Correlation of Complex Random Variables

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of the correlation of complex random variables, specifically addressing the presence of a half factor in the correlation formula. Participants explore the implications of this factor in both complex and real-valued cases, examining its role in normalization and the general formula for correlation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of the half factor in the correlation definition for complex random variables, suggesting it may not be a general rule.
  • Another participant proposes a general formula for autocorrelation, indicating that the half factor could be a normalization factor due to the independence of the real and imaginary parts of the complex variable.
  • A later reply confirms that the general formula for correlation applies to real-valued cases as well, providing a standard correlation formula involving covariance and variance.
  • There is a suggestion that the half factor is merely a normalization factor, which some participants seem to accept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and role of the half factor in the correlation of complex random variables. While some agree on its normalization aspect, there is no consensus on its general applicability or necessity across different contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the dependence of the correlation definition on the independence of the real and imaginary parts of the complex variable, as well as the implications for real-valued cases. The discussion does not resolve the broader applicability of the half factor.

EngWiPy
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
61
Hi,

Why there is a half factor in the definition of the correlation of complex random variables, like:

[tex]\phi_{zz}(\tau)=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[z^*(t+\tau)z(t)\right][/tex]?

Thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
S_David said:
Hi,

Why there is a half factor in the definition of the correlation of complex random variables, like:

[tex]\phi_{zz}(\tau)=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{E}\left[z^*(t+\tau)z(t)\right][/tex]?

Thanks in advance
I don't think that's true as a general rule. For the example you give, an autocorrelation, the general formula would be

[tex]\rho_{zz}(\tau)=\frac{\mathbf{E}\left[z^*(t+\tau)z(t)\right]}{\mathbf{E}\left[z^*(t)z(t)\right]}[/tex]

I'm guessing that in your case, 1/2 is just the normalization factor 1/E[z*z], perhaps because the real and imaginary parts of z are independent with mean square 1.
 
pmsrw3 said:
I don't think that's true as a general rule. For the example you give, an autocorrelation, the general formula would be

[tex]\rho_{zz}(\tau)=\frac{\mathbf{E}\left[z^*(t+\tau)z(t)\right]}{\mathbf{E}\left[z^*(t)z(t)\right]}[/tex]

I'm guessing that in your case, 1/2 is just the normalization factor 1/E[z*z], perhaps because the real and imaginary parts of z are independent with mean square 1.

does this general formula apply to the real-valued case, too?
 
S_David said:
does this general formula apply to the real-valued case, too?
Yes.

The general formula for a correlation is [tex]\frac{Cov(x,y)}{\sqrt{Var(x)Var(y)}}[/tex]. In the case of an autocorrelation, x, and y are the same (except displaced in time, which doesn't affect the variance), so the denominator reduces to Var(x) = E[x^2].
 
pmsrw3 said:
Yes.

The general formula for a correlation is [tex]\frac{Cov(x,y)}{\sqrt{Var(x)Var(y)}}[/tex]. In the case of an autocorrelation, x, and y are the same (except displaced in time, which doesn't affect the variance), so the denominator reduces to Var(x) = E[x^2].

So, 0.5 is just a normalization factor. Ok thanks a lot.

Regards
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K