A delay is never negative and averages minutes, and nothing else about its distribution is known. Could the probability of a delay of minutes or more be ? It could not, and the reason takes one line. This lesson derives Markov’s and Chebyshev’s inequalities, which turn a mean or a variance into a guaranteed ceiling on a tail probability, states the conditions each one needs, and shows that some distributions reach these ceilings exactly.
Key terms
Probability bound
Definition An upper bound for the probability of an event is a number with that is proved from partial information about the model, such as the possible values, the mean or the variance, and therefore holds for every distribution with that information. A lower bound is defined the same way. A tail probability is the probability of an event such as or , in which a variable is large or far from its mean. Every probability is at most , so an upper bound is true but carries no information, and the useful statement is .
In plain words A bound is a ceiling, not an estimate. It promises that the probability is no larger, while the actual probability can be far smaller, even . Distributions that share the same partial information can have very different tail probabilities under the same ceiling.
Example Here are three nonnegative delay models, each with mean minutes. The first always gives exactly minutes. The second gives with probability and with probability . The third gives with probability and with probability . Their probabilities of a delay of at least minutes are , and . The next card shows that this probability is at most for every nonnegative variable with mean . For the threshold the same inequality gives the ratio , which only says that the probability is at most .
Markov’s inequality
Definition Let be a random variable with and finite expectation, and let . Then
To prove it, let be the indicator of the event . With probability the inequality holds, because where and where . Taking expectations gives , and dividing by finishes the proof. For a discrete the same argument reads
The first inequality drops the terms with , which are nonnegative because , and the second replaces each remaining value by the smaller or equal number . Since is contained in , the same bound holds for .
In plain words If more than of the probability sat at or above, those values alone would contribute more than to the mean. Nonnegativity matters because negative values could pull the mean back down and hide a heavy upper tail. The threshold has to be positive so that dividing by it is possible and keeps the direction of the inequality.
Example A nonnegative delay with mean minutes has , and the minutes cancel. Without nonnegativity the argument fails. If or with probability each, the mean is , yet , larger than the value the formula would give. The negative values canceled the positive ones in the mean.
Two-sided deviation event
Definition Let have finite mean and let . The two-sided deviation event at distance is . It is the union of the lower tail and the upper tail , and both boundary points and belong to it. Its complement is the event , which is with strict inequalities. The strict event is contained in the two-sided event and has smaller probability when the boundary points carry probability. Because both sides are nonnegative, holds exactly when . A one-sided event such as is contained in the two-sided event, so its probability is no larger.
In plain words A two-sided event counts misses in either direction. For a discrete variable, whose values can sit exactly on a boundary, it pays to write out both tails, check which endpoints are included and take complements with care.
Example Let be the roll of a fair die, so , and take . The event is , with probability . Its complement has probability . The strict event contains no possible roll and has probability .
Chebyshev’s inequality
Definition Let have finite mean and finite variance , and let . Then
and taking complements,
To prove it, note that is nonnegative with expectation , that , and that . Markov’s inequality applied to with threshold gives the bound.
In plain words A small variance leaves little room for probability far from the mean, because probability at distance or more adds at least times its size to the variance. The variance goes in the numerator, not the standard deviation, and the squared units cancel. The inequality needs no symmetry, no bell shape and no continuity.
Example Let have mean units and variance square units. Then , so . The one-sided event is part of the two-sided event, so its probability is also at most . Putting the standard deviation in the numerator would give , which is not a valid bound, since the sharp example below has mean , variance and deviation probability exactly . For the fair die of the previous card, and the bound is , above the actual probability .
Bound in standard deviation units
Definition Let have finite mean and finite standard deviation , and let . Taking in Chebyshev’s inequality gives
Equivalently, at least of the probability lies strictly within standard deviations of the mean. The bound is below exactly when , and for it says nothing. If , then and the deviation event has probability for every .
In plain words Measure the distance from the mean in standard deviations and the ceiling depends on that count alone. For every distribution with finite positive variance, at most a quarter of the probability lies or more standard deviations from the mean, and at most a ninth lies or more away. These are worst cases, not the percentages that hold for a normal distribution.
Example At the bound is and at it is . For a normal distribution the actual probabilities are about and , far below these ceilings. For with mean and standard deviation , the distance is standard deviations, which matches the bound found before. The distance is , and the bound gives no information.
Sharp bound
Definition An inequality that holds for every distribution in a class is sharp for that class if some distribution in the class attains it with equality. No smaller number can then serve as a bound based on the same information. Markov’s inequality is sharp. For a mean and a threshold with , the variable equal to with probability and to otherwise is nonnegative, has mean and has . Chebyshev’s inequality is sharp too. For any , any and any with , put probability at each of and and the remaining at . This distribution has mean , variance and
When or the ratio exceeds , and the capped value is attained by the constant or by the values with probability each.
In plain words Sharp means the worst case really happens, so nothing better can be promised from the same information. It does not mean the bound is close for the distribution at hand. A better answer for a particular model needs more information about it.
Example The delay equal to with probability and with probability is nonnegative with mean and has , exactly Markov’s bound. The variable equal to , or with probabilities , and has mean and variance , and , exactly Chebyshev’s bound. In both examples all the tail probability sits exactly on the boundary, so the strict events and have probability .
Check yourself
- A cost is nonnegative with mean . Bound . What does Markov’s inequality say about ?
Show the answer
Markov’s inequality gives . This is a ceiling, and the cost equal to with probability and otherwise reaches it. For the threshold the ratio is , which is true but says no more than . Indeed a cost that always equals has .
- A measurement has mean and variance . Bound and give a lower bound for . A classmate answers for the first part. What went wrong?
Show the answer
Chebyshev’s inequality gives . The standard deviation is , so the distance is standard deviations and agrees. The complement gives , with strict inequalities because the bounded event includes and . The classmate put the standard deviation in the numerator instead of the variance . The value is not a valid bound, since the measurement equal to or with probability each and to with probability has mean , variance and deviation probability exactly .
- A daily profit , in hundreds of dollars, can be negative and has mean . Does Markov’s inequality give ? If in addition on every outcome, what bound follows, and can it be improved with only this information?
Show the answer
No, because is not nonnegative. The profit equal to or with probability each has mean but , larger than . With , the shifted variable is nonnegative with mean , and
The profit just described satisfies , has mean and attains , so this bound is sharp and cannot be lowered with only these facts.