5

I was reading a proof in a paper and got stuck at the following. Have been trying by best to figure this out for a long time but had no luck.

It says: When we have

\begin{equation}\tag{1} \frac{1}{{\alpha}^{i-2}}Z_{i-1}\overset{d}\rightarrow\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\alpha^{1-j}u_j\qquad \text{as}\quad i\rightarrow\infty \end{equation}

where $|\alpha|>1$, $Z_i$ is a sequence of integrable random variables, and $u_j$ is i.i.d. with mean 0 and variance 1, it implies that

\begin{equation}\tag{2} \frac{Z_{i-1}^2}{2+Z_{i-1}^2}\overset{p}\rightarrow 1 \qquad \text{as}\quad i\rightarrow\infty \end{equation}

from which it follows that \begin{equation}\tag{3} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{Z_{i-1}^2}{2+Z_{i-1}^2}\overset{p}\rightarrow 1 \qquad \text{as}\quad n\rightarrow\infty. \end{equation}

$\quad$

If anyone has any clue about this please could you share it with me? Thanks in advance.

Nate Eldredge
  • 97,710
John
  • 447
  • I recommend giving more context. "Since we have" likely comes from a specific context, e.g. the $Z_i$ are part of some other theorem. As it stands the question seems pretty, well, random – FShrike Apr 01 '23 at 13:13
  • Thanks, edited the question as suggested – John Apr 01 '23 at 13:18
  • 2
    I would re-write your first equation as $Z_i=\alpha^i X_i$, where the sequence of rvs $X_i$ is known to converge in distribution. – kimchi lover Apr 01 '23 at 13:18
  • 1
    A start: The (continuous) function $f(z) := z^2/(2+z^2)$ converges to $1$ as $|z|\to+\infty$. Also, by your basic hypothesis, $|Z_i|{\overset{P}\rightarrow} +\infty$ as $i\to\infty$ because the series $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \alpha^{1-j}u_j$ converges absolutely, a.s. – John Dawkins Apr 01 '23 at 16:34
  • Are $Z_i, \alpha$ supposed to be real or complex valued? – Nate Eldredge Apr 01 '23 at 17:14
  • Can you tell us the paper? – kimchi lover Apr 03 '23 at 18:09
  • It is actually a working paper that has not been distributed yet – John Apr 10 '23 at 22:36
  • @JohnDawkins I've been trying to figure out how almost sure absolute convergence of the series in RHS could imply $|Z_i|\overset{P}\rightarrow +\infty$. Is there a result I am overlooking? – John Aug 31 '23 at 10:25
  • P.S. I meant in your comment – John Aug 31 '23 at 10:33
  • 1
    Because $|\alpha|>1$ the random series on the right converges absolutely to a finite non-zero limit $L$, almost surely. By Skorokhod's theorem we can construct a sequence ${Z_i^}$ on a common probability space, each $Z^_i$ having the same distribution as $Z_i$, and such that the a.s limit $L^:=\lim_i \alpha^{1-i}Z^_i$ exists and has the same distribution as $L$. We then have $\lim_i|Z_i^|=+\infty$ a.s on the event ${L^\not=0}$. This implies that $|Z_i|$ converges to $+\infty$ in probability, provided $P[L=0]=0$, which you seem to know. – John Dawkins Sep 01 '23 at 18:54
  • Thank you very much @JohnDawkins – John Sep 03 '23 at 13:52

2 Answers2

3

Here is part of a proof. I assume that the $Z_i$ and $\alpha$ are real valued.

Following kimchi lover's hint, let $X_i = Z_i/\alpha^i$, so that (1) tells us that $X_i$ converges in distribution to a random variable $X$ which is a.s. finite. (to see this, note the sum on the right side of (1) converges in $L^2$). To be lazy here, let's invoke Skorokhod's representation theorem to produce random variables $Y_i, Y$ which are individually (not jointly) identically distributed to their $X$ counterparts, such that $Y_i \to Y$ almost surely.

Then $$\frac{Z_i^2}{2+Z_i^2} \overset{d}{=} \frac{\alpha^{2i} Y_i}{2 + \alpha^{2i} Y_i} = \frac{Y_i^2}{2 \alpha^{-2i} + Y_i^2}. \newcommand{\Var}{\operatorname{Var}}$$ This converges to 1 a.s. on the event $\{Y \ne 0\}$.

We now need to show that $P(Y = 0) = P(X=0) = 0$, i.e. the the right side of (1) is a.s. nonzero. Here I have a gap.

But, if we can show that, then $\frac{Y_i^2}{2 \alpha^{-2i} + Y_i^2} \to 1$ almost surely. This means that $\frac{Z_i^2}{2+Z_i^2} \to 1$ in distribution, and convergence in distribution to a constant is equivalent to convergence in probability.

Moreover, since $0 \le \frac{Z_i^2}{2 + Z_i^2} \le 1$, by dominated convergence we also have $\frac{Z_i^2}{2+Z_i^2} \to 1$ in $L^1$. By the usual proof for convergence of Cesaro means (which extends to Banach spaces), this implies $\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{Z_i^2}{2+Z_i^2} \to 1$ in $L^1$ as well, and in particular, in probability.

Nate Eldredge
  • 97,710
  • 1
    I had not forseen the $Y=0$ problem. A result of Levy, cited in Luka's Characteristic Functions as theorem 3.7.6, seems to imply that the distribution of $Y$ is continuous, so $P(Y=0) =0$ fills the gap. – kimchi lover Apr 01 '23 at 19:31
  • This is an excellent explanation, I am truly grateful for this @Nate Eldredge. There must be some conditions in the paper that will fill the gap. I will take a look again. Thanks! – John Apr 01 '23 at 19:33
  • Thank you @kimchi lover for your comment as well. Much appreciated. – John Apr 01 '23 at 19:34
  • 1
    Lukas's book, I meant. – kimchi lover Apr 01 '23 at 19:55
  • Could I please ask if the following argument is also valid? Since $X_i=Z_i/\alpha^i$ converges in distribution to a random variable $X$ which is a.s. finite, $Z_i/\alpha^i$ is bounded in probability, implying that $Z_i = O_p(\alpha^i)$. Therefore, $1/(2+Z_i^2) = 1/O_p(\alpha^{2i})=O_p(\alpha^{-2i}) = o_p(1)$, implying $Z_i^2/(2+Z_i^2)\rightarrow 1$ in probability as $i\rightarrow\infty$. – John Apr 18 '23 at 05:04
  • @John: $1/O(f) = O(1/f)$ is not valid. – Nate Eldredge Apr 18 '23 at 13:25
  • @Nate Eldredge Thank you. Sorry if I am asking something stupid, but doesn't $1/O_p(\alpha^{2i})$ still imply that it is $o_p(1)$? I thought $Z_i=O_p(\alpha^i)$ implies $Z_i\rightarrow^p\infty$. I am just trying to figure out how John Dawkins' hint can be related to your answer. Thanks very much again. – John Apr 19 '23 at 03:26
  • @John: No, big O is an asymptotic upper bound only. For a trivial counterexample to that claim, let $Z_i = 0$ for all $i$. – Nate Eldredge Apr 20 '23 at 00:31
  • @John: I don't think the claim in John Dawkin's hint is obvious. What is clear is that, once we have shown that $\sum a^{1-j} u_j$ converges to a distribution which is not the zero distribution, then $Z_i$ is not bounded in probability. That is a weaker assertion than saying that $Z_i \to \infty$ i.p. – Nate Eldredge Apr 20 '23 at 00:53
  • @Nate I see. Thanks a lot! – John Apr 20 '23 at 04:10
2

The gap in the accepted answer is filled by observing that the distribution of $Y$ is continuous (that is, with a continuous cdf, which is to say, atomless), so for each $x$, $P(Y=x)=0$. In particular, for $x=0$.

This in turn follows from Theorem XIII in Paul Lévy, "Sur les series dont les termes sont des variables eventuelles independantes", Studia Math. 3 (1931), 119-155.

See the first paragraph of P. Hartman's Infinite convolutions on locally compact abelian groups and additive functions a concise statement, or Lukacs's 1970 Characteristic Functions, p.63. This result is mentioned in Breiman's textbook (p.51) and in Stout's 1974 Almost Sure Convergence, p.100.

Let $V_n$ be a sequence of independent rvs. Let $d_n = \max_x P(V_n=x)$ be the largest "jump" in the distribution function of $X_n$.

Suppose $\sum V_n$ converges almost surely to a random variable $Y$.

Lévy's result is that $Y$ is not a continuous rv if and only if $\prod_1^\infty d_n \ne 0$.

In our case there is an iid sequence of $U_n$ with $EU_n=0$, $EU_n^2=1$, such that $V_n = \alpha^{-n} U_n$ with $|\alpha|>1$. This implies all the $d_n$ are equal and (because the $U_n$ have positive variances) strictly less than $1$. Hence $\prod_{n=1}^\infty d_n = 0$, and hence our $Y$ is a continuous random variable, as desired.

Added, 3 May 2023: This argument only needs part of Lévy's result, namely the implication that if $\sum (1-d_n)$ diverges then $Y$ is atomless, which follows directly from Theorem 2 of B.A. Rogozin, "An estimate for concentration functions" in Theory of Probability and its Applications, 6(1961), pp. 94-97 in the English translation.

kimchi lover
  • 24,277
  • Thanks for this reference. You might just want to add the clarification that "continuous" here only means "atomless", not "absolutely continuous". I thought at first that "absolutely continuous" was meant, and was confused because the Cantor distribution is a counterexample to that. – Nate Eldredge Apr 04 '23 at 13:26
  • thank you @kimchi lover – John Apr 10 '23 at 22:36