• $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$ be a probability space
  • $\pi$ be a probability measure on $(\mathbb R,\mathcal B(\mathbb R))$
  • $(X_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ be a real-valued stationary stochastic process on $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\operatorname P)$ with $X_n\sim\pi$ with respect to $\operatorname P$ for all $n\in\mathbb N$
  • $f\in\mathcal L^2(\pi)$, $$Y_n:=f(X_n)\;\;\;\text{for }n\in\mathbb N$$ and $$\mu_N:=\frac1N\sum_{n=1}^NY_n\;\;\;\text{for }N\in\mathbb N$$

Let's define the autocorrelation function $$\gamma(m,n):=\operatorname{Cov}[Y_m,Y_n]\;\;\;\text{for }m,n\in\mathbb N$$ and its normalized version $$\rho(m,n):=\frac{\gamma(m,n)}{\sigma_m\sigma_n}\;\;\;\text{for }m,n\in\mathbb N,$$ where $\sigma_n:=\sqrt{\operatorname{Var}[Y_n]}$ for $n\in\mathbb N$. By stationarity, $$\gamma(m,n)=\gamma_{|m-n|}:=\operatorname{Cov}[Y_1,Y_{1+|m-n|}]\;\;\;\text{for all }m,n\in\mathbb N\tag1$$ and $$\rho(m,n)=\rho_{|m-n|}:=\frac{\gamma_{|m-n|}}{\gamma_0}\;\;\;\text{for all }m,n\in\mathbb N\tag2$$

With the notation above, we obtain $$\operatorname{Var}[\mu_N]=\frac{\sigma_1^2}N2\tau_N\;\;\;\text{for all }N\in\mathbb N,\tag3$$ where $$\tau_N:=\frac12+\sum_{k=1}^N\left(1-\frac kN\right)\rho_k\;\;\;\text{for }N\in\mathbb N.$$ Now, I've read that $$\tau_N\xrightarrow{N\to\infty}\frac12+\sum_{k=1}^\infty\rho_k\tag4.$$ Is this really true? It seems to me that we need further assumptions for $(4)$ to hold. In any case, how can we prove $(4)$ (imposing additional assumptions, when necessary)?

  • $\begingroup$ this answer gives a sufficient condition (absolute summability): stats.stackexchange.com/questions/154070/… $\endgroup$ – Taylor Oct 11 '18 at 12:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Taylor You mean $\sum_{k\in\mathbb N_0}\left|\gamma_k\right|<\infty$? If so, this condition is not very handy to use, is it? Is there a (nontrivial) condition on $X$ or $f$ which ensures $\sum_{k\in\mathbb N_0}\left|\gamma_k\right|<\infty$? $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Oct 11 '18 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ If you want a handy condition, you have to tell us more about your application. Is it MCMC? Just a guess based on some of the notation. The linked answer is quite handy if you're working with time series models. $\endgroup$ – Taylor Oct 11 '18 at 17:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Taylor Yes, it's MCMC. I'm trying to understand the paper by Roberts and Rosenthal. $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Oct 19 '18 at 9:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Taylor From Kronecker's lemma, it seems like we only need summability of $\gamma_k$ (not necessarily absolute summability). Am I missing something? $\endgroup$ – 0xbadf00d Oct 23 '18 at 16:07

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.