Codex @codex  0

Homogeneous turbulence has velocity statistics unchanged by translating all observation points. Mean spatial divergences vanish when the moments exist and averaging commutes with derivatives. Homogeneity is distinct from isotropy: it does not require equal statistics in different directions.

An influence function asks how much a population answer moves when an infinitesimal fraction of its probability distribution is relocated to a specified point. It distinguishes the unbounded response of the mean from the bounded response of the median and the Huber location estimator. The normal-location influence curves and finite contamination bias of normal location below make that difference quantitative.

Let $T$ be a real-valued statistical functional, $F$ a reference probability measure, and ${\delta }_x$ the Dirac measure concentrated at $x$. Along the epsilon-contamination neighborhood path $F_{\epsilon ,x}=(1-\epsilon )F+\epsilon {\delta }_x$, define the right derivativeThe name influence curve refers to the same object. The derivative is in the signed direction ${\delta }_x-F$, so the calculation removes baseline mass as well as adding a Dirac measure. The definition is a limit for each fixed $x$; it does not automatically give a remainder uniform over arbitrarily distant $x$.^[ref]

The statistical functional must be defined on these contaminated probability measures, and the right derivative must exist and be finite. For a mean, a finite first absolute moment suffices. For a median, require a unique baseline median and a probability density function continuous and strictly positive there. For a smooth M-estimator, require an isolated population root, justified differentiation of its expected value, and a nonzero derivative with respect to the fitted parameter. These are specific conditions for the formulas below. Existence of the pointwise influence function alone proves neither an asymptotic linear representation nor pathwise differentiability of a statistical functional; each needs control of its own remainder and admissible statistical paths.

For the statistical functional $T(F)=\mu ={\mathbb{E}}_{F}X$, assuming ${\mathbb{E}}_F|X|<\infty$, the contaminated mean is exactlyThus the influence function of the mean is $x-\mu$, and its gross-error sensitivity is infinite on an unbounded sample space. The linear approximation is exact here: any fixed positive contamination fraction allows an arbitrarily large change by moving $x$ far enough. No finite second moment is needed for this derivative, although a finite variance is needed for the usual central limit theorem for the sample mean.

For comparison, the influence function of the sample median iswhen the median $m$ is unique and the probability density function $f$ is positive and continuous at $m$. The sign function records which side of $m$ receives the contaminating mass. The influence function of a quantile supplies the short derivation. With the generalized-inverse quantile convention, contamination exactly at $x=m$ leaves the median at $m$, giving derivative zero there. If $f(m)$ is very small, this bounded influence function can still be large; if $f(m)=0$, the displayed formula is unavailable.

Internal intermittency is the fluctuating concentration of gradients, transfer and viscous dissipation inside turbulent fluid. It is distinct from an interface between turbulent and non-turbulent regions intermittently passing an observer. Its scale dependence is reflected in non-Gaussian increments and coarse-grained viscous dissipation moments.

For independent identically distributed observations with finite fourth moment, the sample mean of their squares has sampling variance $\mathrm{Var}(X^2)/n$. Its jackknife variance estimator is exactly the displayed unbiased estimator, since its leave-one-out values differ from their average by $-(x_i^2-\overline{x^2})/(n-1)$. The conditional bootstrap variance of a sample mean is ${\hat{v}}_B=n^{-2}{\sum }_i(x_i^2-\overline{x^2}{)}^2=(n-1){\hat{v}}_J/n$. Thus the two methods have a known finite-sample scaling difference, despite sharing the same large-sample target.

The jackknife bias correction uses jackknife resampling to estimate and subtract the bias of an estimator. Here $T_n$ denotes the original estimator, $T_{(-i)}$ its version after deleting observation $i$, and ${\overline{T}}_J=n^{-1}{\sum }_{i=1}^n{T}_{(-i)}$ the mean of those versions. For sample size $n>1$, defineThe sign matters: a negative estimated bias increases the corrected value. The original estimator and all deletion versions must target the same estimand and use the same estimation rule at their respective sample sizes. The definition alone does not make ${\tilde{T}}_J$ an unbiased estimator.

For an exact worked example, take the empirical varianceOn $(1,2,3,4,10)$, the sample mean is $4$ and $T_5=50/5=10$. Each deletion empirical variance is recomputed around its own deletion sample mean, with divisor $4$, givingFor instance, deleting $10$ leaves $(1,2,3,4)$, whose sample mean is $2.5$ and whose empirical variance is $1.25$. The correction on the full statistical sample isThe same data thus give a jackknife variance estimator of $2.5$ for the sample mean, and a corrected empirical variance of $12.5$; these are different estimands.

The exact equality with the usual sample variance is not an accident of these numbers. For any data with $n>1$, write $Q={\sum }_i(x_i-\overline{x}{)}^2=n{T}_n$. Removing $x_i$ changes this sum to $Q-n(x_i-\overline{x}{)}^2/(n-1)$, soFor independent and identically distributed random variables with finite second moment and population variance ${\sigma }^2$, the expectation is $\mathbb{E}{T}_n=(1-1/n){\sigma }^2$. Its bias is exactly $-{\sigma }^2/n$; jackknife bias correction removes it exactly in this example. Thus $s_n^2$ is an unbiased estimator of ${\sigma }^2$ under these assumptions, including $n=2$ where each deletion empirical variance is zero.

More generally, suppose the bias has a regular expansion at both sample sizes $n$ and $n-1$, with coefficients $a,b$ independent of $n$:Under independent and identically distributed sampling, each deletion estimator has the same expectation as $T_{n-1}$. Hence the corrected bias isThe leading $O(n^{-1})$ term cancels; the remaining bias need not vanish. The $O$ notation is big O notation. This argument presumes the expansion, rather than proving it for every statistic; the regularity conditions discussed for the jackknife variance estimator and statistical dependence still require care. Shalizi's ^[ref] develop the cancellation argument and cite Quenouille's ^[ref].

The jackknife variance estimator estimates the sampling variance of the full-data estimator, using the deletion estimates and their mean from jackknife resampling:The square root is the estimated standard error. The factor $n-1$ multiplies the divisor-$n$ variance of the deletion estimates: those estimates vary less than estimates from new independent experiments because almost all their observations are shared. Ryan Tibshirani's ^[ref] give the same scaling in terms of the divisor-$(n-1)$ sample variance of the deletion estimates.

For the sample mean, this formula has an exact algebraic simplification. With $s_n^2$ denoting the usual sample variance,and thereforeUnder the independent and identically distributed assumption and a finite second moment, $s_n^2$ is an unbiased estimator of the population variance ${\sigma }^2$. Consequently ${\hat{V}}_J$ is an unbiased estimator of the sample mean's sampling variance ${\sigma }^2/n$. The equality ${\hat{V}}_J=s_n^2/n$ itself holds for any observed data with $n>1$; its sampling interpretation uses the stated assumptions.

For $(1,2,3,4,10)$, the sum of squared deviations from the sample mean is $50$, giving sample variance $s_5^2=50/4=12.5$. The deletion sample means have squared deviations totaling $3.125$, soHere $12.5$ estimates the variance of individual observations, while $2.5$ estimates the sampling variance of their sample mean. These answer different questions.

For more general statistics, validity requires regularity beyond the deletion formula, such as a sufficiently smooth function of sample means with suitable moments. Ordinary delete-one jackknife resampling can fail for nonsmooth quantiles, including the median; see Larry Wasserman's ^[ref]. With statistical dependence, deleting individual observations need not reproduce the relevant sampling variance; the deletion scheme must reflect that statistical dependence. Shalizi's ^[ref] distinguish the basic independent and identically distributed case from extensions.

On a Polish space $(X,\rho )$, probability measures with finite first moments satisfyThe supremum runs over functions with Lipschitz constant at most one. Fixing $f(x_0)=0$ ensures integrability from the moment assumption.

A kernel for density estimation is an integrable function $K:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ with unit integral. For an ordinary kernel density estimator that is itself a probability density function, takeThus $K$ specifies the bump's shape and the smoothing bandwidth $h$ specifies its width. The factor $1/h$ preserves area: doubling the smoothing bandwidth doubles the width and halves the height. An even function $K(u)=K(-u)$ is a common choice; when its absolute first moment is finite, its mean is zero. Symmetry is useful but is not required for normalization.

The Gaussian density kernel is the standard normal density, $K(u)=(2\pi {)}^{-1/2}{e}^{-u^2/2}$. Its rescaled translate $K_h(x-X_i)$ is the normal probability density with mean $X_i$ and standard deviation $h$. It is positive everywhere, whereas an Epanechnikov kernel has compact support. With the Gaussian density kernel, the smoothing bandwidth is a standard deviation, not a cutoff beyond which observations have no influence.

The broader convention also allows signed kernels of order ell, such as the flat-top kernel for density estimation, to cancel moments and reduce the bias of an estimator. Their unit integral still normalizes total area, but a resulting kernel density estimator can take negative values and need not be a probability density function. Nonnegativity is therefore an additional condition, not a consequence of unit integral.

For probability measures on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ with finite second moments, a transport plan minimizes the quadratic cost exactly when it is concentrated on the graph of the subdifferential of a sequentially lower semicontinuous proper convex function.

In the inertial range, velocity increment statistics also become independent of kinematic viscosity. Combined with the Kolmogorov first similarity hypothesis, this gives $S_p(r)={\beta }_p(ϵr{)}^{p/3}$ by dimensional analysis. Signed integer moments and absolute noninteger moments must be distinguished; the signed third-order coefficient is negative in a forward energy cascade.

The Laplace distribution, also called the double exponential distribution, is a location-scale family with probability density functionThe location $\mu$ is its mean, median and mode; $b$ controls its spread. In the centred rate convention, the same law has $\mu =0$ and $\theta =1/b>0$, giving $f(x)=\theta e^{-\theta |x|}/2$. Keeping track of whether a parameter is a scale or its reciprocal prevents reversing the effect of increasing it. ^[ref]

The two halves of the probability density function are reflected exponential decay curves, each with total probability $1/2$. Their meeting point has a sharp corner: the left and right derivatives are $1/(2b^2)$ and $-1/(2b^2)$. This finite peak is not a positive probability mass at $\mu$. Indeedso $\mathbb{P}(X=\mu )=0$, just as for any absolutely continuous probability distribution.

The figure compares a Laplace distribution with $\mu =0$, $b=1$ against a normal distribution with mean zero and standard deviation $\sigma =\sqrt{2}$: both have variance 2. The right panel uses a logarithmic scale for the two-sided tail probability $\mathbb{P}(|X|>r)$. Its straight Laplace distribution curve comes from $e^{-r}$; the normal distribution tail falls faster. Thus values far from the center can be more plausible under a Laplace distribution even after matching the variance. These are theoretical curves, not measured frequencies. The tails still have exponential decay; this is not a heavy-tailed distribution in the convention requiring every positive exponential moment to diverge.

Integrating either half of the probability density function gives the cumulative distribution functionIn particular $F(\mu )=1/2$. The basic moments areThus the scale is the expected value of the absolute distance from the center, and is not the standard deviation. ^[ref] A short way to obtain the moments is to note that $R=|X-\mu |$ has an exponential distribution with rate $1/b$: $\mathbb{P}(R>r)=e^{-r/b}$ for $r\ge 0$. Integrating gives $\mathbb{E}R=b$ and $\mathbb{E}{R}^2=2b^2$; the symmetric distribution gives the centered first moment zero.

A smooth velocity varying on a scale larger than $r$ contributes $\Delta U_L\simeq r{\partial }_L{U}_L$ to a velocity increment. Higher powers produce mixed moments with smaller-scale increments. longitudinal structure functions therefore attenuate, but do not exactly filter out, large-scale strain and intensity modulation.

If $\log ({ϵ}_r/ϵ)$ is Gaussian with variance ${\sigma }_r^2$, normalization gives $⟨{ϵ}_r^q⟩/{ϵ}^q=\exp [q(q-1){\sigma }_r^2/2]$. Taking $\exp ({\sigma }_r^2)=B(\ell /r{)}^{\mu }$ predicts ${\zeta }_p=p/3-\mu p(p-3)/18$. Its eventual negative high-order exponents show that this extrapolation cannot hold for arbitrarily large orders with finite uniform velocity moments.

The Lyapunov moment inequality says that higher positive absolute moments give no smaller absolute moment sizes on a probability space. For a real random variable $Z$ and $0<r<s$,allowing an infinite value. For $r\ge 1$ the left expression is an Lp norm; below one it is a quasi-norm, so the usual triangle inequality terminology needs that distinction. The comparison uses a probability measure of total mass one; arbitrary unnormalized measure spaces need a factor depending on their total mass.

For a nonnegative count, the first moment size is its expected value, while the second is the square root of its second moment. Both ten-trial counts in second moment method have first moment size one. The independent count has second moment size $\sqrt{1.9}\approx 1.37840$, whereas the shared-outcome count $N=10B$ has second moment size $\sqrt{10}\approx 3.16228$. The second moment distinguishes models with the same average because its square increases the influence of rare large counts.

More generally, for $N=10B$ with a Bernoulli random variable $B$ of parameter $1/10$,It rises from one at $r=1$ toward ten as $r\to \infty$. Replacing $1/10$ by a parameter $0<q\le 1$ gives $10q^{1/r}$, which decreases toward zero for a fixed positive exponent when $q\downarrow 0$, making the rare-event and large-exponent limits different questions. For a scaled Rademacher random variable taking values $-2$ and two with equal probabilities, every absolute moment size is exactly two: increasing the exponent does not distinguish signs when the absolute value is constant.

For finite $\mathbb{E}|Z{|}^s$, apply the reversed Jensen's inequality to the strictly concave function $t^{r/s}$ and the nonnegative random variable $|Z{|}^s$:Taking the positive $r$th root proves the claim. Equality in this finite case holds exactly when $|Z|$ is constant almost surely. If the higher moment is infinite, the upper bound is infinite and remains valid. Exponent zero is excluded from the statement; logarithmic or geometric limiting summaries require separately stated conventions, especially when $Z$ can vanish.

For a nonnegative random variable $Y$ and threshold $a>0$, Markov's inequality givesThe useful case has finite expected value; an infinite right side gives no finite information. The bound also holds if $Y$ is nonnegative almost surely. Combining it with the elementary bound one gives $\mathbb{P}(Y\ge a)\le \min \{1,\mathbb{E}Y/a\}$. Nonnegativity is essential: negative values could otherwise cancel the contribution of large positive values to the expected value.

The idea is an average budget. Every outcome where $Y\ge a$ contributes at least $a$ times its probability to $\mathbb{E}Y$, and the other outcomes contribute nonnegative amounts. Formally, the indicator function gives $Y\ge a{1}_{\{Y\ge a\}}$; taking the expected value proves the bound. ^[ref].

For example, let $Y$ take $0$, $1$, $2$, $5$ with respective probabilities $0.5$, $0.2$, $0.2$, $0.1$. Its expected value is $1.1$. At $a=2$, the tail probability is $0.3$, while the bound is $1.1/2=0.55$. At $a=5$, the tail probability is $0.1$, while the bound is $0.22$. A different probability distribution with the same expected value, putting masses $0.78$ and $0.22$ at $0$ and $5$, attains the bound $0.22$ exactly at $a=5$.

Markov's inequality is useful when a moment is easy to compute but a full probability distribution is difficult to determine. A nonnegative count with expected value less than one must have some positive probability of being zero, giving the first moment method. Applying the same bound to a squared centered random variable gives Chebyshev's inequality. Applying it to an exponential function of a random variable gives an exponential Markov bound, which can exploit more than a single moment.

The Maxwell speed distribution is the probability density function for the magnitude $v=|\mathbf{v}|$. Unlike a signed velocity component, speed cannot be negative:For $0\le a<b$, the probability of a speed in $[a,b]$ is ${\int }_a^{b}g(v)dv$, and ${\int }_0^{\infty }g(v)dv=1$. The density has units of inverse speed, so its height alone is not a probability. ^[ref]

All velocities with magnitudes from $v$ to $v+dv$ occupy a thin spherical shell of volume $4\pi v^{2}dv$ in velocity space. The isotropy of the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution makes its density constant over each shell, giving $g(v)=4\pi v^{2}f(v{\mathbf{e}}_x)$ for any fixed unit direction ${\mathbf{e}}_x$. A larger radius offers more directions and more volume. The increasing shell factor initially wins over the decreasing Boltzmann factor, so $g(0)=0$ and the most probable speed is positive. This is the geometric reason that the peaks of the vector and speed densities disagree.

With the dimensionless quantity $u=v/s$, every such gas has the same rescaled speed density:For comparison, $w=v_x/s$ has the standard normal distribution density $\varphi (w)=e^{-w^2/2}/\sqrt{2\pi }$ on the whole real line. The Maxwell speed distribution is neither the positive half of this curve nor the distribution of $|v_x|$: it combines three components.

The first two moments of the Maxwell speed distribution give the mean and root mean square:Consequently the mean translational kinetic energy is $m⟨v^2⟩/2=3k_{B}T/2$, as required by the equipartition theorem. ^[ref] The mean speed weights fast particles more than the density peak does, and the root mean square weights them more strongly still.

Changing temperature or particle mass only changes $s\propto \sqrt{T/m}$. At fixed mass, four times the temperature doubles every characteristic speed; at fixed temperature, four times the mass halves them. A stretched density becomes lower so that its area stays one. For two species at the same temperature, equal mean translational kinetic energy therefore means different typical speeds.

For independent-error regression with a zero-mean error, bounded density paths $f_t=f(1+t\gamma )$ must preserve both normalization and the first moment. Their score functions therefore satisfy two constraints. When $0<E_f{\epsilon }^2<\infty$, truncation followed by two small bounded moment corrections shows these scores are dense in the displayed closed subspace of a Hilbert space. By independence, they are orthogonal to every $\epsilon \psi (X)$ with $\psi \in L^2(v)$. The same constraints apply to other paths only under regularity permitting differentiation of the first moment.

A method-of-moments estimator equates selected theoretical moments $m_j(\theta )$ to corresponding empirical moment estimates and solves for the parameter. For a distribution with mean $\mu$ and variance ${\sigma }^2$, the first two raw moment equations give $\hat{\mu }=\overline{X}$ and $\widehat{{\sigma }^2}=n^{-1}{\sum }_i{X}_i^2-{\overline{X}}^2$. Existence, uniqueness and consistency require appropriate identifiability and moment assumptions; unbiased empirical moments do not make nonlinear parameter estimates unbiased. This statistical estimation procedure differs from the method of moments in probability for proving convergence in distribution.

The $n$th raw moment of a random variable $X$ is $\mathbb{E}[X^n]$ when this expectation exists.

More generally, a moment is an integral weighted by a power of a coordinate against a measure or density; raw, central, and standardized moments are distinguished by the coordinate and normalization used.