In "Serfling, R. J. (1980). Approximation theorems of mathematical statistics", we read

enter image description here

In Theorem A, as one suspects, $k=1,2,...$, indicating the integer-moments, while $n$ is the sample size. As regards the $m_k$ and $\mu_k$ symbols, we have, drawing i.i.d from the distribution of some random variable $X$,

$$m_k = \frac 1n \sum_{i=1}^n (X_i-\bar X)^k, \;\;\;\mu_k = E[(X-E(X)]^k$$

Theorem A is concerned with each separate central sample moment, Theorem B is concerned with their joint limiting distribution.

Suppose that $k=3$. Then, from Theorem A we have

$$\text{AVar}(m_3) = \mu_6 - \mu_3^2 - 6\mu_2\mu_4 + 9\mu_2^3$$

But from Theorem B, setting $i=j=3$ we get

$$\text{AVar}(m_3) = \mu_8 - \mu_4^2 - 8\mu_3\mu_5 + 16\mu_3^2\mu_2$$

I don't see how the two can coincide, and some quick simulated checks show that they don't.

Question:is it possible that the expression in Theorem B is meant only for the off-diagonal covariance terms and not for the diagonal variance terms?

The author makes no such clarification.


1 Answer 1


Posting questions on CV has this magic effect many times: a little after you post them, you find the answer.

ANSWER: both expressions are correct, and the expression in Theorem B holds also for the diagonal variance terms. The catch?

...In the variance-covariance matrix expression, we realize that the numbering of the variables starts from $2$, while the $i,j$ indices start from $1$.

This means that when we want to obtain the variance of $m_3$ we must set $i=j=2$, and when we want to obtain, say, the covariance of $(m_3, m_4)$, we must set $i=2, j=3$.

In general, for $k,\ell$ moments, set $i=k-1, j=\ell-1$ in the variance-covariance expression.

  • $\begingroup$ Re "must notice:" you don't seem to have supplied enough information to enable your readers to notice anything like that. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Aug 11, 2020 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber The information is all in the statement of Theorem B: the 1st variable is $m_2$, not $m_1$, and no explicit numbering is given for the $i,j$ -in which case, one starts the counting from $1,...$. Strictly speaking, Serfling wrote everything correctly, but he should have anticipated the possible confusion here. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 11, 2020 at 23:55
  • $\begingroup$ The principal problem is that in Theorem A, the meanings of the symbols--and especially the indexing conventions--are impossible to deduce from its mere statement. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Aug 12, 2020 at 12:59
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber But immediately after the two theorems, I explicitly write what $m_k$ and what $\mu_k$ is, so I don't understand where the problem is. $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 12, 2020 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ I still cannot see anything in your post that gives any clue to the indexing convention in Theorem A. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Aug 12, 2020 at 16:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.