Question about ergodic theorems

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Frank Einstein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stochastic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of ergodic theorems in the context of stationary random processes, specifically examining an example from a textbook that appears to present contradictory statements regarding the relationship between ergodicity and unbiased estimation of the mean. Participants explore definitions and implications of ergodic processes and their relation to time averages.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the apparent contradiction in the textbook regarding stationary processes and ergodicity, noting that a stationary process does not have to be ergodic.
  • Another participant clarifies that "m" refers to the mean of the stochastic process, which is zero, and that the time average T is derived from a single realization of the process.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of an ergodic process, with one participant stating it is a process where time averages converge to the mean as the observation interval increases.
  • A participant expresses confusion over the integration result, initially miscalculating it, and later correcting themselves while discussing the implications for the time average.
  • Some participants assert that the example illustrates that time averages cannot be used to estimate the mean for non-ergodic processes, while questioning if this holds true for ergodic processes.
  • There is a request for definitions of unbiased estimators, indicating a difference in background knowledge among participants.
  • A later reply suggests that the book may intend for X(t) to represent a single value of a random variable used across time, which could explain the discrepancy in averaging results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the example regarding ergodicity and unbiased estimation. There is no consensus on whether the statements in the textbook are contradictory or how they relate to ergodic processes.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clear definitions and understanding of ergodicity and unbiased estimators, indicating potential gaps in the discussion that could affect interpretations of the example.

Frank Einstein
Messages
166
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
I am trying to understand an example which doesn't seem to make sense
Hello everyone. I am currently reading the book Probability statistics and random processes for electrical engineering by Alberto Leon Garcia. In page 540, one can find example 9.47, in which is shown how a stationary random process doesn't have to be ergodic by defining a random variable A of zero mean and variance one. Then, a stochastic process is defined as X(t)=A, therefore, mX(t)= E[X(t)]=E[A]=0. However, the integration over a time interval returns

<X(t)>T=∫-TT A dt=A

Which shows that a stationary process isn't necessary ergodic. However, in the very next page the book states that <X(t)>T is an unbiased estimator of m. Am I understanding everything wrong or these two statements contradict each other?

Any answer is appreciated.
Regards.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Frank Einstein said:
Summary:: I am trying to understand an example which doesn't seem to make sense

Hello everyone. I am currently reading the book Probability statistics and random processes for electrical engineering by Alberto Leon Garcia. In page 540, one can find example 9.47, in which is shown how a stationary random process doesn't have to be ergodic by defining a random variable A of zero mean and variance one. Then, a stochastic process is defined as X(t)=A, therefore, mX(t)= E[X(t)]=E[A]=0. However, the integration over a time interval returns

<X(t)>T=∫-TT A dt=A

Which shows that a stationary process isn't necessary ergodic. However, in the very next page the book states that <X(t)>T is an unbiased estimator of m. Am I understanding everything wrong or these two statements contradict each other?

Any answer is appreciated.
Regards.

Can you add the relevant definitions to your question?

In particular, what is this m you are referring to? What is your definition of ergodic stochastic process?
 
First of all. Thanks for taking your time to answer me.

In my question, m refers to the mean. That is why in the example it says that mX(t)=0; the mean of the stochastic process is zero for all times since it's CDF is equal to the one of the random variable A for all times.

Also, <X(t)>T is a time average of a single realization of the stochastic process

In the next page, the author does something similar. He writes

E[<X(t)>]=E[(1/2T)∫-TTX(t)dt]=(1/2T)∫-TTE[X(t)]dt=m and calls <X(t)>T an unbiased estimator of m.

I don't understand it, since in the example it was stated that the time average of a random process can't be used to calculate the mean of said stochastic process.
 
And what definition for ergodic stochastic process were you using? Then I can try to answer your question.
 
An ergodic process is a stochastic process in which a time average converges to the actual value (the mean or the autocorrelation) as the observation interval becomes large. An example of an ergodic process is in this case a independent identically distributed process with finite mean.
 
I can't seem to understand why ##\int_{-T}^T A dt = A##. Shouldn't this be equal to ##2TA##?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Frank Einstein
You are right. I am very sorry. The integral should be multiplied by 1/2T. However, I cannot seem to edit the original post
 
Frank Einstein said:
I don't understand it, since in the example it was stated that the time average of a random process can't be used to calculate the mean of said stochastic process.

Yes, this example shows that you can't do that if your stochastic process is not ergodic.

But isn't what the author says true if the stochastic process is ergodic?

(Also please include definition of unbiased estimator, my background is in formal probability theory and not in statistics).

If I understand you correctly, we have for an ergodic process
$$\lim_{T \to \infty }\langle X(t) \rangle_T = m$$
Is that correct?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Frank Einstein
Math_QED said:
Yes, this example shows that you can't do that if your stochastic process is not ergodic.

But isn't what the author says true if the stochastic process is ergodic?

(Also please include definition of unbiased estimator, my background is in formal probability theory and not in statistics).

If I understand you correctly, we have for an ergodic process
$$\lim_{T \to \infty }\langle X(t) \rangle_T = m$$
Is that correct?

Yes. An ergodic process is defined as an stochastic process in which the parameters can be estimated as time averages.

An unbiased estimator is defined as an estimator which mean is exactly the value of the paramter which is being estimated.

However, that would imply that the sample mean of ∞ repetitions of a mesurement of an interval of longitude 2T would end up as the mean.

I think that that is what the author was trying to say. One time measurement cannot estimate the mean, but a high number of them can. I still don't see the point, since the whole purpose of the ergodic process is to avoid doing that. However, I will se if the author does this in an attempt to justify the second ergodic theorem.

Thanks for the help.
 
  • #10
Taking a hint from:
https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/1167/what-is-the-distinction-between-ergodic-and-stationary

It's possible that the book intends ##X(t)## to denote generating a path by selecting a single value of the random variable ##X## and using it for all times ##t## rather that using an independent realization of of ##X## at each time ##t##. In such a situation, averaging one sample path of the process over long intervals of time does not produce the mean of ##X##, instead it produces the particular value of ##X## that happened to be selected in making the single realization of ##X## used to generate the path.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K