Jump to content

Misconceptions about the normal distribution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fvultier (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 30 December 2018 (Converted ugly inline math to LaTex.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In probability theory, although simple examples illustrate that linear uncorrelatedness of two random variables does not in general imply their independence, it is sometimes mistakenly thought that it does imply that when the two random variables are normally distributed. This article demonstrates that assumption of normal distributions does not have that consequence, although the multivariate normal distribution, including the bivariate normal distribution, does.

To say that the pair of random variables has a bivariate normal distribution means that every constant (i.e. not random) linear combination of and has a univariate normal distribution. In that case, if and are uncorrelated then they are independent.[1] However, it is possible for two random variables and to be so distributed jointly that each one alone is marginally normally distributed, and they are uncorrelated, but they are not independent; examples are given below.

Examples

A symmetric example

Two normally distributed, uncorrelated but dependent variables.
Joint range of and . Darker indicates higher value of the density function.

Suppose has a normal distribution with expected value 0 and variance 1. Let have the Rademacher distribution, so that or , each with probability 1/2, and assume is independent of . Let . Then

  • and are uncorrelated;
  • both have the same normal distribution; and
  • and are not independent.[2]

To see that and are uncorrelated, one may consider the covariance : by definition, it is

Then by definition of the random variables , , and , and the independence of from , one has

To see that has the same normal distribution as , consider

(since and both have the same normal distribution), where is the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution..

To see that and are not independent, observe that or that .

Finally, the distribution of the simple linear combination concentrates positive probability at 0: . Therefore, the random variable is not normally distributed, and so also and are not jointly normally distributed (by the definition above).

An asymmetric example

The joint density of and . Darker indicates a higher value of the density.

Suppose has a normal distribution with expected value 0 and variance 1. Let

where is a positive number to be specified below. If is very small, then the correlation is near if is very large, then is near 1. Since the correlation is a continuous function of , the intermediate value theorem implies there is some particular value of that makes the correlation 0. That value is approximately 1.54. In that case, and are uncorrelated, but they are clearly not independent, since completely determines .

To see that is normally distributed—indeed, that its distribution is the same as that of —one may compute its cumulative distribution function:

where the next-to-last equality follows from the symmetry of the distribution of and the symmetry of the condition that .

In this example, the difference is nowhere near being normally distributed, since it has a substantial probability (about 0.88) of it being equal to 0. By contrast, the normal distribution, being a continuous distribution, has no discrete part—that is, it does not concentrate more than zero probability at any single point. Consequently and are not jointly normally distributed, even though they are separately normally distributed.[3]

See also

References

  1. ^ Hogg, Robert; Tanis, Elliot (2001). "Chapter 5.4 The Bivariate Normal Distribution". Probability and Statistical Inference (6th ed.). pp. 258–259. ISBN 0130272949.
  2. ^ UIUC, Lecture 21. The Multivariate Normal Distribution, 21.6:"Individually Gaussian Versus Jointly Gaussian".
  3. ^ Edward L. Melnick and Aaron Tenenbein, "Misspecifications of the Normal Distribution", The American Statistician, volume 36, number 4 November 1982, pages 372–373