arXiv:1606.07602v2 [] 28 Jun 2016

Supports of Implicit Dependence Copulas
Songkiat Sumetkijakan
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University
Phayathai Road, Bangkok, Thailand
June 24, 2016
Abstract
A copula of continuous random variables X and Y is called an implicit
dependence copula if there exist functions α and β such that α(X) =
β(Y ) almost surely, which is equivalent to C being factorizable as the
∗-product of a left invertible copula and a right invertible copula. Every
implicit dependence copula is supported on the graph of f (x) = g(y) for
some measure-preserving functions f and g but the converse is not true
in general.
We obtain a characterization of copulas with implicit dependence supports in terms of the non-atomicity of two newly defined associated σalgebras. As an application, we give a broad sufficient condition under
which a self-similar copula has an implicit dependence support. Under certain extra conditions, we explicitly compute the left invertible and right
invertible factors of the self-similar copula.

Keywords: Markov operators; non-atomic; bivariate copulas; implicit dependence; self-similar copulas; fractal support
MSC2010: 28A20; 28A35; 46B20; 60A10; 60B10

1

Introduction

It is well-known that the bivariate copula of two random variables completely
captures their dependence structure. Notable examples are the independence
copula Π(u, v) = uv, which corresponds to independent random variables, and
the copulas of completely dependent random variables, called complete dependence copulas. Since it was discovered [10, 9, 8] that there are complete dependence copulas arbitrarily closed to Π in the uniform norm, many norms have
been introduced and investigated in the literature [3] giving rise to measures of
dependence such as ω in [17] and ζ1 in [18]. These dependence measures defined
in terms of the copula’s first partial derivatives attain the maximum value 1 at
least for complete dependence copulas and the minimum value 0 when and only
when the copula is Π. However, with respect to the measure of mutual complete
1

dependence (MCD) ω, the independence copula can still be approximated by
implicit dependence copulas [1], defined as copulas of random variables X and Y
which are implicitly dependent in the sense that f (X) = g(Y ) a.s. for some Borel
measurable functions f and g. For Rényi-type measures of dependence [13] such
as ω∗ in [15] and ν∗ in [7], with respect to which all complete dependence copulas
have measure 1, it can be proved that all implicit dependence copulas also have
maximum measure 1. It is then evident that implicit dependence copulas plays
a crucial role in understanding as well as comparing and contrasting measures
of MCD and Rényi-type dependence measures. Closely related and constituting
a much larger class than the implicit dependence copulas are the copulas whose
supports are that of an implicit dependence copula.
We shall investigate copulas with implicit dependence supports via their corresponding Markov operators and associated pairs of σ-algebras. Our approach
is motivated by the characterization of idempotent copulas via their σ-algebras
of invariant sets in [4]. In particular, they proved that non-atomic idempotent
copulas must be of the form L ∗ Lt for some left invertible copula L (where
C t denotes the transpose of C, i.e. C t (x, y) = C(y, x), and ∗ is the product of
∗
copulas first defined and studied in [2, 12]). We define σ-algebras σC and σC
associated with a copula C for which the corresponding Markov operator TC
∗
. We
maps indicator functions of sets in σC to indicator functions of sets in σC
prove that copulas with implicit dependence supports are exactly copulas whose
both σ-algebras are non-atomic. Our main result finds an application in copulas
with fractal supports introduced by Fredricks, Nelsen and Rodrı́guez-Lallena [6].
Given a transformation matrix A, there is a unique self-similar copula CA such
that [A](CA ) = CA , where [A] maps the class of bivariate copulas into itself
according to the weights given by the entries in A. As a consequence, we obtain
a broad sufficient condition on a transformation matrix A under which the selfsimilar copula CA is non-atomic and hence has an implicit dependence support.
Working directly with the transformation matrix A, a sufficient condition under which CA is an implicit dependence copula is also given. It would be even
more interesting if we had a characterization of implicit dependence copulas
via behaviors of their σ-algebras. We are hopeful that our future attempts will
not be futile as such a characterization would be beneficial in studies involving
products of implicit dependence copulas.
The manuscript is organized as follows. Section 2 lays the necessary background on copulas and Markov operators for the rest of the paper. We then
define the associated σ-algebras of a copula and prove their basic properties
in Section 3. Section 4 gives a definition of non-atomic copulas and some of
their fundamental properties summarizing in a characterization of non-atomic
copulas. In the final section, the characterization is used in an investigation of
copulas with fractal support. We also give a sufficient condition on a transformation matrix under which the induced invariant copula can be written as the
product of a left invertible copula and a right invertible copula.

2

2

Background on copulas and Markov operators

Let λ denote the Lebesgue measure on R, I ≡ [0, 1] and B ≡ B(I) the Borel
σ-algebra on I. Since we always consider λ-integrable functions on I that are
measurable with respect to various sub-σ-algebras M of B, we will denote by
L1 (M ) the class of λ-integrable M -measurable functions on I. B-measurable
functions are called Borel functions. For A ∈ B, 1A denotes the indicator
function of A and 1 ≡ 1I .
A (bivariate) copula C is a function from I 2 to I which is the joint distribution function of two random variables uniformly distributed on [0, 1]. For
random variables X, Y with joint distribution FX,Y and continuous marginal
distributions FX and FY , there exists, by the Sklar’s theorem, a unique copula
C, called the copula of X and Y , for which FX,Y (x, y) = C(FX (x), GY (y)) for
all x, y. The independence copula is the product copula Π(u, v) = uv. Complete dependence copulas are either the copulas Cef ≡ Ce,f or Cf e ≡ Cf,e
where e(x) = x and f is a measure-preserving function on I in the sense that
λ(f −1 (B)) = λ(B) for all B ∈ B. Here, Cf,g (u, v) = λ(f −1 ([0, u]) ∩ g −1 ([0, v]))
for u, v ∈ I. The comonotonic and countermonotonic copulas are M = Ce,e and
W = Ce,1−e , respectively. Each copula C induces a doubly stochastic measure
µC by µC ((a, b] × (c, d]) = C(b, d) − C(b, c) − C(a, d) + C(a, c). The support of
C is then defined as the support of the induced measure µC , i.e. the complement of the union of all open sets having zero µC -measure. One can construct
a new copula by taking any convex combinations of two copulas. Any two copulas C, D also give rise to a new copula via the ∗-product: (C ∗ D)(u, v) =
R1
∂ C(u, t)∂1 D(t, v) dt. The binary operation ∗ makes the class of copulas a
0 2
monoid with null element Π and identity M . If C ∗ D = M then C is a left
inverse of D and D is a right inverse of C. The left invertible copulas are exactly the complete dependence copulas Cef , while the right invertible copulas
are exactly the complete dependence copulas Cf e . See [11, 5] for comprehensive
introductions to many aspects of copulas.
A linear operator T on L1 (B) is called a Markov operator if
i. T 1 = 1,
R1
R1
ii. 0 T ψ dλ = 0 ψ dλ for all ψ ∈ L1 , which is equivalent to T ∗ 1 = 1, and
iii. T ψ ≥ 0 for all ψ ≥ 0, which means T is positive.
So a Markov operator must be a bounded linear operator on L1 (and L∞ ). From
[12], for each copula C, there corresponds a Markov operator TC defined by
(TC ψ)(x) =

d
dx

1

Z

∂2 C(x, t)ψ(t) dt.
0

In fact, the mapping Φ : C 7→ TC is an isomorphism from the set of copulas
endowed with the ∗-product onto the set of Markov operators under
R 1 the composid
∂ C(t, y)ϕ(t) dt.
tion. In particular, TC∗D = TC ◦TD . Define also (TC∗ ϕ)(y) = dy
0 1
3

The copula C and the Markov operators TC and TC∗ are also related by the identities
Z y
Z x
TC∗ 1[0,x] (t) dt.
(1)
TC 1[0,y] (t) dt and C(x, y) =
C(x, y) =
0

0

In fact, it is a good exercise in functional analysis to verify that the Markov
operator TC∗ coincides with the extension of the adjoint of TC to a Markov
operator on L1 , i.e. TC∗ = (TC )∗ .
Let us quote a very useful result from [4, Theorem 2.11] where, for brevity,
we denote TCf,g = Tf,g .
Theorem 2.1. Let f be a measure-preserving Borel function and ψ ∈ L1 (B).
Then [Tef ψ](x) = ψ ◦ f (x) and [Tf e (ψ ◦ f )](x) = ψ(x) for almost all x ∈ [0, 1].

3

Associated σ-algebras

Unless stated otherwise, all equalities of two functions hold λ-almost everywhere
and all equalities of two sets mean that their symmetric difference has Lebesgue
R
measure zero. The integral on the whole unit interval I is denoted simply by .
Let C be the copula of random variables X and Y which are uniformly
distributed on [0, 1]. Then for any Borel sets R, S ⊆ [0, 1], we have
TC 1S (x) = P (Y ∈ S|X = x)

and TC∗ 1R (y) = P (X ∈ R|Y = y).

They are called transition probabilities. See [2] We also have TC∗ = TC t and
∗
(TC∗ ) = TC . Roughly speaking, if TC 1S = 1R , then it happens with probability one that if X ∈ R then Y ∈ S. For each copula C or Markov operator
T = TC , let us define
σC = σT ≡ {S ∈ B : T 1S = 1R for some R} and
∗
σC
= σT∗ ≡ {R ∈ B : T 1S = 1R for some S} .

Example 1. Let us explicitly compute TC for C = Π, C = some complete
dependence copulas and C = M +W
.
2
Z
d
1. TΠ 1S = 1R is equivalent to 1R (x) =
∂2 Π(x, t) dt = λ(S) for a.e. x ∈
dx S
[0, 1]. So λ(S) = 0 or 1 and hence λ(R) = λ(S) = 0 or 1. Thus, σΠ =
∗
σΠ
= {S ∈ B : λ(S) = 0 or 1}.
∗
∗
2. With essentially the same arguments as that in [4], σM , σM
, σW and σW
are the Borel sets.

, TC 1S (x) = 12 1S (x) + 12 1S (1 − x) a.e. x. If S is symmetric
3. For C = M +W
2
with respect to 21 , i.e. x ∈ S if and only if 1 − x ∈ S, then TC 1S = 1S .
Conversely, TC 1S (x) = 1R (x) implies that x ∈ S if and only if 1 − x ∈ S.
Moreover, for such a symmetric set S, (1R − 1S )(x) = (TC 1S − 1S )(x) =
1
=
2 (1S (1 − x) − 1S (x)) = 0 a.e. x. That is, R = S. Hence, σ M +W
2
σ ∗M +W = {S ⊆ [0, 1] : x ∈ S ⇔ 1 − x ∈ S}.
2

4

4. For 0 < α < 1, let Lα denote the complete dependence copula whose
support consists of the line segments y = αx , 0 ≤ x ≤ α, and y = x−α
1−α ,
α < x ≤ 1. Then a direct computation yields TLα 1S = 1(αS)∪(α+(1−α)S)
∗
and hence σLα = B and σL
= {αS ∪ (α + (1 − α)S) : S ∈ B}.
α
Listed below are basic properties of sets S and R linked by T .
Proposition 3.1. Let T be a Markov operator and S1 , S2 , R1 , R2 ∈ B. Then
1. if T 1S1 = 1R1 then T ∗ 1R1 = 1S1 ;
2. if T 1S1 = 1R1 then T 1S1c = 1R1c ;
3. if T 1Si = 1Ri for i = 1, 2, then T 1S1 ∩S2 = 1R1 ∩R2 ;
4. the classes σT and σT∗ are σ-algebras; and
∗
= σC t .
5. σT∗ = σT ∗ , that is σC

Proof. 1: By the definition
of T ∗R1R applied to R1S with the canonical
identi
R
1 ∗
∞
∗
∗
fication between
L
and
L
,
T
1
dλ
=
1
T
1
dλ
=
1
1
dλ =
R
S
R
R
R
S
R
λ(R) = S 1S dλ. Since 0 ≤ T ∗ 1R ≤ 1 (a.e.), T ∗ 1R = 1S as desired. 2: If
T 1S = 1R then it follows from T 1S +T 1S c = T (1S +1S c ) = T 1 = 1 = 1R +1Rc
that T 1S c = 1Rc . 3: Suppose T 1Si = 1Ri for i = 1, 2 and let S = S1 ∩ S2 ,
R = R1 ∩ R2 . Since S ⊆ Si , 1Si − 1S ≥ 0 and so 1Ri − T 1S R= T (1Si − 1S ) ≥ 0.
Therefore
R
RT 1S ≤ min(1R1 , 1R2 ) = 1R1 ∩R2 = 1R . But (1R − T 1S ) dλ =
1R dλ − 1S dλ = λ(R) − λ(S) = 0, where the last equality follows from considering T ∗ 1R2 (1S1 ) = 1R2 (T 1S1 ). Hence, T 1S = 1R . 4: Suppose T 1Si = 1Ri
for all i ∈ N. By 3.,P
if S1 , S2 , . . . P
are mutually disjoint

P∞ then so is the sequence
∞
∞
R1 , R2 , . . . because i=1 1Ri = i=1 T 1Si = T ( i=1 1Si ) = T 1∪˙ i Si ≤ 1.

S
Thus, T 1∪˙ i Si = 1∪˙ i Ri . Generally, we write i Si as the disjoint union ∪i S̃i ,
where S̃i = Si \ ∪j<i S̃j . Letting T 1S̃i = 1R̃i , it follows from 2., 3. and the disjoint union case above that T 1Si \∪j<i S̃j = 1Ri \∪j<i R̃j . Hence, R̃i = Ri \ ∪j<i R̃j
by induction. Consequently, T (1∪i Si ) = 1∪i Ri . 5: This clearly follows from
1. and the fact that T ∗∗ = T .
Remark. By Theorem 2.1, TL∗ ◦ TL = I, the identity map, on L1 (B) if the
copula L is left invertible. However, it follows from the above Proposition that
for all copula C, TC∗ ◦ TC = I on {1S : S ∈ σ(C)}, or equivalently on the class
of σ(C)-measurable functions.
Theorem 3.2. Let T be a Markov operator with associated σ-algebras σT and
σT∗ . If ψ is σT -measurable then T ψ is σT∗ -measurable.
Proof. By the linearity of T and the definition of σT and σT∗ , if ψ is a simple
σT -measurable function then T ψ is simple and σT∗ -measurable. The case when
ψ is σT -measurable follows from the continuity of T .

5

4

Non-atomic copulas

Definition 1. Let S be a sub-σ-algebra of B. A set S in S is called an atom
in S if λ(S) > 0 and for all E ∈ S , either λ(S ∩ E) = λ(S) or λ(S ∩ E) = 0.
The σ-algebra S is said to be non-atomic if there are no atoms in S ; otherwise,
it is called atomic. S is totally atomic if there isPa (countable) collection of
essentially disjoint atoms E1 , E2 , ... in S such that i λ(Ei ) = 1. We say that a
∗
bivariate copula C is non-atomic if both σ-algebras σC and σC
are non-atomic.
∗
And C is called totally atomic if both σC and σC are totally atomic.
Note that the non-atomicity is a generalization of the notion of the same
name in [4], which is defined only for idempotent copulas C via their invariant
sets defined as Borel sets S for which TC 1S = 1S . However, the two notions
agree for idempotent copulas.
∗
Proposition 4.1. If a copula C is non-atomic and idempotent then σC = σC
is the σ-algebra of invariant sets.

Proof. Since idempotent copula is symmetric, TC∗ = TC t = TC . Consequently,
TC∗ ◦ TC = TC ◦ TC = TC∗C = TC . Now, if TC 1S = 1R then TC∗ 1R = 1S
and so TC∗ ◦ TC 1S = 1S . Hence S is an invariant set of C and so is R as
∗
1R = TC 1S = 1S . That is, σC and σC
are subsets of the class of invariant sets.
The converse inclusions are clear.
∗
in Example 1
Example 2. It is evident from the computations of σC and σC
that Π is totally atomic but M, W, M +W
and
L
are
non-atomic.
In fact, every
α
2
complete dependence copula is non-atomic.

Proposition 4.2. Let C be a copula.
1. σC = B if and only if C is left invertible.
∗
= B if and only if C is right invertible.
2. σC

Proof. We shall prove only 1. as 2. can be proved in a similar manner. If C = Ceg
then TC = Teg maps ψ to ψ ◦ g. So for every B ∈ B, TC 1B = 1B ◦ g = 1g−1 (B) .
Hence, σC = B. Conversely, Theorem 5 in [16] implies in particular that T
is multiplicative, meaning T (ψ · φ) = T ψ · T φ for all ψ, φ ∈ L∞ , if and only if
T = Teg for some measure-preserving function g. By the linearity and continuity
of T = TC , it then suffices to show that T (1B ·1E ) = T 1B ·T 1E for all B, E ∈ B.
In fact, if T 1B = 1B 0 and T 1E = 1E 0 then T 1B∩E = 1B 0 ∩E 0 (by Proposition
3.1(3)) and the desired equality follows.
Lemma 4.3. Let C be a copula with associated Markov operator TC and doubly
stochastic measure µC and R, S ⊆ B. TC 1S = 1R if and only if µC (R × S) =
λ(R) = λ(S).
R
Proof. Note the fact that µC (R × S) = R TC 1S dλ.R If TC 1S R = 1R then
µC (R × S) = λ(R) and, by the property of TC , λ(R) = 1R dλ = TC 1S dλ =

6

R

R
1S dλ = λ(S). Conversely,
if µCR(R × S) = λ(R)R = λ(S) then R TC 1S dλ =
R
µC (R × S)
R = λ(S) = 1S dλ = TC 1S dλ and R TC 1S dλ = µC (R × S) =
λ(R) = R 1 dλ. Since TC 1S (t) ∈ [0, 1], TC 1S (t) = 0 for all t ∈
/ R and
TC 1S (t) = 1 for all t ∈ R, i.e. TC 1S = 1R .

Proposition 4.4. Let T be a Markov operator and f and g be measure-preserving
functions on [0, 1]. Then the following are equivalent.
1. T 1g−1 (B) = 1f −1 (B) for all B ∈ B.
2. T (θ ◦ g) = θ ◦ f for all Borel functions θ ∈ L1 .
3. T ψ = Tef ◦ Tge ψ for all g −1 (B)-measurable functions ψ.
Proof. 1 ⇒ 2: For every Borel set B ⊆ I, T (1B ◦ g) = T 1g−1 (B) = 1f −1 (B) =
1B ◦ f . So, T (ψ ◦ g) = ψ ◦ f for all simple Borel functions ψ. By the standard
measure-theoretic argument, T (θ ◦ g) = θ ◦ f for every Borel function θ.
2 ⇒ 3: Using Theorem 2.1, 2. implies that Tf e ◦ T ◦ Teg θ = Tf e (T (θ ◦ g)) =
Tf e (θ ◦ f ) = θ for every Borel function θ, and hence Tf e ◦ T ◦ Teg = I = TM ,
that is Cf e ∗ C ∗ Ceg = M . This means that Cf e ∗ C is the unique left inverse of
Ceg , or Cf e ∗ C = Cge . Left multiplying by Cef yields Cef ∗ Cf e ∗ C = Cef ∗ Cge ,
i.e. Tef ◦ Tf e ◦ T = Tef ◦ Tge . On the other hand, by Theorem 2.1, for any
Borel function θ, Tef ◦ Tf e (θ ◦ f ) = (θ ◦ f ) which gives Tef ◦ Tf e ◦ T (θ ◦ g) =
T (θ ◦ g). Since {θ ◦ g : θ is a Borel function} coincides with the class of g −1 (B)measurable functions, Tef ◦ Tf e ◦ T = T on the class of L1 -functions which
are g −1 (B)-measurable. Therefore, T ψ = (Tef ◦ Tge )ψ for all (g −1 (B) = σC )measurable ψ ∈ L1 .
3 ⇒ 1: This is clear from taking ψ = 1g−1 (B) .
The equivalence relation ≈ on B is defined as follows: E ≈ F if and only
if the symmetric difference E4F has Lebesgue measure zero. Of course, ≈
is still an equivalence relation on any S ⊆ B. The equivalence class of S in
S is denoted by [S]S or just [S] if no confusion can arise. The collection of
equivalence classes in S is denoted by [S ]. [S ] is in fact a measure algebra induced by the Lebesgue measure λ. That is, [S ] is a Boolean σ-algebra
with respect to the operations [S] ∨ [R] = [S ∪ R] and [S] ∧ [R] = [S ∩ R] together
] → [0, 1] defined overloadedly by λ([S]) = λ(S) and satisfying
W∞ with λ : [S
P∞
λ ( i=1 [Ai ]) = i=1 λ([Ai ]) if [Ai ] ∧ [Aj ] = [∅] for i 6= j. See [14, p.398].
∗
TC induces a well-defined equivalence class function ΥC : [σC ] → [σC
] mapping [S] to [R] if and only if TC 1S = 1R . It follows from the defining property
ii of T that λ(R) = λ(S) and hence ΥC is measure-preserving. The following
lemma summarizes results from Theorem 3.2 and the proof of Theorem 3.3 in
[4].
Lemma 4.5 ([4]). Let S ⊆ B be a non-atomic σ-algebra. Then
1. there exists a surjective isomorphism Ψ : [S ] → [B] which means Ψ([S]c ) =
Ψ([S])c , Ψ ([S1 ] ∨ [S2 ]) = Ψ ([S1 ]) ∨ Ψ ([S2 ]), λ([S]) = λ(Ψ([S])) and Ψ is
onto (it follows that Ψ is one-to-one and an isometry with respect to the
7

metric ρ([S], [R]) = λ([S]4[R]) and preserves countable unions and intersections); and
2. for any surjective isomorphism Ψ : [S ] → [B], there exists a unique (a.e.)
measure-preserving Borel function h : [0, 1] → [0, 1] such that h−1 (B) ⊆ S
(in fact, they are essentially equivalent,) and that h−1 (B) ∈ Ψ−1 ([B]) for
all B ∈ B.
Proof. Enumerate Q ∩ [0, 1] = {rn }n∈N and set In = [0, rn ]. For each n ∈ N,
choose Sn in the equivalence class Ψ−1 ([In ]) so that Sk = [0, 1] if rk = 1
and Sk ⊂ Sl whenever rk < rl . Define a Borel measure-preserving function
h(x) = inf {rk : x ∈ Sk }. For S ∈ S , choose B0 ∈ Ψ([S]) and set S0 = h−1 (B0 ).
−1
−1
Since Ψ is 1-1, [S]
(B0 ) ∈ Ψ−1 ([B0 ]) by con0 ]). We prove that h
 = Ψ ([B
−1
−1
sidering M = B ∈ B : h (B) ∈ Ψ ([B]) . Since M is a monotone class
containing all [0, rk ], it contains all Borel sets and we have the claim. To
prove uniqueness, if k : [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a measure-preserving Borel function
such that k −1 (B) ∈ Ψ−1 ([B]) for all B ∈ B, then k −1 ([0, rn ]) ∈ Ψ−1 ([[0, rn ]]).
So λ h−1 ([0, rn ])4k −1 ([0, rn ]) = 0 for all n. By Proposition 10 in [14, Chapter
11 (p. 261)], h = k a.e.
Theorem 4.6. Let C be a copula with associated Markov operator TC and
doubly stochastic measure µC . For measure-preserving functions f and g on
[0, 1], the following are equivalent.
1. µC (graph {f = g}) = 1, where graph {f = g} = {(x, y) : f (x) = g(y)}.
2. TC = Tef ◦ Tge on the class of g −1 (B)-measurable functions.
∗
⊇ f −1 (B).
3. C is non-atomic with σC ⊇ g −1 (B) and σC

Proof. 1 ⇒ 2: By Proposition 4.4, Lemma 4.3 and the measure-preserving property of f and g, it suffices to show that µC (f −1 (B) × g−1 (B)) = λ(f −1 (B)) for
−1
−1
−1
all B ∈ B.
 This follows from µC f (B) × g (B) ≤ µC f (B) × I =
−1
λ f (B) and

µC f −1 (B) × g −1 (B) ≥ µC ({(x, y) : f (x) = g(y) ∈ B})
= µC ({(x, y) : f (x) = g(y)} ∩ {(x, y) : f (x) ∈ B})

= λ f −1 (B) .
 i−1 i 
n
2 ⇒
1:
For
each
n
∈
N
and
i
=
1,
2,
.
.
.
,
2
,
put
I
=
and
i,n
2n , 2n
S
Bn = i f −1 (Ii,n ) × g −1 (Ii,n ). Then B1 ⊇ B2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Bn ⊇ · · · and
n

µC (Bn ) =

2
X

n

µC f

−1

(Ii,n ) × g

−1



(Ii,n ) =

i=1

2
X
i=1

n

λ f

−1

2
 X
(Ii,n ) =
λ (Ii,n ) = 1,
i=1

where we have used Lemma 4.3 in the
second equality and the measure-preserving
T∞
property of f in the third. Set B = n=1 Bn . We have µC (B) = lim µC (Bn ) =
n→∞

8

1. It then suffices to show that B = {(x, y) : f (x) = g(y)}. First, if f (x) 6= g(y)
then there exists n ∈ N such that 21n < |f (x)−g(y)|
/ Bn . ConS and hence (x, y) ∈
versely, it is clear that {(x, y) : f (x) = g(y)} = i {(x, y) : f (x) = g(y) ∈ Ii,n } ⊆
Bn for all n.
2 ⇒ 3: By Proposition 4.4, TC 1g−1 (B) = 1f −1 (B) for all B ∈ B, which
∗
implies that g −1 (B) ⊆ σC and f −1 (B) ⊆ σC
. But both g −1 (B) and f −1 (B)
are non-atomic because g and f are measure-preserving. Therefore the finer
∗
σ-algebras σC and σC
are non-atomic as well.
3 ⇒ 2: Our proof is in three steps. i) By applying Lemma 4.5(1) to σC
∗
∗
and σC
, it follows that ΥC : [σC ] → [σC
] defined earlier is one-to-one, onto,
measure-preserving and preserves order, complementation and the lattice operation on equivalence classes corresponding to countable unions of monotonic
sequence of sets, i.e. ΥC is a surjective isomorphism. ii) By Lemma 4.5(2), there
∗
exists ΞC : [σC
] → [B] and a unique (a.e.) Borel function f : I → I such that
−1
−1
f (B) ∈ ΞC ([B]) for all B ∈ B. So the composition ΞC ◦ ΥC : [σC ] → [B]
satisfies the same properties and induces a unique Borel function g : I → I such
that
g −1 (B) ∈ (ΞC ◦ ΥC )−1 ([B])
for all B ∈ B.
(2)

−1
iii) From (2), ΥC [g −1 (B)] = ΞC ([B]) and, by the definition of ΥC , TC 1g−1 (B) =
1f −1 (B) for all B ∈ B. And the proof is done by Proposition 4.4.
In particular, for measure-preserving functions f, g on I, the support of
Cef ∗Cge “is” the graph of f (x) = g(y), that is µCef ∗Cge (graph {f = g}) = 1, and
its mass is distributed uniformly in the sense that TCef ∗Cge 1B = Tef (Tge 1B ) is
∗
= f −1 (B))-measurable for all B ∈ B.
(σC
Example 3. For a fixed α ∈ (0, 1), consider Cα = αM + (1 − α)W with Markov
∗
operator Tα . It is readily verified that σCα = σC
= {S ∈ B : S = 1 − S} and
α
Tα 1S = 1S for all S ∈ σCα . But only T 21 has the property that T 12 1B is
σC 1 -measurable for all B ∈ B. Note also that C 12 = L 12 ∗ Lt1 .
2

2

5

Copulas with fractal support

Let us recall the construction of copulas with self-similar supports in Fredricks
et al. [6] put in the context of patched copulas [21, 1].
Definition 2. A transformation matrix is a matrix A with nonnegative entries,
for which the sum of all entries is 1 and every row and column has at least one
non-zero entry.
Given a transformation matrix A = [aij ]k×` where the first index (i) is the
column number from left (i = 1) to right (i = k) and the second index (j) is
the row number from bottom (j = 1) to top (j =h `), the matrix
i multiplication
P`
t
of A and B = [bjm ]`×n is defined by [aij ][bjm ] =
j=1 aij bjm . A = [aji ]`×k .

9

This unconventional entry arrangement syncs well with the product of copulas
defined [2] as
Z 1
C ∗ D(u, v) =
∂2 C(u, t)∂1 D(t, v) dt.
0

Let pi denote the sum of the entries in the first i columns of A and let qj
denote the sum of the entries in the first j rows of A where p0 = 0 and q0 = 0.
k
`
The partitions {pi }i=0 and {qj }j=0 of [0, 1] yield a rectangular partition of [0, 1]2
consisting of k·` rectangles with vertices (pi , qj ). Given a copula C, we construct
a new copula denoted by [A](C) by placing a scaled copy of C in each of the
k · ` rectangles weighted according to the mass given by the corresponding entry
in A. It is defined for (u, v) ∈ Rij = [pi−1 , pi ] × [qj−1 , qj ] by
X
v − qj−1 X
u − pi−1 X
aij 0 +
ai0 j
[A](C)(u, v) =
ai0 j 0 +
pi − pi−1 0
qj − qj−1 0
j <j
i <i
i0 <i,j 0 <j


u − pi−1 v − qj−1
,
.
+ aij C
pi − pi−1 qj − qj−1
Here, empty sums are zero by convention. See [6] for more details. It will be
more convenient to view [A](C) as the so-called patched copula [21, 1] defined
as
`
k X
X
aij C (Fi (u), Gj (v))
[A](C)(u, v) =
i=1 j=1



u − pi−1
where Fi (u) = min 1,
1(pi−1 ,∞) (u) is the uniform distribution on
pi −

 pi−1
v − qj−1
1(qj−1 ,∞) (v) is the uniform distribu[pi−1 , pi ] and Gj (v) = min 1,
qj − qj−1
tion on [qj−1 , qj ]. Denote 4pi = pi − pi−1 and 4qj = qj − qj−1 .
We then investigate how this rectangular patching of a copula C according
to the transformation matrix A affects C in terms of their Markov operators.
Z qj
k X
`
X
aij d
∂2 C (Fi (x), Gj (t)) f (t) dt
T[A](C) f (x) =
4qj dx qj−1
i=1 j=1
=

k X
`
X
i=1 j=1

=

aij

d
dx

Z

1

∂2 C (Fi (x), s) f ◦ G−1
j (s) ds

0

k X
`
X
aij
TC (f ◦ G−1
j )(Fi (x)).
4p
i
i=1 j=1

Consequently, T[A](C) (f )(Fi−1 (x)) =
written in matrix form as
h
i
T[A](C) (f )(Fi−1 (x))

=
k×1

`
X
aij
TC (f ◦ G−1
j )(x),
4p
i
j=1

(3)

which can be

ha i h
i
ij
TC (f ◦ G−1
.
j )(x)
4pi k×`
`×1
10

See [19, 20] for essentially the same identity in terms
of Markov kernels.

Define inductively [A]n (C) = [A] [A]n−1 (C) for n ≥ 2. Fredricks et al. [6]
showed that for any transformation matrix A 6= [1] and copula C, [A]n (C)
converges (pointwise and hence uniformly) to a unique copula CA , as n → ∞.
Moreover, CA is the fixed point of [A], i.e. [A](CA ) = CA . However, since
uniform convergence will not suffice for our purposes, we shall investigate the
convergence of [A]k (D) with respect to a stronger norm with respect to which the
∗-product is jointly continuous. We choose
modified Sobolev norm defined
R 1 Rthe
1
2
2
2
2
2
as kCkS = kCk1 + kCk2 where kCki = 0 0 |∂i C(u, v)| du dv. See [3].
Proposition 5.1. Let A be a transformation matrix whose dimension is at least
2 × 2 and let C and D be copulas. Then
k[A](C) − [A](D)kS ≤ r kC − DkS

k
` X
X
p
−
p
q
−
q
i
i−1
j
j−1
 < 1 and k·k is
a2ij
,
a2ij
where r2 = max 
S
p
−
p
q
−
q
i
i−1
j
j−1
j=1 i=1
j=1 i=1


k
` X
X

the modified Sobolev norm .
k

`

Proof. Denote A = [aij ]k×` with k, ` ≥ 2 and let {pi }i=0 , {qj }j=0 be the induced
partitions of [0, 1] on the x-axis and y-axis, respectively. For u ∈ (pi−1 , pi ) and
Pj−1
v ∈ (qj−1 , qj ), ∂1 [A](C)(u, v) = aij Fi0 (u)∂1 C (Fi (u), Gj (v)) + k=1 aik Fi0 (u)
and so
aij
|∂1 C (Fi (u), Gj (v)) − ∂1 D (Fi (u), Gj (v))| .
|∂1 [A](C)(u, v) − ∂1 [A](D)(u, v)| =
pi − pi−1
2

Hence, k[A](C) − [A](D)k1 is equal to
k
` X
X
j=1 i=1

a2ij
(pi − pi−1 )2

Z

qj

Z

pi

2

|∂1 C (Fi (u), Gj (v)) − ∂1 D (Fi (u), Gj (v))| du dv
qj−1

pi−1



k
` X
X
q
−
q
j
j−1 
2
a2ij
=
kC − Dk1 .
p
−
p
i
i−1
j=1 i=1


` X
k
X
pi − pi−1 
2
2
A similar proof yields k[A](C) − [A](D)k2 = 
a2ij
kC − Dk2 .
q
−
q
j
j−1
j=1 i=1
P
Now, since aij ≤ pi − pi−1 and i aij = qj − qj−1 ,
` X
k
X

qj
a2ij
pi
j=1 i=1

`

k

`

`

XX
X
X
− qj−1
≤
aij (qj − qj−1 ) =
(qj −qj−1 )2 <
(qj −qj−1 ) = 1,
− pi−1
j=1 i=1
j=1
j=1

where we have used the assumption that ` ≥ 2 in the last inequality. In fact,
the same assumption implies that aij < pi − pi−1 for some j. The same line
P` Pk
−pi−1
of proof using k ≥ 2 shows j=1 i=1 a2ij qpji −q
< 1 and the desired result
j−1
follows.
11

We now have that the mapping [A] is a contraction on the class of copulas C2
with respect to the modified Sobolev norm. Using the fact [3] that C2 is complete
with respect to the modified Sobolev norm, it follows from the ContractionMapping Theorem that:
Theorem 5.2. For each transformation matrix A of dimension at least 2 × 2,
and for any initial copula D, the sequence {[A]r (D)}r converges to the copula
CA in the modified Sobolev norm.
Definition 3. Let A = [aij ]k×` be a transformation matrix, ∅ =
6 I ⊆ {1, 2, . . . , k}
and ∅ 6= J ⊆ {1, 2, . . . , `}. The pair (I, J) is called an invariant pair of A if
aij = 0 for all (i, j) ∈ (I × J c ) ∪ (I c × J) and aij > 0 for some (i, j) ∈ I × J.
Two invariant pairs (I1 , J1 ) and (I2 , J2 ) of A are called disjoint if I1 ∩ I2 = ∅
and J1 ∩ J2 = ∅. It follows that if they are not disjoint then both I1 ∩ I2 and
J1 ∩ J2 are not empty.
We say that A is disjointly decomposable if A has a finite number
SNof pairwise disjoint invariant pairs (I1 , J1 ), (I2 , J2 ), . . . , (IN , JN ) such that n=1 In =
SN
{1, 2, . . . , k} and n=1 Jn = {1, 2, . . . , `}. For each n = 1, 2, . . . , N , let us denote by An the k × ` matrix whose (i, j)th entry is aij if i ∈ In and j ∈ Jn and
N
X
is equal to zero otherwise. Observe that A =
An and in particular, every
n=1

non-zero entry in A appears
exactly one An . We also say that A is disjointly
Pin
N
decomposable as the sum n=1 An or disjointly decomposable by N invariant
pairs.
Such a disjoint decomposition of A gives rise to two partitions of [0, 1]:
S
S
N
N
{Qn }n=1 and {Pn }n=1 defined by Qn = j∈Jn (qj−1 , qj ) and Pn = i∈In (pi−1 , pi ).
Then λ(Qn ) > 0 and λ(Pn ) > 0 for all n = 1, . . . , N . Each pair (In , Jn ) induces
set functions Gn and Fn mapping B ∈ B to
[
[
Gn (B) ≡
G−1
and Fn (B) ≡
Fi−1 (B) ⊆ Pn .
j (B) ⊆ Qn
j∈Jn

i∈In

−1
Note that G−1
j ((0, 1)) = (qj−1 , qj ) and Fi ((0, 1)) = (pi−1 , pi ).

Remark. If A has N invariant pairs (I1 , J1 ), (I2 , J2 ), . . . , (IN , JN ), not necesSN
SN
sarily disjoint, such that n=1 In = {1, 2, . . . , k} and n=1 Jn = {1, 2, . . . , `}
then A is disjointly decomposable by N 0 ≥ N invariant pairs. In fact, without
loss of generality, if (I1 , J1 ) and (I2 , J2 ) are not disjoint then I 0 ≡ I1 ∩I2 6= ∅ and
J 0 ≡ J1 ∩J2 6= ∅ and it can be shown that (I1 \I2 , J1 \J2 ), (I2 \I1 , J2 \J1 ), (I 0 , J 0 )
are pairwise disjoint invariant pairs. Replacing (I1 , J1 ), (I2 , J2 ) with these three
pairs gives us a finer list of invariant pairs. Then repeat the process until all
invariant pairs are pairwise disjoint.
Lemma 5.3. If (I, J) is an invariant pair of a transformation matrix A and
S, R ∈ B are such that TC 1S = 1R , then T[A](C) 1S G−1 (S) = 1S F −1 (R) .
j∈J

12

j

i∈I

i

Proof. For j ∈ J, we have 1S

j 0 ∈J

G−1
j (x)

−1
G−1
(S) ◦Gj (x)
j0

= 1S (x); otherwise, 1S

j 0 ∈J

G−1
(S) ◦
j0

= 0. So, by (3),

T[A](C) 1S

−1
j∈J Gj (S)

=

k X
`


X
aij
−1
TC 1S 0 G−1
◦
G
(Fi (x))
j
(S)
j ∈J
j0
4pi
i=1 j=1

k X
X
aij
TC (1S )(Fi (x))
4pi
i=1 j∈J
P
X j∈J aij
=
TC (1S )(Fi (x)),
4pi

=

i∈I

where we have used the assumption that P
aij = 0 if i ∈
/ I and j ∈ J. Since for
each i ∈ I, aij = 0 for all j ∈
/ J, the sum j∈J aij is equal to 4pi and
T[A](C) 1S

j∈J

G−1
j (S)

=

X

TC (1S )(Fi (x)) =

i∈I

X

1R (Fi (x)) = 1S

i∈I

Fi−1 (R) (x).

i∈I

Lemma 5.4. Let C be a copula. Suppose a transformation matrix A is disjointly
decomposable by N invariant pairs. If T[A](C) 1S = 1R then for n = 1, . . . , N ,
T[A](C) 1Sn = 1Rn where Sn ≡ S ∩ Qn and Rn ≡ R ∩ Pn .
Proof. For each n = 1, . . . , N , the positivity of T[A](C) implies that T[A](C) 1Sn ≤
T[A](C) 1S = 1R . If it holds that T[A](C) 1Sn = 0 for a.e. x not in Pn , then
T[A](C) 1Sn ≤ 1R∩Pn = 1Rn . Summing over all n gives
1R = T[A](C) 1S =

X

T[A](C) 1Sn ≤

n

X

1Rn = 1R

n

and hence T[A](C) 1Sn = 1Rn for all n. We then prove the claim. If x ∈
/ Pn ≡
S
0
0
(p
,
p
),
then
F
(x)
=
0
or
1
for
all
i
∈
I
and
i
n
i0 ∈In i −1 i


X
X X aij
 (Fi (x))
T[A](C) 1Sn (x) =
TC 
1S∩(qj0 −1 ,qj0 ) ◦ G−1
j
4pi
j 0 ∈Jn
i∈In j∈Jn
X X aij

=
TC 1S∩(qj−1 ,qj ) ◦ G−1
(Fi (x)) = 0.
j
4pi
i∈In j∈Jn

We use the convention that 0 and 1 are not in the support of all functions.
Theorem 5.5. Suppose a transformation matrix A is disjointly decomposable
by N ≥ 2 invariant pairs. Then the invariant copula CA is non-atomic.
Proof. Let S, R ∈ B be such that TCA 1S = 1R and λ(S) = λ(R) > 0. Since
CA = [A](CA ), by Lemma 5.4, TCA 1Sn = 1Rn for all n = 1, 2, . . .S, N where
Sn ≡ Gn (S) ⊆ Qn and Rn ≡ Fn (R) ⊆ Pn are such that S = n Sn and
13

Figure 1: Supports of [A1 ]r (Π), r = 1, 2, . . . , 5
S
R = n Rn . If one of the λ(Sn )’s is strictly between 0 and λ(S) then S and R
∗
are not atoms of σCA and σC
, respectively. Otherwise, there is an n1 such that
A
λ(Sn1 ) = λ(S) and we repeat the process by applying Lemma 5.4 to TCA 1Sn1 =
1Rn1 and obtain Sn1 ,n
S ≡ Gn (Sn1 ) ⊆ GnS(Qn1 ) and Rn1 ,n ≡ Fn (Rn1 ) ⊆ Fn (Pn1 )
are such that Sn1 = n Sn1 ,n , Rn1 = n Rn1 ,n and TCA 1Sn1 ,n = 1Rn1 ,n for all
n = 1, 2, . . . , N . If some λ(Sn1 ,n ) lies between 0 and λ(S) then we are done.
Otherwise, there must be an n2 such that λ(Sn1 ,n2 ) = λ(S). This process will
certainly stop because λ(Gnk (· · · (Gn2 (Qn1 )))) = λ(Qnk ) · · · λ(Qn2 )λ(Qn1 ) → 0
as k → ∞ and λ(S) > 0.
Example 4. Let

0
0
K0 = 0 1/3
0
0

A1 = K0 + K1 and


0
1/12
0 , K 1 =  0
0
1/4

A2 = K0 + K2 where


0 1/4
1/6
0
0  and K2 =  0
0 1/12
1/6


0 1/6
0 0 .
0 1/6

Then both transformation matrices A1 and A2 are disjointly decomposable by
2 invariant pairs ({1, 3} , {1, 3}) and ({2} , {2}). By Theorem 5.5, the invariant
copulas CA1 and CA2 are non-atomic and hence, by Theorem 4.6, it is supported
in the support of an implicit dependence copula. In fact, they share the same
support shown in Figure 1. Note also that both copulas are symmetric as the
corresponding matrices are. We will see later that (only) CA2 can be factored
as L1 ∗ Lt2 for some left invertible copulas L1 , L2 .
A transformation matrix L = [λin ]k×N is said to be a left complete dependence matrix if there is exactly one nonzero entry in each column, i.e. for each
i, there exists a positive integer ni ≤ N such that λin = 0 for n 6= ni . Right
complete dependence matrices are defined similarly.
14

Lemma 5.6. Let L be a left complete dependence matrix with dimension at least
2 × 2 and C be a left invertible copula. Then [L](C), [L]2 (C), . . . , [L]r (C), . . .
are left invertible copulas converging to a left invertible copula CL . The same
statement also holds if all occurrences of “left” are replaced by “right.”
Proof. Since the general case can be proved by induction on r, it suffices to
show that [L](C) is left invertible. By definition, the x-partition of [L](C)
is
P determined by the only non-zero entry in
Pkeach column: p0 = 0 and pi =
0 n 0 , i = 1, . . . , k. So [L](C)(u, v) =
λ
0
i
i ≤i
i=1 λini C (Fi (u), Gni (v)) and
i
[L](C)t ∗ [L](C)(u, v) =

k X
k
X

Z
λini λi0 ni0

i0 =1 i=1

=

k
X

λ2ini

i=1

=

k
X

Z

0

1

 ∂
∂
C Fi0 (t), Gni0 (u)
C (Fi (t), Gni (v)) dt
∂t
∂t

1

∂1 C (Fi (t), Gni (u)) ∂1 C (Fi (t), Gni (v)) Fi0 (t)2 dt

0

λini C t ∗ C(Gni (u), Gni (v))

i=1

=

k
X

λini Gni (min(u, v)) = M (u, v).

i=1

Therefore, [L](C) is left invertible. In general, we have [L]r (C)t ∗ [L]r (C) = M
and so, by taking the limit as r → ∞ with respect to the modified Sobolev norm
(see Theorem 5.2), CLt ∗ CL = M .
Theorem 5.7. Let A be a k × ` transformation matrix, with k, ` ≥ 2, which
is disjointly decomposable by N ≥ 2 invariant pairs. If all A1 , A2 , . . . , AN have
rank one, then CA = L ∗ R for some left invertible copula L and right invertible
copula R.
Proof. If An has rank one, then there exist a row matrix Ln = [λin ]k×1 and a
column matrix Rn = [ρnj ]1×` such that |Ln | = |An | = |Rn | and
An =

1
Ln Rn ,
|An |

(4)

where |A| denotes the sum of the absolute values of all entries in a matrix
A. Stacking up Ln ’s vertically and Rn ’s horizontally, we obtain transformation
matrices
 
LN


 .. 
L = [λin ]k×N =  .  and R = [ρnj ]N ×` = R1 · · · RN .
L1
Since In ’s are disjoint, each column of L has exactly one non-zero entry. Similarly, each row of R has exactly one non-zero entry.
15

We then show that [L](C1 ) ∗ [R](C2 ) = [A](C1 ∗ C2 ) for any copulas C1
and
hP C2 . ForPm = 1, 2,
i . . . , N , denote by Hm the uniform distribution on
m−1
m
1
0
n=1 |An |,
n=1 |An | . So Hm = |Am | on its support. For u, v ∈ [0, 1],
[L](C1 ) ∗ [R](C2 )(u, v)

! ` N
Z 1 X
k X
N
XX
=
λin ∂2 C1 (Fi (u), Hn (t)) 
ρmj ∂1 C2 (Hm (t), Gj (v)) dt
0

=

i=1 n=1

k X
`
X
i=1 j=1

N
X

λin ρnj
|An |
n=1

j=1 m=1

!
C1 ∗ C2 (Fi (u), Gj (v))

(5)

= [A](C1 ∗ C2 )(u, v).

(6)

It is left to verify that the sum over n in (5) is equal to the (i, j)th-element in
PN
A. Since n=1 An is a disjoint decomposition of A = [aij ]k×` , the equation (4)
implies that if (i, j) ∈ Im × Jm for some (unique) m then
aij =

N
X
λin ρnj
λim ρmj
the (i, j)th element of Lm Rm
=
=
,
|Am |
|Am |
|An |
n=1

where the last equality follows from the fact that λin ρnj = 0 if (i, j) ∈
/ In × Jn .
It also clearly follows from this fact that if if (i, j) ∈
/ Im × Jm for all m then
PN λin ρnj
= 0 = aij .
n=1
|An |
By (6), a proof by induction
on r = 1, 2, . . . yields [L]r (C1 ) ∗ [R]r (C2 ) =

r−1
r−1
[A] [L] (C1 ) ∗ [R] (C2 ) = · · · = [A]r (C1 ∗ C2 ). So [L]r (E) ∗ [R]r (E) =
[A]r (E) for all r ≥ 1 if E is an idempotent copula, e.g. E = M or Π. By Lemma
5.6, [L]r (M ) are left invertible copulas and [R]r (M ) are right invertible copulas.
By Theorem 5.2, with respect to the modified Sobolev norm, [L]r (M ),
r
[R] (M ) and [A]r (M ) converge respectively to a left invertible copula CL , a right
invertible copula CR and a copula CA satisfying [L](CL ) = CL , [R](CR ) = CR
and [A](CA ) = CA . As a consequence of the joint continuity of the ∗-product
with respect to k·kS , we obtain CL ∗ CR = CA as desired.
Example 5. Fix r ∈ (0, 1/2) and consider the transformation

 
 
r/2
0
r/2
0
0
0
r/2 0
 0 1 − 2r
0  = 0 1 − 2r 0 +  0 0
r/2
0
r/2
0
0
0
r/2 0

matrix

r/2
0 .
r/2

Both matrices on the right hand side have rank one which implies by Theorem
5.7 that the invariant copula can be factored as the product of a left invertible
copula and a right invertible copula. When r = 1/3, the transformation matrix
is A2 in Example 4. The copula factors,
 CL2 and CR2, of CA2 are shown
0 1/3 0
(approximately) in Figure 2, where L2 =
= R2t .
1/3 0 1/3
16

Figure 2: Supports of [A2 ]5 (Π), [L2 ]5 (Π) and [R2 ]5 (Π) in Example 5

Figure 3: Supports of [A3 ]5 (Π), [L3 ]5 (Π) and [R3 ]5 (Π) in Example 6
Example 6. Let us also consider the factorization of a non-symmetric invariant
copula by first setting






3/10
0
3/28 0 27/140
0 3/10
0
3/10 .
0
0  , L3 =
and R3 =  0
K3 =  0
1/4
0
9/20
1/7 0
9/35
4/10
0
Then the non-symmetric transformation matrix A3 = K0 + K3 is disjointly
decomposable by 2 invariant pairs ({1, 3} , {1, 3}) and ({2} , {2}). Since K0
and K3 have rank one, it follows from Theorem 5.7 and its proof that CA3 =
CL3 ∗ CR3 . Approximations of their supports are illustrated in Figure 3.

6

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for the financial support from the Commission on Higher
Education and the Thailand Research Fund through grant no. RSA5680037. We
would also like to thank Wolfgang Trutschnig and Anusorn Junchuay for sharing
and helping with the R codes used to produce copulas with fractal supports and
their copula factors.

17

References
[1] Chaidee, N., Santiwipanont, T., Sumetkijakan S.: Patched approximations
and their convergence. Comm. Statist. Theory Methods. 45, 2654–2664
(2016)
[2] Darsow, W.F., Nguyen, B., Olsen, E.T.: Copulas and Markov processes.
Illinois J. Math. 36, 600–642 (1992)
[3] Darsow, W.F., Olsen, E.T.: Norms for copulas. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci.
18, 417–436 (1995)
[4] Darsow, W.F., Olsen, E.T.: Characterization of idempotent 2-copulas.
Note Mat. 30, 147–177 (2010)
[5] Durante, F., Sempi, C.: Principles of copula theory. CRC Press (2015)
[6] Fredricks, G.A., Nelsen, R.B., Rodrı́guez-Lallena, J.A.: Copulas with fractal supports. Insurance Math. Econom. 37, 42–48 (2005)
[7] Kamnitui, N., Santiwipanont, T., Sumetkijakan, S.: Dependence measuring
from conditional variances. Depend. Model. 3, 98–112 (2015)
[8] Kimeldorf, G., Sampson, A.R.: Monotone dependence. Ann. of Statist. 6,
895–903 (1978)
[9] Mikusiński, P., Sherwood, H., Taylor, M.D.: Probabilistic interpretations
of copulas and their convex sums. In: Dall’Aglio, G., Kotz, S., Salinetti, G.
(eds.) Advances in Probability Distributions with Given Marginals: Beyond
the Copulas, pp. 111–128. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1991)
[10] Mikusiński, P., Sherwood, H., Taylor, M.D.: Shuffles of min. Stochastica
13. 61–74 (1992)
[11] Nelsen, R.B.: An Introduction to Copulas. 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, New
York (2006)
[12] Olsen, E.T., Darsow, W.F., Nguyen, B.: Copulas and Markov operators.
Lecture Notes-Monograph Series 28, 244–259 (1996)
[13] Rényi, A.: On measures of dependence. Acta. Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar.
10, 441–451 (1959)
[14] Royden, H.L.: Real analysis, 3rd ed. Macmillan, New York (1988).
[15] Ruankong, P., Santiwipanont, T., Sumetkijakan, S.: Shuffles of copulas and
a new measure of dependence. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 398, 392–402 (2013)
[16] Sakai, Y., Shimogaki, T.: Equimeasurability of functions and doubly
stochastic operators. Kodai Math. Sem. Rep. 24, 203–211 (1972)

18

[17] Siburg, K.F., Stoimenov, P.A.: A measure of mutual complete dependence.
Metrika 71, 239–251 (2009)
[18] Trutschnig, W.: On a strong metric on the space of copulas and its induced
dependence measure. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 384, 690–705 (2011)
[19] Trutschnig, W.: Idempotent copulas with fractal support. In: Greco, S.,
Bouchon-Meunier, B., Coletti, G., Fedrizzi, M., Matarazzo, B., Yager,
R.R. (eds.) Advances in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 298, pp. 161–170.
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2012)
[20] Trutschnig, W., Sánchez, J.F.: Idempotent and multivariate copulas with
fractal support. J. Statist. Plann. Inference, 142, 3086–3096 (2012)
[21] Yanting, Z., Jingping, Y., Jianhua, Z.H.: Approximation of bivariate copulas by patched bivariate Fréchet copulas. Insurance Math. Econom. 48,
246–256 (2011)

19

