# Distinguishing Log-Concavity from Heavy Tails

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Background

**Lemma**

**1.**

## 3. Theoretical Results

#### 3.1. Convergence Properties

**Proposition**

**1.**

- Let X be RV$(\alpha )$ with $\alpha >1$, eventually decreasing density f. Then,$$g(d)=1-\frac{c}{d}+\mathrm{o}(1/d)\phantom{\rule{1.em}{0ex}}\mathit{where}\phantom{\rule{4.pt}{0ex}}c=\frac{2\alpha \mathbb{E}[X]}{\alpha +1}.\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}$$
- Let X be Weibull distributed with $\alpha <1$. Then,$$g(d)=1-\mathrm{o}({d}^{\alpha -1}).$$
- Let X be of lognormal type. Then,$$g(d)=1-\mathrm{o}({log}^{\gamma -1}x/x).$$

**Remark**

**1.**

**Proposition**

**2.**

**Theorem**

**1.**

## 4. Statistical Application: Visual Test

**Remark**

**2.**

#### 4.1. Examples and Applications

#### 4.2. Finer Diagnostics

## 5. Proofs

**Proof**

**of**

**Lemma**

**1.**

**Lemma**

**2.**

**Proof.**

**Proof**

**of**

**Proposition**

**1.**

**Proof**

**of**

**Proposition**

**2.**

**Proof**

**of**

**Theorem**

**1.**

## Author Contributions

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- M.Y. An. “Logconcavity versus logconvexity: A complete characterization.” J. Econom. Theory 80 (1998): 350–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- A. Saumard, and J.A. Wellner. “Log-concavity and strong log-concavity: A review.” Stat. Surv. 8 (2014): 45–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- R.C. Gupta, and N. Balakrishnan. “Log-concavity and monotonicity of hazard and reversed hazard functions of univariate and multivariate skew-normal distributions.” Metrika 75 (2012): 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- J. Lehtomaa. “Limiting behaviour of constrained sums of two variables and the principle of a single big jump.” Stat. Probab. Lett. 107 (2015): 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M. Cule, R. Samworth, and M. Stewart. “Maximum likelihood estimation of a multi-dimensional log-concave density.” J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 72 (2010): 545–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- G. Walther. “Inference and modeling with log-concave distributions.” Stat. Sci. 24 (2009): 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- F. Balabdaoui, K. Rufibach, and J.A. Wellner. “Limit distribution theory for maximum likelihood estimation of a log-concave density.” Ann. Stat. 37 (2009): 1299–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- M.L. Hazelton. “Assessing log-concavity of multivariate densities.” Stat. Probab. Lett. 81 (2011): 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- L. Dümbgen, and K. Rufibach. “Maximum likelihood estimation of a log-concave density and its distribution function: Basic properties and uniform consistency.” Bernoulli 15 (2009): 40–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- S. Asmussen, and P.W. Glynn. “Stochastic simulation: Algorithms and analysis.” In Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability. New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2007, Volume 57. [Google Scholar]
- S. Ghosh, and S. Resnick. “A discussion on mean excess plots.” Stoch. Process. Appl. 120 (2010): 1492–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- M.E. Crovella, and M.S. Taqqu. “Estimating the heavy tail index from scaling properties.” Methodol. Comput. Appl. Probab. 1 (1999): 55–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- J. Del Castillo, J. Daoudi, and R. Lockhart. “Methods to distinguish between polynomial and exponential tails.” Scand. J. Stat. 41 (2014): 382–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Y.R. Gel, W. Miao, and J.L. Gastwirth. “Robust directed tests of normality against heavy-tailed alternatives.” Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 51 (2007): 2734–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- N.H. Bingham, C.M. Goldie, and J.L. Teugels. “Regular variation.” In Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989, Volume 27. [Google Scholar]
- H. Albrecher, C.Y. Robert, and J.L. Teugels. “Joint asymptotic distributions of smallest and largest insurance claims.” Risks 2 (2014): 289–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- I. Armendáriz, and M. Loulakis. “Conditional distribution of heavy tailed random variables on large deviations of their sum.” Stoch. Process. Appl. 121 (2011): 1138–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- S.G. Bobkov, and G.P. Chistyakov. “On concentration functions of random variables.” J. Theor. Probab. 28 (2015): 976–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- A.R. Pruss. “Comparisons between tail probabilities of sums of independent symmetric random variables.” Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 33 (1997): 651–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- S. Asmussen, and D. Kortschak. “Error rates and improved algorithms for rare event simulation with heavy Weibull tails.” Methodol. Comput. Appl. Probab. 17 (2015): 441–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- A. Baltrūnas, and E. Omey. “The rate of convergence for subexponential distributions and densities.” Liet. Math. J. 42 (2002): 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- E. Omey, and E. Willekens. “Second order behaviour of the tail of a subordinated probability distribution.” Stoch. Process. Appl. 21 (1986): 339–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- B. Pfaff, and A. McNeil. “evir: Extreme Values in R. 2012. R Package Version 1.7-3.” Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=evir (accessed on 14 November 2016).
- A. McNeil. “Estimating the tails of loss severity distributions using extreme value theory.” Astin Bull. 27 (1997): 117–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- H. Albrecher, and S. Asmussen. “Ruin probabilities.” In Advanced Series on Statistical Science & Applied Probability. Hackensack, NJ, USA: World Scientific Publishing, 2010, Volume 14. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Graphs of $\widehat{g}(d,n)$ for $n=10,000$ for Gamma distributed random variables with shapes $0.2,1$ and 5 in figures (

**a**), (

**b**) and (

**c**), respectively. All variables are standardised to have mean 3.

**Figure 2.**Graphs of $\widehat{g}(d,n)$ for $n=10,000$ for Weibull distributed random variables with shapes $0.2,1$ and 5 in figures (

**a**), (

**b**) and (

**c**), respectively. All variables are standardised to have mean 3.

**Figure 3.**Graph of $\widehat{g}(d,n)$ from a classical set of Danish fire insurance data that can be obtained for instance from data set ‘danish’ in the R package [23]. The data is scaled to have mean 1. The sample is traditionally used to illustrate how heavy-tailed data behaves. A similar set of data was previously used in [24]. The graph supports the usual finding that the data set is heavy-tailed.

**Figure 4.**The graphs of multiple versions of $\widehat{g}(d,n)$ based on a dataset obtained from Hansjörg Albrecher (private communication) and related to occurrences of floods in a particular area. The data is scaled to have mean 1. The sample size is $n=39$. Bivariate vectors $({X}_{1},{Y}_{1}),\dots ,({X}_{19},{Y}_{19})$ were sampled several times randomly without replacement from the original data. The overall appearance of the paths points to the data being heavy- rather than light-tailed.

**Figure 5.**$d\left(\right)open="("\; close=")">1-\widehat{g}(d,n)$. Pareto in the first row, lognormal in the second, and Weibull in the last. $R=5000$ (left), $R=5\times {10}^{6}$ (right).

© 2017 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 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Asmussen, S.; Lehtomaa, J.
Distinguishing Log-Concavity from Heavy Tails. *Risks* **2017**, *5*, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks5010010

**AMA Style**

Asmussen S, Lehtomaa J.
Distinguishing Log-Concavity from Heavy Tails. *Risks*. 2017; 5(1):10.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks5010010

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Asmussen, Søren, and Jaakko Lehtomaa.
2017. "Distinguishing Log-Concavity from Heavy Tails" *Risks* 5, no. 1: 10.
https://doi.org/10.3390/risks5010010