Abstract
Let , , and with . Let be an array of constants satisfying , and let be a sequence of identically distributed -mixing random variables. For each of the three cases , , and , we provide moment conditions under which
We also provide moment conditions under which
where . Our results improve and generalize those of Sung (Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2010:630608, 2010) and Wu et al. (Stat. Probab. Lett. 127:55–66, 2017).
Keywords: -mixing random variables, Complete convergence, Complete moment convergence, Weighted sum
Introduction
Due to the estimation of least squares regression coefficients in linear regression and nonparametric curve estimation, it is very interesting and meaningful to study the limit behaviors for the weighted sums of random variables.
We recall the concept of -mixing random variables.
Definition 1.1
Let be a sequence of random variables defined on a probability space . For any , define . Given two σ-algebras and in , put
Define the -mixing coefficients by
where . Obviously, . Then the sequence is called -mixing if there exists such that .
A number of limit results for -mixing sequences of random variables have been established by many authors. We refer to Bradley [3] for the central limit theorem, Bryc and Smolenski [4], Peligrad and Gut [5], and Utev and Peligrad [6] for the moment inequalities, and Sung [1] for the complete convergence of weighted sums.
Special cases for weighted sums have been studied by Bai and Cheng [7], Chen et al. [8], Choi and Sung [9], Chow [10], Cuzick [11], Sung [12], Thrum [13], and others. In this paper, we focus on the array weights of real numbers satisfying
| 1.1 |
for some . In fact, under condition (1.1), many authors have studied the limit behaviors for the weighted sums of random variables.
Let be a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables. When , Chow [10] showed that the Kolmogorov strong law of large numbers
| 1.2 |
holds if and . Cuzick [11] generalized Chow’s result by showing that (1.2) also holds if and for with . Bai and Cheng [7] proved that the Marcinkiewicz–Zygmund strong law of large numbers
| 1.3 |
holds if and , where and . Chen and Gan [14] showed that if and , then (1.3) still holds without the independent assumption.
Under condition (1.1), a convergence rate in the strong law of large numbers is also discussed. Chen [15] showed that
| 1.4 |
if is a sequence of identically distributed negatively associated (NA) random variables with and , where , , , and . The main tool used in Chen [15] is the exponential inequality for NA random variables (see Theorem 3 in Shao [16]). Sung [1] proved (1.4) for a sequence of identically distributed -mixing random variables with and , where , by using the Rosenthal moment inequality. Since the Rosenthal moment inequality for NA has been established by Shao [16], it is easy to see that Sung’s result also holds for NA random variables. However, for -mixing random variables, we do not know whether the corresponding exponential inequality holds or not, and so the method of Chen [15] does not work for -mixing random variables. On the other hand, the method of Sung [1] is complex and not applicable to the case .
In this paper, we show that (1.4) holds for a sequence of identically distributed -mixing random variables with suitable moment conditions. The moment conditions for the cases and are optimal. The moment conditions for are nearly optimal. Although the main tool is the Rosenthal moment inequality for -mixing random variables, our method is simpler than that of Sung [1] even in the case .
We also extend (1.4) to complete moment convergence, that is, we provide moment conditions under which
| 1.5 |
where .
Note that if (1.5) holds for some , then (1.4) also holds. The proof is well known.
Throughout this paper, C always stands for a positive constant that may differ from one place to another. For events A and B, we denote , where is the indicator function of an event A.
Preliminary lemmas
To prove the main results, we need the following lemmas. The first one belongs to Utev and Peligrad [6].
Lemma 2.1
Let , and let be a sequence of -mixing random variables with and for every . Then for all ,
where depends only on q and the -mixing coefficients.
Remark 2.1
By the Hölder inequality, (1.1) implies that
for any , and
for any . These properties will be used in the proofs of the following lemmas and main results.
Lemma 2.2
Let , , , with , and let X be a random variable. Let be an array of constants satisfying (1.1). Then
| 2.1 |
Proof
Case 1: . We observe by the Markov inequality that, for any ,
| 2.2 |
It is easy to show that
| 2.3 |
Taking , we have that
| 2.4 |
since . Then (2.1) holds by (2.2)–(2.4).
Case 2: . The proof is similar to that of Case 1. However, we use a different truncation for X. We observe by the Markov inequality that, for any ,
| 2.5 |
Taking , we have that
| 2.6 |
It is easy to show that
| 2.7 |
Lemma 2.3
Let , , , with , and let X be a random variable. Let be an array of constants satisfying (1.1). Then, for any ,
| 2.8 |
Proof
Case 1: . By (2.3) and (2.4) we get that
Case 2: . Taking , we have by (2.6) and (2.7) that
Therefore (2.8) holds. □
The following lemma is a counterpart of Lemma 2.3. The truncation for is reversed.
Lemma 2.4
Let , , , , with , and let X be a random variable. Let be an array of constants satisfying (1.1). Then the following statements hold.
- If , then
2.9 - If , then
2.10 - If , then
2.11
Proof
Without loss of generality, we may assume that for all . From this we have that for all and .
(1) In this case, we have that . If , then
| 2.12 |
If , then
| 2.13 |
Combining (2.12) and (2.13) gives (2.9).
(2) In this case, we have that . If , then
| 2.14 |
If , then
| 2.15 |
Combining (2.14) and (2.15) gives (2.10).
(3) In this case, we have that . If , then
| 2.16 |
If , then
| 2.17 |
If , then
| 2.18 |
since .
Lemma 2.5
Let , , with , and let X be a random variable. Let be an array of constants satisfying (1.1). If , then
| 2.19 |
as , and hence, in addition, if , then
| 2.20 |
as .
Proof
Denote . Then for all and . It follows that
| 2.21 |
as . Hence (2.19) holds.
If, in addition, , then we get by (2.21) that
as . Hence (2.20) holds. □
The following lemma shows that if , then (2.20) holds without the condition .
Lemma 2.6
Let , , with , and let X be a random variable. Let be an array of constants satisfying (1.1). If , then
as , and hence (2.20) holds.
Proof
Note that
as , since if and if . □
Main results
We first present complete convergence for weighted sums of -mixing random variables.
Theorem 3.1
Let , , , with . Let be an array of constants satisfying (1.1), and let be a sequence of identically distributed -mixing random variables. If
| 3.1 |
then (1.4) holds.
Conversely, if (1.4) holds for any array satisfying (1.1) for some , then , and .
Remark 3.1
When , (3.1) without the condition implies (1.4). The proof is the same as that of Theorem 3.1 except that Lemma 2.5 is replaced by Lemma 2.6.
Remark 3.2
The case of Theorem 3.1 corresponds to Theorem 2.2 of Sung [1], and the proof is much simpler than that of Sung [1]. Hence Theorem 3.1 generalizes the result of Sung [1].
Remark 3.3
Suppose that , , , with . Then the case is equivalent to the case , and in this case, . The case is equivalent to the case , and in this case, . The case is equivalent to the case , and in this case, .
Remark 3.4
In two cases and , the moment conditions are necessary and sufficient conditions, but in the case , the moment condition is only sufficient for (1.4). It may be difficult to prove (1.4) under the necessary moment condition . An and Yuan [17] proved (1.4) under the moment condition and the condition
for some . However, their result is not an extension of the classical one and is a particular case of Sung [1]. In fact, if we set , then , and (1.1) holds.
Proof of Theorem 3.1
Sufficiency. For any and , set
Note that
Then by Lemmas 2.2 and 2.5, to prove (1.4), it suffices to prove that
| 3.2 |
When , set if and if . Note that, when , we cannot choose such s, since . Then , and by Remark 3.3. Taking , we have by the Markov inequality and Lemma 2.1 that
| 3.3 |
Since , we have that . It follows that
| 3.4 |
By Lemma 2.3 we have
| 3.5 |
Hence (3.2) holds by (3.3)–(3.5).
When , we always have that . If (1.1) holds for some , then (1.1) also holds for any () by Remark 2.1. Thus we may assume that . Taking , we have by the Markov inequality and Lemmas 2.1 and 2.3 that
Necessity. Set for all and . Then (1.4) can be rewritten as
which implies that and (see Theorem 2 in Peligrad and Gut [5]). Set if and . Then (1.4) can be rewritten as
which is equivalent to . The proof is completed. □
Now we extend Theorem 3.1 to complete moment convergence.
Theorem 3.2
Let , , , , with . Let be an array of constants satisfying (1.1), and let be a sequence of identically distributed -mixing random variables. Assume that one of the following conditions holds.
- If , then
3.6 - If , then
3.7 - If , then
3.8
Then (1.5) holds.
Remark 3.5
As stated in the Introduction, if (1.5) holds for some , then (1.4) also holds. If , , and , then (3.6) holds for some . If , , and , then (3.7) holds for some . If , , and , then (3.8) holds for some . Therefore the sufficiency of Theorem 3.1 holds by Theorem 3.2.
Remark 3.6
The case of Theorem 3.2 corresponds to combining Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 in Wu et al. [2]. The condition on weights in Wu et al. [2] is
which is stronger than (1.1) with . Hence Theorem 3.2 generalizes and improves the results of Wu et al. [2].
Remark 3.7
In this paper, the -mixing condition is only used in Lemma 2.1. Therefore our main results (Theorems 3.1 and 3.2) also hold for random variables satisfying Lemma 2.1.
Proof of Theorem 3.2
We apply Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 in Sung [18] with , , . When the second moment of X does not exist, we apply Theorem 2.1 in Sung [18]. We can easily prove that Theorem 2.1 in Sung [18] still holds for . When the second moment of X exists, we apply Theorem 2.2 in Sung [18].
(1) If , then by Remark 3.3. We first consider the case . In this case, the moment conditions are and . When , we prove (1.5) by using Theorem 2.1 in Sung [18]. To apply Theorem 2.1 in Sung [18], we take . By Lemma 2.1,
where . By Lemma 2.3,
| 3.9 |
By Lemma 2.4,
| 3.10 |
By Lemma 2.5 (note that , since ),
| 3.11 |
Hence all conditions of Theorem 2.1 in Sung [18] are satisfied. Therefore (1.5) holds by Theorem 2.1 in Sung [18].
When and , we prove (1.5) by using Theorem 2.2 in Sung [18]. To apply Theorem 2.2 in Sung [18], we take such that . By Lemma 2.1,
Since , (3.9) holds. Also, (3.10) and (3.11) hold. Since and , we have that
Hence all conditions of Theorem 2.2 in Sung [18] are satisfied. Therefore (1.5) holds by Theorem 2.2 in Sung [18].
For the cases and , the proofs are similar to that of the previous case and are omitted.
The proofs of (2) and (3) are similar to that of (1) and are omitted. □
Acknowledgements
The research of Pingyan Chen is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 71471075]. The research of Soo Hak Sung is supported by the research grant of Pai Chai University in 2018.
Authors’ contributions
Both authors read and approved the manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Sung S.H. Complete convergence for weighted sums of -mixing random variables. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2010;2010:630608. doi: 10.1155/2010/630608. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wu Y., Wang X., Hu S. Complete moment convergence for weighted sums of weakly dependent random variables and its application in nonparametric regression model. Stat. Probab. Lett. 2017;127:56–66. doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2017.03.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Bradley R.C. On the spectral density and asymptotic normality of weakly dependent random fields. J. Theor. Probab. 1992;5:355–373. doi: 10.1007/BF01046741. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bryc W., Smolenski W. Moment conditions for almost sure convergence of weakly correlated random variables. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1993;119:629–635. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9939-1993-1149969-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Peligrad M., Gut A. Almost-sure results for a class of dependent random variables. J. Theor. Probab. 1999;12:87–104. doi: 10.1023/A:1021744626773. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Utev S., Peligrad M. Maximal inequalities and an invariance principle for a class of weakly dependent random variables. J. Theor. Probab. 2003;16:101–115. doi: 10.1023/A:1022278404634. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bai Z.D., Cheng P.E. Marcinkiewicz strong laws for linear statistics. Stat. Probab. Lett. 2000;46:105–112. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7152(99)00093-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chen P., Ma X., Sung S.H. On complete convergence and strong law for weighted sums of i.i.d. random variables. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014;2014:251435. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Choi B.D., Sung S.H. Almost sure convergence theorems of weighted sums of random variables. Stoch. Anal. Appl. 1987;5:365–377. doi: 10.1080/07362998708809124. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Chow Y.S. Some convergence theorems for independent random variables. Ann. Math. Stat. 1966;37:1482–1493. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177699140. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Cuzick J. A strong law for weighted sums of i.i.d. random variables. J. Theor. Probab. 1995;8:625–641. doi: 10.1007/BF02218047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Sung S.H. Complete convergence for weighted sums of random variables. Stat. Probab. Lett. 2007;77:303–311. doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2006.07.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Thrum R. A remark on almost sure convergence of weighted sums. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields. 1987;75:425–430. doi: 10.1007/BF00318709. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Chen P., Gan S. Limiting behavior of weighted sums of i.i.d. random variables. Stat. Probab. Lett. 2007;77:1589–1599. doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2007.03.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chen P. Limiting behavior of weighted sums of negatively associated random variables. Acta Math. Sin. 2005;25A(4):489–495. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Shao Q.M. A comparison theorem on moment inequalities between negatively associated and independent random variables. J. Theor. Probab. 2000;13:343–356. doi: 10.1023/A:1007849609234. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.An J., Yuan D. Complete convergence of weighted sums for -mixing sequence for random variables. Stat. Probab. Lett. 2008;78:1466–1472. doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2007.12.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sung S.H. Complete qth moment convergence for arrays of random variables. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013;2013:24. doi: 10.1186/1029-242X-2013-24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
