This question is related to my previous question but I think it's sufficiently different to warrant a separate one.

Suppose I have a sequence of independently distributed positive random variables: $X_1\sim A_1,X_2\sim A_2, \ldots, X_n\sim A_n$, where $A_i$'s have support over $[0,\infty)$.

Furthermore, suppose that, for each $X_i$, variance $\sigma_{lb}^2<\sigma_i^2<\sigma_{ub}^2$, that is variances of $X_i$'s are bounded from below and above.

Does Lindeberg's Condition:

$$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{s_n^2}\sum_{i=1}^n\int_{\{|x-\mu_i|>\epsilon s_n\}}(x-\mu_i)^2f_i(x)dx=0$$

hold in this case? Here $s_n^2=\sum_{i=1}^n\sigma_i^2$ and $s_n=\sqrt{s_n^2}$.

My intuition tells me that it does, for the following reason: suppose that it doesn't hold. That means there is some random variable $X_i$ in the sequence most of whose mass isn't centered in an interval about the mean $[\mu_i-\epsilon s_n,\mu_i+\epsilon s_n]$. However, this interval gets larger as we add more random variables to the sequence, since their variances are bounded from below. Since the variance of $X_i$ is upper-bounded, at some $n$, the interval $[\mu_i-\epsilon s_n,\mu_i+\epsilon s_n]$ should "consume" most of $X_i$'s mass.

However, I am not sure how to prove (or disprove) it. One problem may arise if the interval $[\mu_i-\epsilon s_n,\mu_i+\epsilon s_n]$ does not increase fast enough... Not sure if I need additional conditions on higher moments of $A_i$ or not...


No, it does not. The trouble is that some families of random variables bounded in $L^1$ are not uniformly integrable.

To give a counterexample, assume that the distribution of $X_n$ is $\frac1{2n^2}(\delta_0+\delta_{2n})+(1-\frac1{n^2})\delta_n$ for every $n\geqslant1$. Then $\mu_n=\mathrm E(X_n)=n$ and $\sigma_n^2=\text{Var}(X_n)=1$, hence $s_n^2=n$. The $i$th integral in Lindeberg's condition of rank $n$ is $$ \mathrm E((X_i-\mu_i)^2;|X_i-\mu_i|\geqslant\varepsilon\sqrt{n})=i^2\cdot\mathrm P(|X_i-i|\geqslant\varepsilon\sqrt{n})=[i\geqslant\varepsilon\sqrt{n}], $$ hence the sum involved in Lindeberg's condition is $\frac1{s_n^2}\sim\frac1n$ times the number of indices $i\leqslant n$ such that $i\geqslant\varepsilon\sqrt{n}$, which is equivalent to $n$. That is, the sum converges to $1$ instead of $0$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thank for answering my question: that is a very nice counterexample. Does the condition hold if I require every $A_i$ to have non-zero density over every interval $[a,b]\in [0,\infty)$? Also, bounding the mean for every $A_i$. Does that result in condition holding? I will write this up as a separate question... $\endgroup$ – M.B.M. Nov 9 '11 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ A follow-up question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/80650/… $\endgroup$ – M.B.M. Nov 9 '11 at 21:59
  • $\begingroup$ You could also try $X_n$ with distribution $(1 - \frac{1}{n^2} \delta_0 + \frac{1}{n^2} \delta_n$, which is somewhat messier but has mean $\mu_n = 1/n$ and $\sigma_n^2 = 1 - 1/n^2$, so $s_n^2 = n + O(1)$, and again the limit in Lindeberg's condition will be $1$ instead of 0. You could then "smear out" this example to have continuous densities positive on all of $[0,\infty)$. $\endgroup$ – Robert Israel Nov 9 '11 at 22:27

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.