6
$\begingroup$

Let $X_1, \dots, X_n$ be random variables, for some integer $n > 2$. Then, $$\text{Var}\left(\sum_{i=1}^nX_i\right) = \sum_{i=1}^n \text{Var}(X_i) + \sum_{i \neq j} \text{Cov}(X_i, X_j) $$

There is a natural interest in the special case when the $X_i$ are such that $$\sum_{i \neq j} \text{Cov}(X_i, X_j) = 0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \text{Var}\left(\sum_{i=1}^nX_i\right) = \sum_{i=1}^n \text{Var}(X_i)$$

Now, the condition $$\text{Cov}(X_i, X_j) = 0, \,\forall\,i \neq j\tag{1}$$ clearly implies the condition $$\sum_{i\neq j} \text{Cov}(X_i, X_j) = 0 \;.\tag{2}$$

Is the converse true?

Alternatively, can someone give me an example where $(2)$ holds but $(1)$ fails?

(My guess is that $(2)$ does not imply $(1)$, since I realize that, in general, $\sum_1^{n>1} a_i = 0$ does not imply that all the $a_i$ are zero, but I can't readily come up with an example of this general fact when the summands are the terms $\text{Cov}(X_i, X_j),\;(i\neq j)$.)

(My remaining questions are moot if, contrary to what I suspect, $(2)$ does imply, and is therefore equivalent to, $(1)$.)

When the random variables $X_1, \dots, X_n$ are described as being "uncorrelated", does this mean that they satisfy $(1)$, or just that they satisfy $(2)$?

Lastly, I've often seen the term "pairwise uncorrelated", which clearly means that $(1)$ holds, is there a name for the condition in $(2)$ (when $(1)$ is not assumed)?

$\endgroup$
10
$\begingroup$

Consider three random variables with covariance matrix $$\left[\begin{matrix}1 & a & 0\\a & 1 & -a\\ 0 & -a & 1\end{matrix}\right]$$ which has leading principal minors $1$, $1-a^2$, and $1-2a^2$ and thus is positive definite (as all covariance matrices must be) provided that $\vert a\vert < \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$. Obviously this satisfies $$\sum_{i\neq j} \text{Cov}(X_i, X_j) = 0 \tag{2}$$ but not $$\text{Cov}(X_i, X_j) = 0, \,\forall\,i \neq j.\tag{1}$$

As noted in my (now-deleted) comment, correlation is a pairwise property and so $n$ random variables are uncorrelated means that $(1)$ holds: every pair of distinct random variables is uncorrelated. As far as I know, there is no name for random variables for which $(2)$ holds but $(1)$ does not. In the example provided, the random variables are not significantly correlated in the sense that $Y$ "fails to explain" more than half the variance of either $X$ or $Z$.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ +1. Generally, such covariance matrices can be derived from matrices $\mathbb{\Sigma}$ having these properties: (1) they are positive semi-definite symmetric Real matrices and (2) the kernel of $\mathbb{\Sigma}^*$ is nontrivial, where $\mathbb{\Sigma}^*$ is obtained by zeroing out the diagonal elements of $\mathbb{\Sigma}$. For correlation matrices like yours, which have unit diagonals, this means $\mathbb{\Sigma}$ has $1$ for an eigenvalue. Sure enough, your matrix--with eigenvalues $1$ and $1\pm a\sqrt{2}$--qualifies. $\endgroup$ – whuber Jul 7 '13 at 21:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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