3
$\begingroup$

I have a math/stat problem where I need to show the convergence of the average of a sequence of experiments to an interval. The sequence of experiments is not i.i.d., hence the standard law of large number does not apply. However, the framework satisfies some assumptions which might facilitate the convergence proof. I think the question can fit this advanced forum because it seems to go beyond standard applications of probability results.

Suppose we have a sequence of random experiments $(a_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$. In particular, each $a_n$ is a random draw from a probability distribution $P_n: B\rightarrow [0,1]$, where $B$ is a finite set.

The probability distributions $P_n$ are potentially different across $n$. However, for each $b\in B$ and $n\in \mathbb{N}$, we know that $P_n(b)\in [\nu_\ell(b), \nu_u(b)]$, where the latter interval does not vary across $n$.

Let $x_N(b):=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N \mathbb{1}(a_n=b)$ for a finite $N\in \mathbb{N}$, where $\mathbb{1}(a_n=b)$ takes value 1 if $a_n=b$ and 0 otherwise.

I would like to show that, as $N\rightarrow \infty$, $x_N(b)$ falls in $[\nu_\ell(b), \nu_u(b)]$.

Could you help me to do that? If you think the statement is wrong, can you explain why?

Note: the draws may not be independent.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You didn't say that the draws are independent between rounds. I assume this is the case. If not, it's hopeless. If yes, you should be able to prove what you want using second moment methods: it is clear that $\mathbb E x_n(b)=\frac 1N\sum_{n=1}^N P_n(b)$ which lies in $[v_l(b),v_r(b)]$ for each $b$. It suffices to show that the variance of $x_n(b)$ converges to 0. This should be doable by standard methods (using the independence). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ The draws are not independent but there are laws of large numbers also for non independent draws. Hence, I wouldn't say this is hopeless. $\endgroup$
    – Star
    Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 21:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You need an extra assumption. For example, imagine that all the draws give the same result as the first one. Then $x_n(b)$ will be $0$ or $1$. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 21:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I relaxed the assumption of independence, see my post. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 22:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TEX: Re "Is that possible?" Yes. That's exactly what happens in the example described by Christophe. You make a single choice at the outset, $Z$, (e.g. $Z=0$ with probability $\frac 12$ and 1 with probability $\frac 12$) and set all $a_n$'s equal to $Z$. So that $P(a_n=b)=P(Z=b)$ for each $b$. Now for every $N$, $x_N(b)$ is 1 if $Z=b$ and 0 otherwise. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30, 2022 at 22:31

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I assume that $(a_n)_{n \ge 1}$ are random variables taking values on a finite subset $B$, and that $\nu_l(b) \le P[a_n = b|a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1}] \le \nu_u(B)$ almost surely for every $n \ge 1$ and $b \in B$.

If yes, then for each $b \in B$, the formula $$M_n(b) := \sum_{k=1}^n\frac{1}{k}\big(1_{[a_k=b]}-P[a_k = b|a_1,\ldots,a_{k-1}]\big)$$ defines a square-integrable martingale. This martingale has orthogonal increments and is bounded in $L^2(P)$, since $$E\Big[\frac{1}{k^2}\big(1_{[a_k=b]}-P[a_k = b|a_1,\ldots,a_{k-1}]\big)^2\Big] \le \frac{1}{4k^2}.$$ Hence it converges almost surely and in $L^2$.

We deduce that the averages
$$\frac{S_n(b)}{n} := \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n \big(1_{[a_k=b]}-P[a_k = b|a_1,\ldots,a_{k-1}]\big)$$ converge almost surely to $0$, by Cesàro lemma since $$S_n(b) = \sum_{k=1}^n k(M_k(b)-M_{k-1}(b)),$$ $$S_n(b) = \sum_{k=1}^n kM_k(b) - \sum_{k=1}^n kM_{k-1}(b)),$$ $$S_n(b) = \sum_{k=0}^n kM_k(b) - 0 - \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} (k+1)M_k(b)),$$ $$S_n(b) = nM_n(b) - \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} M_k(b),$$ $$\frac{S_n(b)}{n} = M_n(b) - \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}M_k(b).$$

As a result, the averages $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n 1_{[a_k = b]}$ and $\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n P[a_k = b|a_1,\ldots,a_{k-1}]$ have the same limit points as $n \to +\infty$, which belong to $[\nu_l(b),\nu_u(b)]$.


ADDENDUM (answers to the questions added by the OP)

Step 1. $|M_n(b)| \le \sum_{k=1}^n 1/k$. Therefore $M_n(b)$ is in $L^2(P)$.

Step 2. On $L^2(\Omega,\mathcal{A},P)$, the conditional expectation $E[\cdot|\mathcal{F_n}]$ coincides with the orthogonal projection on $L^2(\Omega,\mathcal{F_n},P)$. Hence $M_{n+1}(b)-M_n(b)$ is orthogonal to $L^2(\Omega,\mathcal{F_n},P)$, therefore to $M_0(b),\ldots,M_n(b)$.

Step 3. Do not confuse $E[M_n^2]$ finite for every $n$ and $E[M_n^2]$ bounded independently on $n$. The last statement follows from Pythagore equality (write $N_n$ as the sum of the pairwise orthogonal random variables $M_1-M_0,\ldots,M_n-M_{n-1}$) and from the convergence of the series $\sum_k 1/k^2$.

Step 4. The theorem applied here is the martingale convergence theorem, for martingales which are bounded in $L^2(P)$. Convergence in $L^2(P)$ can also be proved simply bu using Cauchy lemma and Pythagore theorem, thanks to the pairwise orthogonalality of the random variables $M_n-M_{n-1}$ and the convergence of the series $\sum_k 1/k^2$.

Step 5. No question on this step.

Step 6. Two sequences $(u_n)$ and $(v_n)$ of real numbers whose difference converges to $0$ have the same limit points: remind that the limit points are the limit of convergent subsequences. Because of the assumption $u_n-v_n \to 0$, for every increasing map $\phi$ from $\mathbb{N}$ to $\mathbb{N}$, and every real number $\ell$, $u_{\phi(n)} \to \ell$ if and only if $v_{\phi(n)} \to \ell$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ There seems to be some minor typo in the formula below by Cesàro lemma... $M_n$'s do not depend on $k$. I also have an embarrassing question: where does the $1/4$ come from? $\endgroup$
    – tsnao
    Commented Jan 10, 2023 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ @tsnao When $t \in [0,1]$, $t(1-t) \le 1/4$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 11, 2023 at 12:36
  • $\begingroup$ @TEX I corrected a few typos. If $A$ is en event and $\mathcal{B}$ a sigma-field, then $\mathrm{Var}(1_A|\mathcal{B}) = E[(1_A-P(A|\mathcal{B}))^2|\mathcal{B}] \le 1/4$. Taking expectations $E[(1_A-P(A|\mathcal{B}))^2] \le 1/4$, so. $E[(1_A/k-P(A|\mathcal{B})/k)^2] \le 1/(4k^2)$. Actually bounding above by $1$ instead of $1/4$ is trivial and sufficient for the proof. We do not know the limit of $M_n(b)$. The almost sure convergence follows from the martignale convergence theorem. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 20, 2023 at 20:36
  • $\begingroup$ @TEX I added explanations. I do not use the L^2 convergence of the martingale here, although I mentioned it because it holds and is easy to prove. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 20, 2023 at 21:06
  • $\begingroup$ @TEX The limit points are almost surely the same and form and interval (because the difference of two consecutive terms goes to 0), possibly random, it depends on the conditional distributions. $M_0(b)=0$ by convention. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 21, 2023 at 17:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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