This question is about a non-random matrix that is defined using random variables as follows: We fix the vector $v=(1,1)$ (I am mostly interested in this choice, but it seems the final result does not depend on it) and choose a positive definite covariance matrix $\Sigma \in \mathbb R^{2 \times 2}$. Let $X$ be a $\mathbb R^2$-valued random variable such that $X$ is distributed according to $$d\mu(x) \propto e^{-\langle (x-v), \Sigma^{-1} (x-v) \rangle-\vert x_1 \vert^4-\vert x_2 \vert^4} \ dx.$$ We then define the following deterministic matrix using centred random variables $Y=X-\mathbb E(X)$ $$ \langle x,Ay\rangle = -\mathbb E\left(\langle Y,x \rangle \langle Y,\Sigma^{-1} v \rangle \langle Y, y\rangle\right).$$ Fedja proved in [this thread][1] that for any $v$ and $\Sigma$ diagonal, the matrix $A$ is positive definite. He understood that in this case the matrix is essentially diagonal, as components $x_1,x_2$ in the measure $$d\mu(x) \propto e^{-\langle (x-v), \Sigma^{-1} (x-v) \rangle-\vert x_1 \vert^4-\vert x_2 \vert^4} \ dx.$$ factorite. His proof also shows that at least for the special choice $x=\Sigma^{-1}v$, we have also for non-diagonal $\Sigma $, that $\langle x,Ax\rangle \ge 0.$ We then discussed in the comments whether one can extend the proof to non-diagonal $\Sigma$, but did not succeed so far. Numerically it seems that for all choices of $\Sigma$ and $v$ I made so far, the matrix $A$ is positive definite. Here you can find the Mathematica file I was using to verify this [Click me][2] Let me know if you have difficulties accessing the file. **My question therefore is:** How can I show the eigenvalues of $A$ are non-negative or is this wrong once $\Sigma$ is not assumed to be diagonal? Numerically, I made the following observations: - The positive definiteness of $A$ holds independent of the choice of $v \neq 0$ and $\Sigma.$ - If we write $$d\mu(x) \propto e^{-\langle (x-v), \Sigma^{-1} (x-v) \rangle-\vert x_1 \vert^p-\vert x_2 \vert^p} \ dx.$$ then for $p<2$ the eigenvalues of $A$ become negative, zero for $p=2$ and greater than zero for $p>4.$ This seems to be consistent with what Fedja proved in the one-dimensional case. [1]: https://mathoverflow.net/posts/351509/edit [2]: https://gofile.io/?c=YnM19e Please let me know if you have any questions.