Autocorrelation of white noise.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the rigorous definition of white noise in the context of stochastic processes. It highlights that while white noise is typically defined as a stationary random process with zero mean and flat power spectral density, it cannot be accurately represented as a continuous time stochastic process. The Wiener-Khinchine theorem indicates that the autocorrelation function of white noise is a Dirac delta function, leading to the conclusion that white noise does not exist in a traditional sense. Instead, it is proposed that white noise can be defined through the derivative of Brownian motion, emphasizing its nature as a distribution rather than a conventional function.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of stochastic processes
  • Familiarity with the Wiener-Khinchine theorem
  • Knowledge of Brownian motion and Ito integrals
  • Concept of autocorrelation functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Wiener-Khinchine theorem in detail
  • Explore the properties of Brownian motion and its derivatives
  • Learn about distribution theory in the context of stochastic processes
  • Investigate the implications of white noise in signal processing
USEFUL FOR

Researchers, mathematicians, and engineers working in fields related to stochastic processes, signal processing, and statistical analysis will benefit from this discussion.

vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,115
Reaction score
20
I'm stuck with an elementary thing, it must be something obvious but I can't see what's wrong.

Here it goes. I was writing up some elementary course material for an instrumentation course, and wanted to quickly introduce "white noise".

Now, the usual definition of white noise is something like a stationary random process such that E( X(t) ) = 0 for all t and a flat power spectral density.

On the other hand, the autocorrelation function is defined as R(tau) = E (X(t) X(t+tau) ) (independent of t).

But here's the problem. The Wiener-Khinchine theorem states that the power spectral density equals the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function, so a flat power spectral density comes down to a Dirac for the autocorrelation. And for example on Wiki, you find that as a defining property of white noise.

But the autocorrelation of white noise E (X(t) X(t) ) is nothing else but sigma-squared.

So it would seem that the autocorrelation function is everywhere 0, except in 0, where it is a finite number.

What am I missing here ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
White noise cannot be defined rigorously in any of these ways. White noise does not exist as a stochastic process, in the same way that the Dirac delta function does not exist as a function.

There is no (measurable) continuous time stochastic process X that satisfies E[X(t)] = 0, var(X(t)) = σ2, with X(s) and X(t) independent whenever s ≠ t. If we allow var(X(t)) to be infinite, then we can construct such a process, but of course it cannot be continuous. Such a definition, however, is completely useless, because we need the integral of white noise to be Brownian motion. (And it would not be for such a process.)

To rigorously define white noise, we could start with a Brownian motion, B(t). Each sample path, t → B(ω,t), has a derivative in the space of generalized functions on the positive half-line. Call this derivative W(ω). Then W(ω) is our white noise process. Strictly speaking, it does not have pointwise values. We can only integrate it against test functions. Formally, we would have

φ(t)W(t) dt = -∫ φ'(t)B(t) dt
= ∫ φ(t) dB(t),

where this last integral is the Ito integral.

If we want to consider the "process" σW, then this is the distributional derivative of σB, and var(σB(t + h) - σB(t)) = σ2h. If we want to look at difference quotients of σB (which diverge, of course), then we have

var((σB(t + h) - σB(t))/h) = σ2/h.

So even heuristically, the variance of white noise at a single point in time should be infinite. For a more accurate heuristic, we might say that

var((1/h)∫tt+h σW(s) ds) = σ2/h.
 
Thanks !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
28K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K