2
$\begingroup$

Let $ \{X_i\}_{i=1}^{P} $ and $ \{Y_j\}_{j=1}^{Q} $ be two sequences of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. $X_i$ and $Y_j$ are independent between all pairs of $i$ and $j$. Say $f(x,y)$ is continuous everywhere as maps $x$ and $y$ to a real value. Assume that $ E[f(X_i, Y_j)] = \mu $ and $ E[f(X_i, Y_j)^2] $ exist and are finite.

Due to the strong law of large numbers, we can show that $$\frac{1}{P} \sum_{i=1}^{P} \frac{1}{Q} \sum_{j=1}^{Q} f(X_i, Y_j) \xrightarrow{\text{a.s.}} \mu$$ as both $P$ and $Q$ go to infinity. However, I am unsure how fast $P$ and $Q$ should grow relative to each other. My intuition is that $P$ and $Q$ need to grow at the same rate, i.e. $\mathcal{O}(P/Q)=1$, but how do I show this rigorously? or how do I show that they do not need to grow at the same rate?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To understand correctly: You don't assume that $(X_i)_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ and $(Y_j)_{j \in \mathbb{N}}$ are independent. As sequences they may be identical even? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14 at 8:14
  • $\begingroup$ I should have clarified. $\{X_i\}$ and $\{Y_i\}$ are independent. Edited the main post to reflect this. $\endgroup$
    – CWC
    Commented Jun 14 at 10:23
  • $\begingroup$ Do you mean that the sequences $(X_i)_{i\geq 1}$ and $(Y_j)_{j\geq 1}$ are independent or that for each fixed $i$ and $j$, $X_i$ is independent of $Y_j$? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ The latter. For each fixed $i$ and $j$, $X_i$ and $Y_j$ are independently sampled. Also, for each fixed $i$ and $j$, $X_i$ and $X_j$ are independently sampled. $\endgroup$
    – CWC
    Commented Jun 14 at 10:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Okay so now I understand, so the vectors $(X_1,\dots,X_p)$ and $(Y_1,\dots,Y_q)$ are independent. I think that I can come up with something. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14 at 11:35

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Let us give a name to the partial sums $$ S_{P,Q}(f)=\frac 1{PQ}\sum_{i=1}^P\sum_{j=1}^Q f(X_i,Y_j). $$ and define the functions $$ f_1\colon x\mapsto \mathbb E\left[f(x,Y_1)\right]-\mu, \quad, f_2\colon y\mapsto \mathbb E\left[f(X_1,y)\right]-\mu, $$ $$ f_3(x,y)=f(x,y)-f_1(x)-f_2(y)-\mu $$ (this look very similar to Hoeffding's decomposition for U-statistics).

We thus get $$ S_{P,Q}(f)-\mu=\frac 1P\sum_{i=1}^Pf_1(X_i)+\frac 1Q\sum_{j=1}^Q f_2(Y_j)+S_{P,Q}(f_3). $$ We can show that for each positive $\varepsilon$, $$ \sum_{M,N\geqslant 1}\mathbb P\left(\frac 1{2^{M+N}}\max_{1\leq P\leq 2^M}\max_{1\leq Q\leq 2^N} \lvert S_{P,Q}(f_3)\rvert >\varepsilon\right)<\infty. $$ Indeed, we first use Chebyshev's inequality to reduce this to prove that $$\tag{*} \sum_{M,N\geqslant 1}\mathbb E\left(\frac 1{2^{2(M+N)}}\max_{1\leq P\leq 2^M}\max_{1\leq Q\leq 2^N} \lvert S_{P,Q}(f_3)\rvert^2 \right)<\infty. $$ To do so, observe that $\left(\max_{1\leq P\leq 2^M} \lvert S_{P,Q}(f_3)\rvert^2\right)_{Q\geqslant 1}=(M_Q)_{Q\geqslant 1}$ is a submartingale for the filtration $\left(\mathcal F_Q\right)$, where $\mathcal F_Q=\sigma(X_i,1\leq i\leq 2^M, Y_j,1\leqslant j\leqslant Q)$: by Jensen's inequality and monotonicity of conditional expectation, $$ \mathbb E\left[M_Q\mid\mathcal F_{Q-1}\right] \geqslant \max_{1\leq P\leq 2^M} \lvert \mathbb E\left[S_{P,Q}(f_3)\mid\mathcal F_{Q-1}\right]\rvert^2, $$ and $\mathbb E\left[S_{P,Q}(f_3)\mid\mathcal F_{Q-1}\right]=S_{P,Q-1}(f_3) +\sum_{i=1}^P \mathbb E\left[f_3(X_i,Y_{Q})\mid\mathcal F_{Q-1}\right]=S_{P,Q-1}(f_3)$, since $\mathbb E\left[Z\mid\mathcal F\vee\mathcal G\right]=\mathbb E\left[Z\mid\mathcal F\right]$ if $\mathcal G$ is independent of $\sigma(Z)\vee\mathcal F$, $$ \mathbb E\left[f_3(X_i,Y_{Q})\mid\mathcal F_{Q-1}\right]= \mathbb E\left[f_3(X_i,Y_{Q})\mid X_i\right]=0. $$ Similarly, we can show that $\left(\lvert S_{P,2^N}(f_3)\rvert^2\right)_{P\geqslant 1}$ is a sub-martingale. By Doob's inequality, (*) reduces to $$\tag{**} \sum_{M,N\geqslant 1}\mathbb E\left(\frac 1{2^{2(M+N)}} \lvert S_{2^M,2^N}(f_3)\rvert^2 \right)<\infty. $$ This follows from the fact that the summands are pairwise orthogonal.

In conclusion, the wanted convergence holds without imposing any rate on the convergence of $P$ and $Q$ to infinity. Some further remarks:

  1. The convergence for $f_3$ holds actually if only one of the indexes $P$ and $Q$ goes to infinity.
  2. Using Marcinkiewicz strong law of large numbers, we could show that for $1\leq p<2$, $$ \min\{P^{1-1/p},Q^{1-1/p}\}\left(S_{P,Q}(f)-\mu\right)\to 0. $$
  3. The convergence $S_{P,Q}(f)-\mu$ can hold under less restrictive assumptions than a moment of order two.
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you -- this is impressively thorough. I am going through the steps slowly since I am not familiar with Martingale. $\endgroup$
    – CWC
    Commented Jun 14 at 13:05
  • $\begingroup$ No problem. Let me know if you have questions. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 14 at 13:38
  • $\begingroup$ How do you get to this level at martingale theory?! The answer is very impressive. @DavideGiraudo $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Commented Aug 26 at 12:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .