Undergrad Higher-Order Time Correlation Functions of White Noise?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the fourth-order correlation of Gaussian white noise, specifically for the function <F(t1)F(t2)F(t3)F(t4)>. It is noted that using three Dirac deltas ensures the correlation is nonzero only when all time variables are equal, but this approach introduces incorrect units. A standard result from probability theory for four zero-mean jointly-Gaussian random variables is introduced, which provides a correct method for calculating the fourth-order correlation. The necessity of the Kronecker delta is debated, with clarification that it may be relevant in specific contexts involving uncorrelated forces. Ultimately, the correct formulation requires careful consideration of both Dirac deltas and the properties of the noise.
Opus_723
Messages
175
Reaction score
3
Suppose I have Gaussian white noise, with the usual dirac-delta autocorrelation function,

<F1(t1)F2(t2)> = s2*d(t1-t2)*D12

Where s is the standard deviation of the Gaussian, little d is the delta function, and big D is the kronecker delta. For concreteness and to keep track of units, say F represents a force.

What is the 4th-order correlation of this same white noise?

<F(t1)F(t2)F(t3)F(t4)> = ?

My first guess, would be to simply let s2 become 3s4 to capture the higher moment in the Gaussian distribution, and add a couple of dirac-deltas and kroneckers to make sure it's only nonzero when all t1,t2,t3,t4 are the same:

<F(t1)F(t2)F(t3)F(t4)> = 3s4*d(t1-t2)d(t2-t3)d(t3-t4)*D12*D23*D34

But this is, of course, wrong. We would need three dirac deltas to ensure that the result is nonzero only when all times are the same, but this introduces too many units of 1/time. It no longer makes any sense as a 4th-order correlation of forces. Somehow this must be accomplished with a different structure.

So what is the right way to do this? Do we need to specify additional properties of the white noise in order to calculate this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, the Kronecker delta is not needed for your autocorrelation function. The Dirac delta is all that you need.

Anyway, since your white noise is Gaussian, I would use a standard result from probability theory that if you have four zero-mean jointly-Gaussian random variables ##x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4##, then
$$ \left\langle x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4 \right\rangle = \left\langle x_1 x_2\right\rangle \left\langle x_3 x_4\right\rangle + \left\langle x_1 x_3\right\rangle \left\langle x_2 x_4\right\rangle + \left\langle x_1 x_4\right\rangle \left\langle x_2 x_3\right\rangle $$

This can be derived using characteristic functions - it isn't a difficult derivation but it is messy.

Jason
 
  • Like
Likes Opus_723
jasonRF said:
First, the Kronecker delta is not needed for your autocorrelation function. The Dirac delta is all that you need.

Anyway, since your white noise is Gaussian, I would use a standard result from probability theory that if you have four zero-mean jointly-Gaussian random variables ##x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4##, then
$$ \left\langle x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4 \right\rangle = \left\langle x_1 x_2\right\rangle \left\langle x_3 x_4\right\rangle + \left\langle x_1 x_3\right\rangle \left\langle x_2 x_4\right\rangle + \left\langle x_1 x_4\right\rangle \left\langle x_2 x_3\right\rangle $$

This can be derived using characteristic functions - it isn't a difficult derivation but it is messy.

Jason

Thank you. This is exactly what I needed, and in retrospect makes a lot of sense. I will note that the Kronecker delta *is* necessary in my particular problem as I have uncorrelated forces acting on different particles, but I probably didn't make that very clear.

Thanks again!
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
6K