma$-algebra generated by $Y$:
$$
sigma(Y)
= big{{Y in B} : text{$B$ is a Borel subset of $mathbb{R}$}big}.
$$
I said "easy to define," but I am aware that that doesn't mean "easy to understand."
But at least we can now say what an expression like $E[X mid Y]$ means: it is a random variable that satisfies
$$
E[E[X mid Y] mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for every event $A$ of the form $A = {Y in B}$ for some Borel subset $B$ of $mathbb{R}$.
Wow, that's abstract!
Fortunately, there are easy ways to work with $E[X mid Y]$ if $Y$ is discrete or absolutely continuous.
$Y$ Discrete
Suppose $Y$ takes values in a countable set $S subseteq mathbb{R}$.
Then it can be shown that
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
The right-hand side above is shorthand for the more verbose
$$
P(A mid {Y = Y(omega)})
$$
where ${Y = Y(omega)}$ is the event
$$
{Y = Y(omega)}
= {omega^prime : Y(omega^prime) = Y(omega)}.
$$
That is, if our outcome is $omega$, and $Y(omega) = k$, then
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = k) = frac{P(A cap {Y = k})}{P(Y = k)}.
$$
Similarly, if $X$ is another random variable taking values in $S$, then we have
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)] = sum_{x in S} x P(X = x mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
$Y$ Absolutely Continuous
Suppose now that $Y$ is absolutely continuous with density $f_Y$.
Let $X$ be another absolutely continuous random variable, with density $f_X$.
Let $f_{X, Y}$ be the joint density of $X$ and $Y$.
Then we define the conditional density of $X$ given $Y = y$ by
$$
f_{Xmid Y}(x mid y) = frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{f_Y(y)}
= frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{int_{mathbb{R}} x^prime f_{X, Y}(x^prime, y) , dx^prime}.
$$
Now we may define a function $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ given by
$$
g(y)
= E[X mid Y = y]
= int_{mathbb{R}} x f_{X mid Y}(x mid y) , dx.
$$
In particular, $g(y) = E[X mid Y = y]$ is a real number for each $y$.
Using this $g$, we can show that
$$
E[X mid Y] = g(Y),
$$
meaning that
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = g(Y(omega)) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)]
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
This is just scratching the surface of the theory of conditioning.
For a great reference, see chapters 21 and 23 of A Modern Approach to Probability by Fristedt and Gray.
Some Takeaways
- Conditioning on a random variable is different from conditioning on an event.
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y)$ and $E[X mid Y]$ are random variables
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y = y)$ and $E[X mid Y = y]$ are real numbers.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conditioning on a random variable is much more subtle than conditioning on an event.
Conditioning on an Event
Recall that for an event $B$ with $P(B) > 0$ we define the conditional probability given $B$ by
$$
P(A mid B) = frac{P(A cap B)}{P(B)}
$$
for every event $A$. This defines a new probability measure $P( cdotmid B)$ on the underlying probability space, and if $X$ is a random variable which is either non-negative or $P$-integrable on $A$, then we have
$$
E[X mid B]
= int X , dP( cdotmid B)
= frac{1}{P(B)} int X mathbf{1}_B , dP.
$$
The intuitive interpretation is that $E[X mid B]$ is the "best guess" for what value $X$ takes, knowing that the event $B$ actually happens.
This intuition is justified by the last integral above: we integrate $X$ with respect to $P$, but only on the event $B$ (and dividing by $P(B)$ is due to us concentrating all our attention on $B$ and hence re-weighting $B$ to have probability $1$).
That's the easy case. To understand conditioning on a random variable, we need the more general idea of conditioning on information. A probability measure by itself gives us prior probabilities for all possible events. But probabilities that certain events happen change if we know that certain other events do or do not happen. That is, when we have information about whether certain events happen or not, we can update our probabilities for the remaining events.
Conditioning on a Collection of Events
Formally, suppose $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events. Assume that it is known whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not.
We want to define the conditional probability $P( cdotmid mathcal{G})$ and the conditional expectation $E[ cdotmid mathcal{G}]$.
The conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ should reflect our updated probability of an event $A$ after knowing the information contained in $mathcal{G}$, and $E[X midmathcal{G}]$ should be our "best guess" for the value of a random variable $X$ using the information contained in $mathcal{G}$.
(NB: Why should $mathcal{G}$ be a $sigma$-algebra and not a more general collection of events? Because if $mathcal{G}$ weren't a $sigma$ algebra but we know whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, then we would know whether each event in the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, so we might as well replace $mathcal{G}$ with $sigma(mathcal{G})$.)
Conditional Probability
Here's where things get interesting. $P(A midmathcal{G})$ is no longer just a number: it is a random variable!. We define $P(A midmathcal{G})$ to be any $mathcal{G}$-measurable random variable $X$ such that
$$
E[X mathbf{1}_B] = P(A cap B)
$$
for every event $B in mathcal{G}$.
Moreover, if $X$ and $X^prime$ are two random variables satisfying this definition, then $X = X^prime$ almost surely.
That is pretty abstract stuff, so hopefully an example can shed some light on the abstraction.
Example.
Let $(Omega, mathcal{F}, P)$ be a probability space, and let $B in mathcal{F}$ be an event with $0 < P(B) < 1$.
Suppose $mathcal{G} = {emptyset, B, B^c, Omega}$.
That is, $mathcal{G}$ is the $sigma$-algebra containing all the information about whether $B$ happens or not.
Then for any event $A in mathcal{F}$ we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})
= P(A mid B) mathbf{1}_B + P(A mid B^c) mathbf{1}_{B^c}.
$$
That is, for an outcome $omega in Omega$, we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B)
$$
if $omega in B$ (i.e., if $B$ happens), and
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B^c)
$$
if $omega notin B$ (i.e., if $B$ doesn't happen).
It is easy to check that this random variable actually satisfies the definition of the conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ defined above.
Conditional Expectation
I mentioned already that conditional probabilities aren't unique, but they are unique almost surely.
It turns out that if $X$ is a nonnegative or integrable random variable, $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events, and $Q$ is the distribution of $X$ (a Borel probability measure on $mathbb{R}$) then it is possible to choose versions of conditional probabilities $Q(B mid mathcal{G})$ for all Borel subsets $B$ of $mathbb{R}$ such that $Q( cdot mid mathcal{G})(omega)$ is a probability measure for each outcome $omega$. Given this possibility, we may define
$$
E[Xmidmathcal{G}]=int_{mathbb{R}} x , Q(dxmidmathcal{G}),
$$
which is again a random variable.
It can be shown that this is the almost surely unique random variable $Y$ which is $mathcal{G}$-measurable and satisfies
$$
E[Y mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for all $A in mathcal{G}$.
Conditioning on a Random Variable
Given the general definitions of conditional probability and conditional expectation given above, we may easily define what it means to condition on a random variable $Y$: it means conditioning on the $sigma$-algebra generated by $Y$:
$$
sigma(Y)
= big{{Y in B} : text{$B$ is a Borel subset of $mathbb{R}$}big}.
$$
I said "easy to define," but I am aware that that doesn't mean "easy to understand."
But at least we can now say what an expression like $E[X mid Y]$ means: it is a random variable that satisfies
$$
E[E[X mid Y] mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for every event $A$ of the form $A = {Y in B}$ for some Borel subset $B$ of $mathbb{R}$.
Wow, that's abstract!
Fortunately, there are easy ways to work with $E[X mid Y]$ if $Y$ is discrete or absolutely continuous.
$Y$ Discrete
Suppose $Y$ takes values in a countable set $S subseteq mathbb{R}$.
Then it can be shown that
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
The right-hand side above is shorthand for the more verbose
$$
P(A mid {Y = Y(omega)})
$$
where ${Y = Y(omega)}$ is the event
$$
{Y = Y(omega)}
= {omega^prime : Y(omega^prime) = Y(omega)}.
$$
That is, if our outcome is $omega$, and $Y(omega) = k$, then
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = k) = frac{P(A cap {Y = k})}{P(Y = k)}.
$$
Similarly, if $X$ is another random variable taking values in $S$, then we have
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)] = sum_{x in S} x P(X = x mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
$Y$ Absolutely Continuous
Suppose now that $Y$ is absolutely continuous with density $f_Y$.
Let $X$ be another absolutely continuous random variable, with density $f_X$.
Let $f_{X, Y}$ be the joint density of $X$ and $Y$.
Then we define the conditional density of $X$ given $Y = y$ by
$$
f_{Xmid Y}(x mid y) = frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{f_Y(y)}
= frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{int_{mathbb{R}} x^prime f_{X, Y}(x^prime, y) , dx^prime}.
$$
Now we may define a function $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ given by
$$
g(y)
= E[X mid Y = y]
= int_{mathbb{R}} x f_{X mid Y}(x mid y) , dx.
$$
In particular, $g(y) = E[X mid Y = y]$ is a real number for each $y$.
Using this $g$, we can show that
$$
E[X mid Y] = g(Y),
$$
meaning that
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = g(Y(omega)) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)]
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
This is just scratching the surface of the theory of conditioning.
For a great reference, see chapters 21 and 23 of A Modern Approach to Probability by Fristedt and Gray.
Some Takeaways
- Conditioning on a random variable is different from conditioning on an event.
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y)$ and $E[X mid Y]$ are random variables
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y = y)$ and $E[X mid Y = y]$ are real numbers.
$endgroup$
Conditioning on a random variable is much more subtle than conditioning on an event.
Conditioning on an Event
Recall that for an event $B$ with $P(B) > 0$ we define the conditional probability given $B$ by
$$
P(A mid B) = frac{P(A cap B)}{P(B)}
$$
for every event $A$. This defines a new probability measure $P( cdotmid B)$ on the underlying probability space, and if $X$ is a random variable which is either non-negative or $P$-integrable on $A$, then we have
$$
E[X mid B]
= int X , dP( cdotmid B)
= frac{1}{P(B)} int X mathbf{1}_B , dP.
$$
The intuitive interpretation is that $E[X mid B]$ is the "best guess" for what value $X$ takes, knowing that the event $B$ actually happens.
This intuition is justified by the last integral above: we integrate $X$ with respect to $P$, but only on the event $B$ (and dividing by $P(B)$ is due to us concentrating all our attention on $B$ and hence re-weighting $B$ to have probability $1$).
That's the easy case. To understand conditioning on a random variable, we need the more general idea of conditioning on information. A probability measure by itself gives us prior probabilities for all possible events. But probabilities that certain events happen change if we know that certain other events do or do not happen. That is, when we have information about whether certain events happen or not, we can update our probabilities for the remaining events.
Conditioning on a Collection of Events
Formally, suppose $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events. Assume that it is known whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not.
We want to define the conditional probability $P( cdotmid mathcal{G})$ and the conditional expectation $E[ cdotmid mathcal{G}]$.
The conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ should reflect our updated probability of an event $A$ after knowing the information contained in $mathcal{G}$, and $E[X midmathcal{G}]$ should be our "best guess" for the value of a random variable $X$ using the information contained in $mathcal{G}$.
(NB: Why should $mathcal{G}$ be a $sigma$-algebra and not a more general collection of events? Because if $mathcal{G}$ weren't a $sigma$ algebra but we know whether each event in $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, then we would know whether each event in the $sigma$-algebra generated by $mathcal{G}$ happens or not, so we might as well replace $mathcal{G}$ with $sigma(mathcal{G})$.)
Conditional Probability
Here's where things get interesting. $P(A midmathcal{G})$ is no longer just a number: it is a random variable!. We define $P(A midmathcal{G})$ to be any $mathcal{G}$-measurable random variable $X$ such that
$$
E[X mathbf{1}_B] = P(A cap B)
$$
for every event $B in mathcal{G}$.
Moreover, if $X$ and $X^prime$ are two random variables satisfying this definition, then $X = X^prime$ almost surely.
That is pretty abstract stuff, so hopefully an example can shed some light on the abstraction.
Example.
Let $(Omega, mathcal{F}, P)$ be a probability space, and let $B in mathcal{F}$ be an event with $0 < P(B) < 1$.
Suppose $mathcal{G} = {emptyset, B, B^c, Omega}$.
That is, $mathcal{G}$ is the $sigma$-algebra containing all the information about whether $B$ happens or not.
Then for any event $A in mathcal{F}$ we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})
= P(A mid B) mathbf{1}_B + P(A mid B^c) mathbf{1}_{B^c}.
$$
That is, for an outcome $omega in Omega$, we have
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B)
$$
if $omega in B$ (i.e., if $B$ happens), and
$$
P(A mid mathcal{G})(omega) = P(A mid B^c)
$$
if $omega notin B$ (i.e., if $B$ doesn't happen).
It is easy to check that this random variable actually satisfies the definition of the conditional probability $P(A mid mathcal{G})$ defined above.
Conditional Expectation
I mentioned already that conditional probabilities aren't unique, but they are unique almost surely.
It turns out that if $X$ is a nonnegative or integrable random variable, $mathcal{G}$ is a $sigma$-algebra of events, and $Q$ is the distribution of $X$ (a Borel probability measure on $mathbb{R}$) then it is possible to choose versions of conditional probabilities $Q(B mid mathcal{G})$ for all Borel subsets $B$ of $mathbb{R}$ such that $Q( cdot mid mathcal{G})(omega)$ is a probability measure for each outcome $omega$. Given this possibility, we may define
$$
E[Xmidmathcal{G}]=int_{mathbb{R}} x , Q(dxmidmathcal{G}),
$$
which is again a random variable.
It can be shown that this is the almost surely unique random variable $Y$ which is $mathcal{G}$-measurable and satisfies
$$
E[Y mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for all $A in mathcal{G}$.
Conditioning on a Random Variable
Given the general definitions of conditional probability and conditional expectation given above, we may easily define what it means to condition on a random variable $Y$: it means conditioning on the $sigma$-algebra generated by $Y$:
$$
sigma(Y)
= big{{Y in B} : text{$B$ is a Borel subset of $mathbb{R}$}big}.
$$
I said "easy to define," but I am aware that that doesn't mean "easy to understand."
But at least we can now say what an expression like $E[X mid Y]$ means: it is a random variable that satisfies
$$
E[E[X mid Y] mathbf{1}_A] = E[X mathbf{1}_A]
$$
for every event $A$ of the form $A = {Y in B}$ for some Borel subset $B$ of $mathbb{R}$.
Wow, that's abstract!
Fortunately, there are easy ways to work with $E[X mid Y]$ if $Y$ is discrete or absolutely continuous.
$Y$ Discrete
Suppose $Y$ takes values in a countable set $S subseteq mathbb{R}$.
Then it can be shown that
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
The right-hand side above is shorthand for the more verbose
$$
P(A mid {Y = Y(omega)})
$$
where ${Y = Y(omega)}$ is the event
$$
{Y = Y(omega)}
= {omega^prime : Y(omega^prime) = Y(omega)}.
$$
That is, if our outcome is $omega$, and $Y(omega) = k$, then
$$
P(A mid Y)(omega) = P(A mid Y = k) = frac{P(A cap {Y = k})}{P(Y = k)}.
$$
Similarly, if $X$ is another random variable taking values in $S$, then we have
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)] = sum_{x in S} x P(X = x mid Y = Y(omega))
$$
$Y$ Absolutely Continuous
Suppose now that $Y$ is absolutely continuous with density $f_Y$.
Let $X$ be another absolutely continuous random variable, with density $f_X$.
Let $f_{X, Y}$ be the joint density of $X$ and $Y$.
Then we define the conditional density of $X$ given $Y = y$ by
$$
f_{Xmid Y}(x mid y) = frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{f_Y(y)}
= frac{f_{X, Y}(x, y)}{int_{mathbb{R}} x^prime f_{X, Y}(x^prime, y) , dx^prime}.
$$
Now we may define a function $g : mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ given by
$$
g(y)
= E[X mid Y = y]
= int_{mathbb{R}} x f_{X mid Y}(x mid y) , dx.
$$
In particular, $g(y) = E[X mid Y = y]$ is a real number for each $y$.
Using this $g$, we can show that
$$
E[X mid Y] = g(Y),
$$
meaning that
$$
E[X mid Y](omega) = g(Y(omega)) = E[X mid Y = Y(omega)]
$$
for each outcome $omega$.
This is just scratching the surface of the theory of conditioning.
For a great reference, see chapters 21 and 23 of A Modern Approach to Probability by Fristedt and Gray.
Some Takeaways
- Conditioning on a random variable is different from conditioning on an event.
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y)$ and $E[X mid Y]$ are random variables
- Expressions like $P(A mid Y = y)$ and $E[X mid Y = y]$ are real numbers.
edited 55 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Artem MavrinArtem Mavrin
836710
836710
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conditioning on an event (such as a particular specification of a random variable) means that this event is treated as being known to have occurred. This still allows us to specify conditioning on an event ${ Y=y }$ where the actual value $y$ falls within some range. For example, we might specify the conditional density:
$$f_{X|Y}(x|y) = p(X=x | Y=y) = frac{1}{sqrt{2 pi}} exp Big( - frac{1}{2} y^2 Big)
quad quad quad text{for all } y in mathbb{R}.$$
This refers to the probability density for the random variable $X$ conditional on the known event ${ Y=y }$, where we are free to set any $y in mathbb{R}$. The use of the variable $y$ in this formulation simply means that the conditional distribution has a form that allows us to substitute a range of values for this variable, so we write it as a function of the conditioning value as well as the argument value for the random variable $X$. Regardless of which particular value $y in mathbb{R}$ we choose, the resulting density is conditional on that event being treated as known ---i.e., no longer random.
As I have stated in another answer here, it is also worth noting that many theories of probability regard all probability to be conditional on implicit information. This idea is most famously associated with the axiomatic approach of the mathematician Alfréd Rényi (see e.g., Kaminski 1984). Rényi argued that every probability measure must be interpreted as being conditional on some underlying information, and that reference to marginal probabilities was merely a reference to probability where the underlying conditions are implicit, rather than explicit.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conditioning on an event (such as a particular specification of a random variable) means that this event is treated as being known to have occurred. This still allows us to specify conditioning on an event ${ Y=y }$ where the actual value $y$ falls within some range. For example, we might specify the conditional density:
$$f_{X|Y}(x|y) = p(X=x | Y=y) = frac{1}{sqrt{2 pi}} exp Big( - frac{1}{2} y^2 Big)
quad quad quad text{for all } y in mathbb{R}.$$
This refers to the probability density for the random variable $X$ conditional on the known event ${ Y=y }$, where we are free to set any $y in mathbb{R}$. The use of the variable $y$ in this formulation simply means that the conditional distribution has a form that allows us to substitute a range of values for this variable, so we write it as a function of the conditioning value as well as the argument value for the random variable $X$. Regardless of which particular value $y in mathbb{R}$ we choose, the resulting density is conditional on that event being treated as known ---i.e., no longer random.
As I have stated in another answer here, it is also worth noting that many theories of probability regard all probability to be conditional on implicit information. This idea is most famously associated with the axiomatic approach of the mathematician Alfréd Rényi (see e.g., Kaminski 1984). Rényi argued that every probability measure must be interpreted as being conditional on some underlying information, and that reference to marginal probabilities was merely a reference to probability where the underlying conditions are implicit, rather than explicit.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Conditioning on an event (such as a particular specification of a random variable) means that this event is treated as being known to have occurred. This still allows us to specify conditioning on an event ${ Y=y }$ where the actual value $y$ falls within some range. For example, we might specify the conditional density:
$$f_{X|Y}(x|y) = p(X=x | Y=y) = frac{1}{sqrt{2 pi}} exp Big( - frac{1}{2} y^2 Big)
quad quad quad text{for all } y in mathbb{R}.$$
This refers to the probability density for the random variable $X$ conditional on the known event ${ Y=y }$, where we are free to set any $y in mathbb{R}$. The use of the variable $y$ in this formulation simply means that the conditional distribution has a form that allows us to substitute a range of values for this variable, so we write it as a function of the conditioning value as well as the argument value for the random variable $X$. Regardless of which particular value $y in mathbb{R}$ we choose, the resulting density is conditional on that event being treated as known ---i.e., no longer random.
As I have stated in another answer here, it is also worth noting that many theories of probability regard all probability to be conditional on implicit information. This idea is most famously associated with the axiomatic approach of the mathematician Alfréd Rényi (see e.g., Kaminski 1984). Rényi argued that every probability measure must be interpreted as being conditional on some underlying information, and that reference to marginal probabilities was merely a reference to probability where the underlying conditions are implicit, rather than explicit.
$endgroup$
Conditioning on an event (such as a particular specification of a random variable) means that this event is treated as being known to have occurred. This still allows us to specify conditioning on an event ${ Y=y }$ where the actual value $y$ falls within some range. For example, we might specify the conditional density:
$$f_{X|Y}(x|y) = p(X=x | Y=y) = frac{1}{sqrt{2 pi}} exp Big( - frac{1}{2} y^2 Big)
quad quad quad text{for all } y in mathbb{R}.$$
This refers to the probability density for the random variable $X$ conditional on the known event ${ Y=y }$, where we are free to set any $y in mathbb{R}$. The use of the variable $y$ in this formulation simply means that the conditional distribution has a form that allows us to substitute a range of values for this variable, so we write it as a function of the conditioning value as well as the argument value for the random variable $X$. Regardless of which particular value $y in mathbb{R}$ we choose, the resulting density is conditional on that event being treated as known ---i.e., no longer random.
As I have stated in another answer here, it is also worth noting that many theories of probability regard all probability to be conditional on implicit information. This idea is most famously associated with the axiomatic approach of the mathematician Alfréd Rényi (see e.g., Kaminski 1984). Rényi argued that every probability measure must be interpreted as being conditional on some underlying information, and that reference to marginal probabilities was merely a reference to probability where the underlying conditions are implicit, rather than explicit.
answered 1 hour ago
BenBen
25.8k227121
25.8k227121
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yneedtobeserious is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Yneedtobeserious is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Yneedtobeserious is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Yneedtobeserious is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f395310%2fwhat-does-conditioning-on-a-random-variable-mean%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
wondering what a conditional random variable means, normally a conditioned random variable means known value, such as P(X|Y=1), but I also noticed sometimes Y is unspecified as P(X|Y=y), so in this case, what does a condition really mean?
$endgroup$
– Yneedtobeserious
2 hours ago