2

If the random variable X has a probability distribution function that is symmetric around the mean, does the random variable Y=a+bX has a symmetric probability distribution?

Also, what is the covariance and the correlation between X and Y?

Thanks!

Karl Smith
  • 21
  • 1
  • Using the definition of symmetry offered at https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/29010/919, the answer is immediate, because the event $bX+a\ge b\mu+a$ (for any number $\mu$) is equivalent to either $X\ge \mu$ or $X\le \mu$ provided $b\ne 0$ (and when $b=0$ the variable $Y$ is constant, making it obviously symmetric). – whuber Oct 21 '21 at 15:44

2 Answers2

3

By the change of variables formula, the pdf of $Y$ is given by $$f_Y(y) = f_X\left(T^{-1}(y)\right)\left\vert \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dy}T^{-1}(y)\right\vert,$$ where $T(x) = a + bx$. Thus, $T^{-1}(y) = \frac{y - a}{b}$ and $\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm dy}T^{-1}(y) = \frac 1b$. So we have that $$f_Y(y) = f_X\left(\frac {y-a}b\right)\frac{1}{\vert b\vert}.$$ Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ denote the means of $X$ and $Y$, respectively. Note that $\nu = a + b\mu$. Now does it hold that $f_Y(\nu + y) = f_Y(\nu - y)$ for all $y\in\mathbb R$?

It holds that $$f_Y(\nu + y) = \frac{1}{\vert b\vert}f_X\left(\frac{\nu + y - a}{b}\right) = \frac{1}{\vert b\vert}f_X\left(\frac{a+b\mu - y -a}{b}\right) = \frac{1}{\vert b\vert}f_X\left(\mu - \frac yb\right)$$ and $$f_Y(\nu - y) = \frac{1}{\vert b\vert}f_X\left(\frac{\nu - y - a}{b}\right) = \frac{1}{\vert b\vert}f_X\left(\frac{a+b\mu - y -a}{b}\right) = \frac{1}{\vert b\vert}f_X\left(\mu + \frac yb\right).$$ For every $y\in\mathbb R$, let $x = \frac yb$. Then, since by assumption, $f_X(\mu + x) = f_X(\mu-x)$ for all $x\in\mathbb R$, we have that the distribution of $Y$ is symmetric.

Let $\sigma^2$ denote the variance of $X$. Then $b^2\sigma^2$ is the variance of $Y$. The covariance between $X$ and $Y$ is given by $b\sigma^2$, which can be verified easily by applying the usual laws for variance and covariance. Thus, the correlation between $X$ and $Y$ is given by $$\frac{b\sigma^2}{\sqrt{\sigma^2 b^2\sigma^2}} = \pm 1.$$ Note that since $X$ and $Y$ are perfect linear combinations, it's already clear that both variables are perfectly correlated.

lmaosome
  • 140
  • 8
  • 1
    It is not necessary to assume $Y$ has a pdf. Indeed, the answer greatly simplifies when you don't assume this. – whuber Oct 21 '21 at 15:45
2

The answer from @Imaosome is already good, but I would like complement the first part and provide an answer that does not rely on the change of variables formula.

We say that $X$ is symmetric in around $\mu$ if $\mathbb{P}(X < \mu - x ) = 1 - \mathbb{P}(X > \mu + x ), \, \forall x \in \, \mathbb{R}$. Notice that $X$ might not have a density function, e.g. can be discrete. If the density exists, it is equivalent to $f_X(\mu - x) = f_X(\mu + x), \, \forall x \in \, \mathbb{R}$.

Assume $X$ is symmetric around $\mu$ and let $Y = a + bX$. We will prove that $Y$ is symmetric around $\gamma = a+b\mu$.

\begin{align} \mathbb{P}(Y < \gamma - z) &= \mathbb{P}(Y < a + b\mu - z)\\ &= \mathbb{P}(a+bX < a + b\mu - z) \\ &= \mathbb{P}(X < \mu - z/b) \\ &= 1 - \mathbb{P}(X > \mu + z/b) \quad\textbf{(X symmetry)}\\ &= 1 - \mathbb{P}(Y > a + b\mu + z) \\ &= 1 - \mathbb{P}(Y > \gamma + z), \end{align}

proving the result. Notice that $\mu$ does not necessarily have to be $E[X]$. In fact, $E[X]$ might not even exist, and the result still holds.

Lucas Prates
  • 1,183
  • 4
  • 15
  • 2
    If $X$ is a discrete random variable taking on values $\pm 1$ with equal probability $\frac 12$, I think that most people would agree that $X$ has a symmetric distribution about $\mu = 0$ but for $x=1$, $F_X(\mu-1) = F_X(-1) = \frac 12$ whereas $F_X(\mu+1) = F_X(1) = 1$ and so it is _not_ true that $F_X(\mu-x)$ equals $1 - F_X(\mu+x)$ for _all_ $x \in \mathbf R$; it fails for $x=1$. More generally, for discrete random variables, the claim fails at every $x$ that is one of the possible values of the discrete random variable $X$. You need a better definition of symmetry. – Dilip Sarwate Oct 21 '21 at 14:32
  • @DilipSarwate Indeed, good observation. The problem was that one sided included the equality sign, while the other did not. It probably can be stated using the c.d.f. and adding the mass probability (difference between right and left limit) in one of the sides, but I changed the definition to use the probability measure directly since it seems more readable. I think it will now cover the discrete cases. – Lucas Prates Oct 21 '21 at 15:19
  • 1
    This is the right approach. However, you implicitly assume $b\gt 0.$ The demonstration works a little differently in the cases $b=0$ and $b\lt 0.$ For the "better definition of symmetry" requested by @Dilip, see the beginning of my post at https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/29010/919. It shows that you are correct. That request arises by confusing $\mathbb P$ with $F_X,$ but they are subtly different. – whuber Oct 21 '21 at 15:46
  • 1
    @whuber yes, the proof is slightly different if $b$ is not positive, thanks for pointing it out. Also, it is interesting to see the more general approach to symmetry in probability using group theory. – Lucas Prates Oct 21 '21 at 17:12