Variance of sample mean for dependent samples

Suppose I have two discrete independant random variables $X$ and $Y$, and that I'm interested in the expected value of the random variable $W$, where: $$W= \text{sign}(X-Y).$$ So, W is 1 if $X>Y$, -1 if $Y>X$ and 0 otherwise.

I sample the distributions of $X$ and $Y$ ten times each, giving me $\{X_1, \dots, X_{10}\}$ and $\{Y_1, \dots, Y_{10}\}$.
Consider these two ways to estimate $\text{E}\{W\}$ $$\quad\quad\bar{W} = \frac{1}{10}\sum_{i=1}^{10} W_{i,i}, \\ \text{and, } \quad\quad \bar{W}' = \frac{1}{100}\sum_{i=1}^{10}\sum_{j=1}^{10} W_{i,j}, \\ \text{where } \quad W_{i,j} = \text{sign}(X_i - Y_j)$$ I know that $\text{Var}\{\bar{W}\} = \frac{1}{10}\text{Var}\{W\}$, but what is $\text{Var}\{\bar{W}'\}$, and how can I estimate it from my 20 samples?

• I think it would be less confusing to simply write $W = \text{sign}(X – Y)$. – Alexis Jun 11 '14 at 2:47
• Keep it clean and simple: just generate $W_i$ from $(X_i, Y_i)$, and leave alone the $(X_i, Y_j)$ combinations. – wolfies Jun 11 '14 at 7:30
• Thanks @wolfies. That's what $\bar{W}$ is, but my question is to specifically address the case of $\bar{W}'$ – Edward Newell Jun 11 '14 at 17:32
• This is a dup of my question from math.stackexchange.com. It stayed open for very long, but eventually did get answered. math.stackexchange.com/questions/821968/… – Edward Newell Jun 16 '14 at 23:18

Use the generic formula for the variance of a sum of random variables. For some random variables $A_i$, this can be stated as: $$\text{Var}\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n A_i\right\} = \sum_{i=1}^n\text{Var}\{A_i\} + \sum_{i \neq j} \text{Cov}\{A_i,A_j\} \\$$ In this case, we get: $$\text{Var}\{\bar{W}'\} = \text{Var}\left\{\frac{1}{100}\sum_{k\in \{1,...,10\}^2}W_{k}\right\} \\ = \frac{1}{10000}\left(\sum_{k \in \{1,...,10\}^2}\text{Var}\{W_k\} + \sum_{k,\ell \in \{1,...,10\}^2; k\neq \ell}\text{Cov}\{W_k,W_\ell\}\right)$$ Note that above, the subscripts $k$ and $\ell$ represent pairs, i.e. $k= (i,j)$, which I'm using because the notation for the indices gets too complicated otherwise!

The trick is that $\text{Cov}\{W_k, W_\ell\}$ is not zero if one of the indicies is the same. This can happen in two different ways. Either the first index is the same --- $k = (i,j)$ and $\ell = (i,m)$ --- or the second index is the same --- $k = (i,j)$ and $\ell=(m,j)$. Otherwise $W_k$ and $W_j$ are based on different, and independent samples, and so are independent.

Therefore, you need to estimate $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,j},W_{i,m}\}$ and $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,j},W_{m,j}\}$. Note that it doesn't matter what the specific indices are --- all that matters is which of the indices are shared. (this is because all $X_i$'s are i.i.d, and all $Y_i$'s are too.)

You could estimate $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,j},W_{i,m}\}$ using your samples by calculating $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,1}, W_{i,2}\}$:

$$\text{Cov}\{W_{i,1}, W_{i,2}\} = \sum_{i\in\{1,...,10\}}\left(W_{i,1} - \text{E}\{W_{\cdot,1}\}\right)\left(W_{i,2} - \text{E}\{W_{\cdot,2}\}\right)$$

You could also calculate $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,3},W_{i,4}\}$ from your samples. Both $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,1}, W_{i,2}\}$, and $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,3},W_{i,4}\}$ provide independent estimates of $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,j},W_{i,m}\}$. You can refine your estimate of $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,j},W_{i,m}\}$ by taking the mean of various independent estimators. But be careful not to also include something like $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,2},W_{i,3}\}$ along with the others already mentioned, since it would not be independent from them.

Then, do similarly to estimate $\text{Cov}\{W_{i,j},W_{m,j}\}$. For example: $$\text{Cov}\{W_{1,j}, W_{2,j}\} = \sum_{j\in\{1,...,10\}}\left(W_{1,j} - \text{E}\{W_{1,\cdot}\}\right)\left(W_{2,j} - \text{E}\{W_{2,\cdot}\}\right)$$

To take the sum of the covariances, note that each of these types of covariance term arises $10{10\choose2}=450$ times so, for your particular shape of sample sets,

$$\text{Var}\{\bar{W}'\} = \frac{\text{Var}\{W_k\}}{100} + \frac{9}{200}\left(\text{Cov}\{W_{i,j},W_{i,m}\} + \text{Cov}\{W_{i,j},W_{m,j}\}\right)$$

• This is my best answer based on the research I've done. I don't feel confident enough to accept it though -- I would really appreciate if someone who has a deep grasp could sanity-check this! – Edward Newell Jun 12 '14 at 3:04