Question
For random variables , define
(1) Prove that defines a metric on random variables, i.e., satisfies positive definiteness, symmetry, and the triangle inequality;
(2) Prove that the random variables converge in probability to if and only if .
Step-by-step solution
Step 1. First we prove that satisfies the definition of a metric. (i) Non-negativity and positive definiteness: Since , the integrand , so after taking expectations. If , then the expectation of the non-negative random variable equals 0, which implies this random variable is 0 almost surely, hence a.s., i.e., a.s. (ii) Symmetry: Clearly , so . (iii) Triangle inequality: Consider the function . For , the derivative , so is monotonically increasing. For any real numbers , the absolute value inequality gives . Let , so . Using the monotonicity of and the inequality , we obtain: . Taking expectations on both sides yields . In summary, defines a metric on the space of random variables (under almost sure equivalence).
Step 2. Proof of sufficiency: If , then . For any given , consider the event . On this event, by the monotonicity of , we have . By the generalized Chebyshev inequality or directly using properties of expectation: . Rearranging: . As , since , we get , i.e., converges in probability to .
Step 3. Proof of necessity: If , then . For any given , split the expectation into two parts: . For the first term, the integrand is always at most 1, so the first term is at most . For the second term, when , we have , so the second term is at most . Thus . Since , as , . Therefore . Since is arbitrary, .
Final answer
QED.
Marking scheme
The following is the marking scheme based on the official solution (maximum 7 points).
I. Checkpoints (Total max 7)
Part 1: Proving is a metric (max 2 pts)
- Positive definiteness and symmetry [additive]
- State that and a.s. (almost sure equality), and briefly justify symmetry .
- 1 pt
- Triangle inequality [additive]
- Use the monotonicity or subadditivity of (i.e., ) to derive .
- *If only the triangle inequality formula is stated without proving the core algebraic inequality, no credit is awarded.*
- 1 pt
Part 2: Proving the equivalence with convergence in probability (max 5 pts)
- Sufficiency proof: [additive]
- Use the Chebyshev (or Markov) inequality to establish the connection between and .
- Core logic: derive or identify that on the event the integrand has lower bound .
- 2 pts
- Necessity proof:
- Score exactly one chain | take the maximum subtotal among chains; do not add points across chains.
- `Chain A (Truncation/decomposition method)`
- Decompose the expectation: Split into integrals over and (or similar approach). [1 pt]
- Bounding and taking limits: Correctly bound both parts (first part , second part ), and let to show the limit is 0. [2 pts]
- `Chain B (Convergence theorem method)`
- Transfer of convergence in probability: State that . [1 pt]
- Cite theorem: Invoke the Dominated Convergence Theorem (DCT) (dominated by 1) or the Bounded Convergence Theorem to conclude . [2 pts]
Total (max 7)
II. Zero-credit items
- Merely copying the definition of the metric or the definition of convergence in probability without any concrete derivation.
- In proving the triangle inequality, directly claiming that implies the expectation inequality without addressing the effect of the denominator .
- In Part 2, merely stating "convergence in expectation implies convergence in probability" or vice versa without proving it for the specific nonlinear metric .
III. Deductions
- Ignoring almost sure equivalence (a.s.): In proving positive definiteness, if it is not stated that holds only in the "almost sure" sense (or ), deduct 1 point.
- Confusing convergence concepts: In the necessity proof, if pointwise or almost sure convergence is incorrectly assumed to directly interchange limits and integrals without mentioning subsequences or properties of convergence in probability, deduct 1 point (in Chain B, if DCT is used, the version for convergence in probability must be explicitly stated or the subsequence principle must be invoked; otherwise it is considered a logical gap).
- Circular reasoning: If the conclusion to be proved is used as a premise (e.g., using the fact that is a metric to prove the convergence property), that part receives 0 points.