# [SOLVED] convergence in probability

• February 20th 2010, 01:02 AM
Statistik
[SOLVED] convergence in probability
Hi,

I've been banging my head against the wall for too many hours and would love a hint... I'm looking to show that

$
\frac {1} {n} \sum {(x_i - \overline{x_n})*(y_i - \overline{y_n})} \rightarrow Cov(X,Y)
$

(in probability), where (X_i, Y_i) are iid random vectors (finite 4th order moments).

I'm trying to use the definition of convergence in probability and get

$
P[|\frac {1} {n} \sum {(x_i - \overline{x_n})*(y_i - \overline{y_n})} - Cov(X,Y)| > \epsilon)]
$

$
\leq E[\frac {1} {n} \sum {(x_i - \overline{x_n})*(y_i - \overline{y_n})} - Cov(X,Y)]^2 / \epsilon^2
$

I'd appreciate a hint. I am not getting the Var(X,Y) part, I think, and I don't think it should be that hard!?

Thank you!
• February 20th 2010, 02:04 AM
Laurent
Quote:

Originally Posted by Statistik
Hi,

I've been banging my head against the wall for too many hours and would love a hint... I'm looking to show that

$
\frac {1} {n} \sum {(x_i - \overline{x_n})*(y_i - \overline{y_n})} \rightarrow Cov(X,Y)
$

(in probability), where (X_i, Y_i) are iid random vectors (finite 4th order moments).

I'm trying to use the definition of convergence in probability and get

$
P[|\frac {1} {n} \sum {(x_i - \overline{x_n})*(y_i - \overline{y_n})} - Cov(X,Y)| > \epsilon)]
$

$
\leq E[\frac {1} {n} \sum {(x_i - \overline{x_n})*(y_i - \overline{y_n})} - Cov(X,Y)]^2 / \epsilon^2
$

I'd appreciate a hint. I am not getting the Var(X,Y) part, I think, and I don't think it should be that hard!?

Thank you!

Finite fourth moment indeed suggests to apply Chebychev inequality, expand the square, and pray for not losing a few terms during the computation.

Actually, you don't really need that fourth moment; second moment suffices. Together with weak law of large numbers (wLLN).

Remember ${\rm Cov}(X,Y)=E[XY]-E[X]E[Y]$. Likewise, $(x_i-\overline{x}_n)(y_i-\overline{y}_n)=x_i y_i-x_i\overline{y}_n-y_i\overline{x}_n+\overline{x}_n\overline{y}_n$ and, after summation (split the sum into four sums), the terms with "bars" factorize and the last three sums are the same, hence $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n (x_i-\overline{x}_n)(y_i-\overline{y}_n)$ $=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n x_iy_i-\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i\right)\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n y_i\right)$.

This way, we may split $\frac {1} {n} \sum {(x_i - \overline{x_n})*(y_i - \overline{y_n})} - Cov(X,Y)$ into two simple terms. If both of them converge to 0 in probability, then so does their sum (you may need to prove that).

First term is $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n x_iy_i - E[XY]$. Just apply wLLN.

Second term is $\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n x_i\right)\left(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n y_i\right)-E[X]E[Y]$. Apply wLLN and the fact that the product of two sequences converging to 0 in proba converges to 0 as well (you may need to prove this).

In fact, applying the strong law of large numbers, you even get an almost-sure convergence and this eliminates all problems of justifications (it is obvious (do you understand why?) that the sum or the product of two sequences converging a.s. to 0 converges a.s. to 0 as well).
• February 20th 2010, 02:21 AM
Moo
Hello,

The moment of 4th order and the convergence in probability should remind you of the weak law of large numbers.

But we have to get the sum of iid random variables.

Doing little algebra (same way as to prove that $cov(X,Y)=E[(X-\mu_X)(Y-\mu_Y)]=E[XY]-\mu_X\mu_Y$), we get that $\sum (X_i-\bar X_n)(Y_i-\bar Y_n)=\sum X_iY_i-n\bar X_n\bar Y_n$

So $\frac 1n\sum (X_i-\bar X_n)(Y_i-\bar Y_n)=\frac 1n\sum X_iY_i-\bar X_n\bar Y_n$

And hence $\frac 1n\sum (X_i-\bar X_n)(Y_i-\bar Y_n)-cov(X,Y)=\left[\frac 1n\sum X_iY_i-E[XY]\right]-\left[\bar X_n\bar Y_n-E[X]E[Y]\right]$

By the weak law of large numbers, the first bracket converges in probability to 0, because the vectors $(X_i,Y_i)$ are iid, and so are $X_iY_i$.
And for the second bracket, we know that $\bar X_n\to E[X]$ almost surely, and $\bar Y_n\to E[Y]$ almost surely.
So their product converge almost surely to $E[X]E[Y]$ (because the product is a continuous function) and hence in probability.
So the second bracket converges in probability to 0.

And so the sum converges in probability to 0, which ends the proof (you just have to use the triangle inequality)

I hope I didn't write too many false things (Rofl)

Edit : whoaaaa, I'm waaaay too late (Crying) and maybe I'm waaaay too wrong with the justifications, since it seems more complicated than in first thought...
Well, I spent time thinking and typing it so I won't delete :(
• February 20th 2010, 02:46 AM
Laurent
Quote:

Originally Posted by Moo
I hope I didn't write too many false things (Rofl)

Edit : whoaaaa, I'm waaaay too late (Crying) and maybe I'm waaaay too wrong with the justifications, since it seems more complicated than in first thought...
Well, I spent time thinking and typing it so I won't delete :(

Sorry about that ;) By the way, you justifications are fully correct!
• February 20th 2010, 12:14 PM
Statistik
Thank you, Laurent and Moo for your awesome responses! Much clearer now - I wasn't able to see the groupings of the convergent terms.

I am stuck on one part, and it may be more of a semantic question:
For:

$
\sum_{i=1}^n x_iy_i = n * x_iy_i
$

I keep getting stuck because it seems to me that I cannot separate $x_i * y_i$ since X and Y are not independent from each other (just the vectors of $(X_i,Y_i)$) are. How would I properly write the sum?

$
\frac {1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n x_iy_i = \frac {1}{n} x_n*y_n = \overline {x_ny_n}
$

which then approaches E(XY) in probability?

Thanks!

PS: You asked if I understood why it is obvious that the sum of two sequences converges to 0 if each one of them converges marginally when working with sLLN vs. wLLN. If I understand correctly, I am looking at the limit of the variables themselves with the sLLN vs their probability of equaling something with the wLLN. Then, when one converges with sLLN, I have a statement about the variables again and can just take the "at face value", while I may need to re-evaluate the probabilities combined (using Slutsky though makes it easier as at least one of them equals a non-random number)?
• February 20th 2010, 02:40 PM
Laurent
Quote:

Originally Posted by Statistik
I am stuck on one part, and it may be more of a semantic question:
For:

$
\sum_{i=1}^n x_iy_i = n * x_iy_i
$

I keep getting stuck because it seems to me that I cannot separate $x_i * y_i$ since X and Y are not independent from each other (just the vectors of $(X_i,Y_i)$) are. How would I properly write the sum?

$
\frac {1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n x_iy_i = \frac {1}{n} x_n*y_n = \overline {x_ny_n}
$

which then approaches E(XY) in probability?

I don't get what you mean (and your formulas are weird, I guess there are typos...); as Moo said, the random variables $z_i=x_iy_i$, $i\geq 1$ are independent, and integrable by assumption, with expectation $E[z_i]=E[x_iy_i]=E[XY]$. Then we may just apply the law of large numbers to the sequence $(z_i)_{i\geq 1}$.

Quote:

PS: You asked if I understood why it is obvious that the sum of two sequences converges to 0 if each one of them converges marginally when working with sLLN vs. wLLN. If I understand correctly, I am looking at the limit of the variables themselves with the sLLN vs their probability of equaling something with the wLLN. Then, when one converges with sLLN, I have a statement about the variables again and can just take the "at face value", while I may need to re-evaluate the probabilities combined (using Slutsky though makes it easier as at least one of them equals a non-random number)?
This looks pretty much like it. Let me express it my way: if we have sequences (on the same probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$) such that $X_n\to X$ a.s. and $Y_n\to Y$ a.s., then this means that for almost-all $\omega\in\Omega$, we have the following limits: $X_n(\omega)\to X(\omega)$ and $Y_n(\omega)\to Y(\omega)$, and these are limits of sequences of real numbers, so we have, by the usual elementary properties of limits, $X_n(\omega)Y_n(\omega)\to_n X(\omega)Y(\omega)$. In other words, $X_nY_n\to_n XY$ a.s.. Thus we only need to apply results about real-valued sequences.
• February 20th 2010, 05:48 PM
Statistik
Laurent,

Thanks. No typos ;-(, still learning the ropes. (My 2nd probability / statistics class, trying to get a hang of the symbols.) The z=xy substitution makes sense and makes it "clean", too.

And thanks for the clarification on the a.s. vs. probability - I really appreciate it this type of info.