I'm having troubles with this proof:

Let $\{Z_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$ be i.i.d. random variables with zero mean and unit standard deviation. For $(a_0, a_1, ..., a_r)$ a sequence of $r$ real numbers and $j\in\mathbb{Z}$, let

$$\begin{align} Y_j & = \sum_{i=0}^ r a_i Z_{j-i} \end{align}$$

For $r=2$, state and prove a general and sufficient condition on $(a_0, a_1, a_2)$ such that $Y_j$ and $Y_{j-1}$ are independent regardless of the probability distribution of $Z$.

How can one prove independence in this case? I was thinking about applying convolution and then expliciting $(a_0, a_1, a_2)$ in a way that $f_{Y_{j}, Y_{j-1}} = f_{Y_j}f_{Y_{j-1}}$ holds... But it seems to be a little complicated and I don't really know how to tackle the problem in a simpler way. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  • $\begingroup$ i'm still curious about this one, did you ever get the answer? $\endgroup$ – user25064 Mar 18 '16 at 16:11

Write out the simple equations

$$\begin{align} Y_j &= a_0 Z_j + a_1 Z_{j-1} + a_2 Z_{j-2}\\ Y_{j-1} &= a_0 Z_{j-1} + a_1 Z_{j-2} + a_2 Z_{j-3} \end{align}$$

There are some very simple cases that make $Y_j \perp Y_{j-1}$ due to the independence assumption of the random variables $\{Z_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{Z}}$. An example is $a_0 \in \mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\},\, a_1 = 0,\, a_2 = 0$. Not sure if you were looking for a complete solution but this should help get you started.

Also, an easy check for RV which are not independent is using the contrapositive form of the common theorem $$X\perp Y \implies E[XY] = E[X]E[Y]$$ Note that the converse of this statement is not true.


Assertion $a_1a_0 + a_2a_1 = 0 \iff Y_j \perp Y_{j-1}$

Define $\mu = E[Z]$

($\implies$) Suppose $a_1a_0 + a_2a_1 = 0$. There are two cases where this is possible. Case 1, suppose $a_1 = 0$. The equations become

$$\begin{align} Y_j &= a_0 Z_j + a_2 Z_{j-2}\\ Y_{j-1} &= a_0 Z_{j-1} + a_2 Z_{j-3} \end{align}$$

Their $\sigma$-algebras are given by $\sigma(Y_j) = \sigma(Z_j)\cup\sigma(Z_{j-2})$ and $\sigma(Y_{j-1}) = \sigma(Z_{j-1})\cup \sigma(Z_{j-3})$. Thus $Y_j \perp Y_{j-1}$. This could be more gruesomely detailed but I take some for granted. See this for more details including definitions etc.

Case 2, suppose $a_2 = 0$ and $a_0 = 0$. The equations become

$$\begin{align} Y_j &= a_1 Z_{j-1} \\ Y_{j-1} &= a_1 Z_{j-2} \end{align}$$

The same $\sigma$-algebra argument applies more easily but a more elegant solution presents itself in the form of the CDF.

$$\begin{align} F_{Y_j, Y_{j-1}}(y_j, y_{j-1}) &= P(Y_j \leq y_j \text{ and } Y_{j-1} \leq y_{j-1}) \\ & = F_{Z_j}(y_j/a_1)F_{Z_{j-1}}(y_{j-1}/a_1)\\ & = F_{Y_j}(y_j)F_{Y_{j-1}}(y_{j-1}) \end{align}$$

($\impliedby$) Suppose $Y_j \perp Y_{j-1}$ by theorem, we know that $E[Y_j Y_{j-1}] = E[Y_j]E[Y_{j-1}]$ calculating these values separately,

$$\begin{align} E[Y_jY_{j-1}] & = (a_0^2 + a_0a_1 + a_0 a_2 + a_1^2 + a_1 a_2 + a_2 a_0 + a_2^2 )\mu^2 \\ & + (a_1a_0 + a_2a_1)E[Z^2] \end{align}$$

$$\begin{align} E[Y_j]E[Y_{j-1}] & = (a_0^2 + a_0a_1 + a_0 a_2 + a_1^2 + a_1 a_2 + a_2 a_0 + a_2^2)\mu^2\\ &+ (a_1a_0 + a_2a_1)\mu^2 \end{align}$$

In the non-degenerate case when the distribution of $Z$ is not a constant, the variance is strictly positive so that $E[Z^2] - \mu^2 > 0$ and so $E[Z^2] > \mu^2$ and more importantly $E[Z^2] \neq \mu^2$ Thus for the equality $E[Y_j Y_{j-1}] = E[Y_j]E[Y_{j-1}]$ to hold, it must be the case that $a_1a_0 + a_2a_1 = 0$.

  • $\begingroup$ This is a simple reasoning... I want to know how should I proceed in order to generalize this concept..! $\endgroup$ – james42 Jun 2 '15 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ I wasn't sure if you were looking for an actual answer or just some tips on how to proceed, which would you prefer? $\endgroup$ – user25064 Jun 2 '15 at 15:33
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe an answer would be better! $\endgroup$ – james42 Jun 2 '15 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ @user25064: In your "$\impliedby$" proof, what you can get is that $a_0a_1+a_1a_2=0$. Can you please be more specific on how the Jensen's inequality is applied to deduce that $a_1=0$? It is not yet clear. $\endgroup$ – Gordon Jun 2 '15 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ very good point, i have edited my proof accordingly. $\endgroup$ – user25064 Jun 2 '15 at 20:53

My first idea would be to try writing up the characteristic functions and use the theorem stated in the bottom answer about independence here: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/376511/a-criterion-for-independence-based-on-characteristic-function

  • $\begingroup$ I don't know how these characteristic functions are made, the reasoning should be more general... Anyway I'll try this way! $\endgroup$ – james42 Jun 2 '15 at 12:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.