Introduction
Recall that pdf (or cdf) describes the random behaviour of a random variable completely .
However, we may sometimes find the pdf (or cdf) to be too complicated, and only want to know some partial information about the random variable.
In view of this, we study some properties of distributions in this chapter,
which provide partial descriptions of the random behaviour of the random variable.
Some examples of such partial descriptions include
- location (e.g. pdf is 'located' at left or right?),
- dispersion (e.g. 'sharp' of 'flat' pdf?),
- skewness (e.g. pdf is symmetric, skewed to left, or skewed to right?), and
- tail property (e.g. pdf have 'light' or 'heavy' tails?).
We can qualitatively describe them, but such descriptions are quite subjective and inaccurate.
To give a more objective and accurate measure to such descriptions, we evaluate them quantitatively using some quantitative measures derived from the pdf (or cdf) of the random variable.
We will discuss some of such quantitative measures in this chapter. Among these, the expectation is the most important one, since many of other properties base upon the concept of expectation.
Expectation
We have different alternative names for expectation, e.g. expected value and mean.
Example.
(Expectation of uniform distribution)
Let
, the uniform distribution with parameters
and
. Then, the pdf of
is
and the expectation of
is
Exercise.
In a process, we first toss an unfair coin one time, with probability
for the head to come up.
If head comes up in the first toss,
we toss another unfair coin one time,
with probability
for the head to come up.
If tails comes up in the first toss instead,
We throw an arrow to the ground one time.
Let
be the number of head coming up in all tosses,
be the angle from the north direction to the direction pointed by the arrow, measured clockwise and in radian,
and
be the number we get from the process finally.
Suppose that
.
In the following, we introduce a useful result that gives the relationship between expectation and probability, we can use expectation to ease the computation of probability using this result.
Proposition.
(Fundamental bridge between probability and expectation)
For each event
,
Proof.
Let
.
Since
(which is a discrete random variable),
When there are multiple random variables involved, we may derive the joint pmf or pdf first to compute the expectation,
but it can be quite difficult and complicated to do so.
Practically, we use the following theorem more often.
Theorem.
(Law of the unconscious statistician (LOTUS))
Let
be random variables. Define
for a function
.
Then,
(i) (if
is discrete)
in which
is joint pmf of
;
(ii) (if
is continuous)
in which
is joint pdf of
.
Remark.
- If
is mixed, we can apply the definition of expectation and use the above two results for the expectations of the discrete and continuous random variables.
- This theorem is known as the law of the unconscious statistician, because we often tend to use this identity without realizing that it is a result of a theorem, instead of a definition.
- This theorem also holds when there is only one random variables involved (the joint pmf and pdf become normal pmf and pdf) , e.g.
The proof is quite complicated, and hence we skip it.
In the following, we will introduce several properties of expectation that can help us to simplify computations of the expectation.
Proposition.
(Properties of expectation)
For each constant
and random variable
,
- (Linearity)
;
- (Nonnegativity) if
,
;
- (Monotonicity) if
,
;
- (Triangle inequality)
;
- (Multiplicativity under independence) if
are independent,
.
Proof.
Linearity:
for continuous random variables
,
Similarly, for discrete random variables
,
Nonnegativity:
For continuous random variable
,
Similarly, for discrete random variable
,
Monotonicity:
For random variables
that are either both discrete or both continuous,
Triangle inequality:
Multiplicativity under independence:
For continuous random variables
,
Similarly, for discrete random variables
,
Remark.
- (Nonmultiplicativity)
in general.
- We cannot apply linearity property similarly when the function inside the expectation is nonlinear. E.g.,
in general.
- From linearity, we can see that the expectation of a constant is simply the constant itself. This is intuitive, since the value we expect for a constant is simply the constant.
- The converse of multiplicativity under independence is true in general, but not always true. For some special dependent random variables, the converse does not hold.
Mean of some distributions of a discrete random variable
Proposition.
(Mean of Poisson r.v.'s)
Let
. Then,
Proof.
Proposition.
(Mean of hypergeometric r.v.'s)
Let
. Then,
.
Mean of some distributions of a continuous random variable
We will introduce the formulas for mean of some distributions of a continuous random variable, which are relatively simpler.
Proof.
Proof.
- It suffices to prove the formula for mean of gamma r.v.'s, since exponential and chi-squared r.v.'s are essentially special cases of gamma r.v.'s, and thus we can simply substitute some values into the formula for mean of gamma r.v.'s to obtain the formulas for them.
- Since
,
by substituting
.
- Since
,
by substituting
and
.
Proposition.
(Mean of beta r.v.'s)
Let
. Then,
.
Proof.
- We use similar approach from the previous proof.
Proposition.
(Undefined mean of Cauchy r.v.'s)
Let
. Then,
is undefined.
Proof.
Proposition.
(Mean of normal r.v.'s)
Let
.
Then,
.
Proof.
- Let
.
- It follows that
.
Examples
Example.
(St. Petersburg Paradox)
Consider a game in which the player toss a fair coin
times,
until a head comes up.
Since
, the expected value of
is
That is, the player requires two tosses to get a head coming up on average.
The game rewards the player
to play the game, but the player must pay back
after getting a head coming up.
Some may think that the expected net gain of the player is
so the player has an advantage in this game.
However, this is wrong since the correct expected net gain is instead
i.e., on average the player has infinite loss!
Let us illustrate the usefulness of fundamental bridge between probability and expectation by giving a proof to inclusion-exclusion using this bridge.
Example.
(Proof of inclusion-exclusion formula)
Recall that the inclusion-exclusion formula is
- For each event
and
,
The proof is as follows:
Probability generating functions
An application of expectation is probability generating functions. As suggested by its name, it can generate probabilities in some sense.
Remark.
- There is also moment generating function, which can generate moments (see next section for the definition) in some sense. We will discuss in the transformation of random variables chapter.
- By taking derivatives of the probability generating function, we can generate probabilities:
- This can be seen directly by evaluating the derivatives.
Variance (and standard deviation)
Indeed, variance is a special case of central moment,
and is related to moment in some sense.
Since
is the squared deviation of the value of
from its mean,
in view of the definition of variance, we can see that variance measure the dispersion (or spread) of distribution, since
it is what we would expect of the squared deviation if we are to take an observation of the random variable.
Another term which is closed related is standard deviation.
Proposition.
(Properties of variance)
- (alternative expression for variance)
- (invariance under change in location parameter)
for each constant
- (homogeneity of degree two)
for each constant
- (zero variance implies non-randomness)
- (additivity under independence)
Proof.
- alternative expression for variance:
- Let
for clearer expression.
and the result follows.
- invariance under change in location parameter:
- nonnegativity: it follows from
.
- zero variance implies non-randomness:
- Let
for clearer expression. Consider the event
, in which
is a positive integer.
- Since
- we have
.
- Thus,
- additivity under independence:
- For each random variable
and
that are independent with means
respectively,
Thus, inductively,
if
are independent.
Variance of some distributions of a discrete random variable
Proposition.
(Variance of Poisson r.v.'s)
Let
. Then,
.
Proof.
- Hence,
![{\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} (X)=\mathbb {E} [X^{2}]-(\mathbb {E} [X])^{2}=\lambda (\lambda +1)-\lambda ^{2}=\lambda .}](../f3af9a9bbeb8ef9ea0401498546df0df8ae5082e.svg)
Proof.
- it follows that
.
- Hence,
.
- Similarly,
in which
are i.i.d., and follow
[5].
- Because of the independence,

Variance of some distributions of a continuous random variable
Proof.
Proof.
- Similarly, it suffices to prove the formula for variance of gamma r.v.'s.
- It follows that
![{\displaystyle \operatorname {Var} (X)=\mathbb {E} [X^{2}]-(\mathbb {E} [X]^{2})={\frac {({\cancel {\alpha }}+1)\alpha }{\lambda ^{2}}}{\cancel {-{\frac {\alpha ^{2}}{\lambda ^{2}}}}}={\frac {\alpha }{\lambda ^{2}}}.}](../d5a3572b1a6dfea800800cbf13a97a9451506878.svg)
- Since
,
by substituting
.
- Since
,
by substituting
and
.
Proposition.
(Variance of beta r.v.'s)
Let
. Then,
.
Proof.
- It follows that
Proposition.
(Undefined variance of Cauchy r.v.'s)
Let
. Then,
is undefined.
Proof.
It follows from the proposition about undefined mean of Cauchy r.v.'s and the formula
(arbitrary term minus undefined term is undefined).
Proposition.
(Variance of normal r.v.'s)
Let
.
Then,
.
Proof.
- Let
.
- It follows that
.
- Hence,
.
Coefficient of variation
Definition.
(Coefficient of variation)
The coefficient of variation is the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean, i.e.
.
Remark.
- It is also known as relative standard deviation, since it measures the dispersion relatively (relative to the mean).
- Thus, it tells the dispersion more accurately than standard deviation without mean.
- Also, coefficient of variation has no unit.
- So, it is useful to compare dispersion between different data sets.
- It shows the extent of dispersion in relation to the mean.
- However, if the mean is zero, then the coefficient of variation is undefined. So, this is a limitation for it.
Example.
If
and
, then for each
, the coefficient of variation of
is
while the coefficient of variation of
is 1/5, which equals that of
if
, equals negative of that of
if
(they are the same in magnitude, i.e. absolute value).
This is expected, since the scaling of random variable itself should not affect the extent of its dispersion.
Remark.
- In general, when the mean is negative, then the coefficient of variation will be nonpositive, since standard deviation is always nonnegative.
Quantile
Then, we will discuss quantile. In particular, median and interqaurtile range are quite related to quantiles.
The following are some terminologies related to quantiles.
Definition.
(Percentile)
The
th percentile is
th quantile.
Example.
70th percentile is 0.7th quantile.
Definition.
(Median)
The median is 0.5th quantile.
Example.
2nd quartile is 0.5th quantile, which is also median.
Definition.
(Interquartile range)
The interquartile range is 3rd quartile minus 1st quartile.
Median and interquartile range measure centrality and dispersion respectively.
Recall that mean and variance measure the same things respectively.
One advantage of median and interquartile range is robust, since they are always defined, while
mean and variance can be infinite, and they fail to measure centrality and dispersion in those occasions.
However, median and interquartile range also have some disadvantages, e.g. they may be more difficult to be computed, and may not be very accurate.
Example.
(Quantile of uniform distribution)
The
th quantile of uniform distribution with parameters
and
is
since
and we can see that
if
.
Then, median of uniform distribution is
which is the same as its mean,
and the interquartile range of uniform distribution is
which is different from its variance, namely
.
Mode
Mode is another measure of centrality.
Definition.
(Mode)
- The mode of a pmf (pdf) is the value of
at which the pmf (pdf) takes its maximum value (has its local maximum).
Remark.
- The mode is the value that is most likely to be sampled (for pmf).
- Mode is less frequently used than mean.
Example.
The modes of the pmf of the numbers coming up from throwing a fair six-faced dice are 1,2,3,4,5 and 6,
since the probability for each of these numbers coming up is 1/6, so the pmf takes its maximum value (1/6) at each of these numbers.
Remark.
- From this example, we can see that the mode is not necessarily unique.
Covariance and correlation coefficients
In this section, we will discuss two important properties of joint distributions, namely covariance and correlation coefficients.
As we will see, covariance is related to variance in some sense, and correlation coefficient is closed related to correlation.
Definition.
(Covariance)
For each random variable
,
the covariance of
is
Definition.
(Correlation coefficient)
For each random variable
such that
,
the correlation coefficient is
Both covariance and correlation coefficient measure linear relationship between
and
.
As we will see,
,
are more highly correlated as
increases, and
has a linear relationship with
if
.
Proposition.
(Properties of covariance)
(i) (symmetry) for each random variable
,
(ii) for each random variable
,
(iii) (alternative formula of covariance)
(iv)
for each constant
,
and for each random variables
,
(v) for each random variable
,
Proof.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Then, we will discuss about correlation coefficients.
The following is the definition of correlation between correlation between two random variables.
Remark.
, and
if
and
. This explains why we use covariance instead of correlation coefficient. It is because covariance is always defined, but correlation coefficient may be undefined.
Covariance and correlation coefficient are similar, but they have differences.
In particular,
depends on variances of
and
, not just their relationship.
Thus, this number is affected by the variances, and does not measure their relationship accurately.
On the other hand,
adjusts for variances of
and
, and therefore measures their
relationships more accurately.
The following is one of the most important properties of correlation coefficient.
Proposition.
(Universal measure by correlation coefficient)
Correlation coefficient lies between -1 and 1 (inclusively).
Proof.
For each random variable
,
Aim: prove that
.
To get rid of the square root to make the proof neater, we square both side of the inequality, and get
.
Recall that
. So, one way to prove the rightmost inequality is expressing its left side as
, as follows:
Thus, the result follows.
Remark.
For each random variable
,
- the higher the
, the higher the correlation between 
- because of this, we can compare the correlation of different pairs of random variables
- if
,
increases linearly with 
- if
,
decreases linearly with 
Then, we will define several terminologies related to correlation coefficient.
Then, we will state an important result that is related to independence and correlation.
Intuitively, you may think that 'independent' is the same as 'uncorrelated'. However, this is wrong.
Indeed, 'independent' is stronger than 'uncorrelated'.
Proposition.
(Relationship between independence and correlation)
If two random variables are independent, they are uncorrelated.
Proof.
For each independent random variable
with mean
respectively,
However, converse is not true, as we will see in the following example.
Example.
Let
such that they are independent.
Set
.
Since
,
, and
,
their joint pmf is
The covariance
and so
are uncorrelated.
On the other hand,
and so
are not independent.
This illustrates that 'uncorrelated' does not imply 'independent'.
- ↑ Each of the Bernoulli r.v.'s acts as an indicator for the success of the corresponding trial. Since, there are
independent Bernoulli trials, there are
such indicators.
- ↑ Each geometric r.v. shows the number of failure for the corresponding success.
- ↑ since this probability is unconditional, because the corresponding mean is also unconditional, so that their sum is also unconditional mean (as in the proposition)
- ↑
are dependent, but we can still use the linearity of expectation, since it does not require independence.
- ↑ Each geometric r.v. shows the number of failure for the corresponding success.