Cited by 1,057

Negative Association of Random Variables with Applications

Joag-Dev, Kumar, Proschan, Frank·1983·The Annals of Statistics

Abstract

Random variables, $X_1, \cdots, X_k$ are said to be negatively associated (NA) if for every pair of disjoint subsets $A_1, A_2$ of $\{1, 2, \cdots, k\}, \operatorname{Cov}\lbrack f(X_1, i \in A_1), g(X_j, j \in A_2) \rbrack \leq 0$, for all nondecreasing functions $f, g$. The basic properties of negative association are derived. Especially useful is the property that nondecreasing functions of mutually exclusive subsets of NA random variables are NA. This property is shown not to hold for several other types of negative dependence recently proposed. One consequence is the inequality $P(X_i \leq x_i, i = 1, \cdots, k) \leq \prod^k_1P(X_i \leq x_i)$ for NA random variables $X_1, \cdots, X_k$, and the dual inequality resulting from reversing the inequalities inside the square brackets. In another application it is shown that negatively correlated normal random variables are NA. Other NA distributions are the (a) multinomial, (b) convolution of unlike multinomials, (c) multivariate hypergeometric, (d) Dirichlet, and (e) Dirichlet compound multinomial. Negative association is shown to arise in situations where the probability measure is permutation invariant. Applications of this are considered for sampling without replacement as well as for certain multiple ranking and selection procedures. In a somewhat striking example, NA and positive association representing quite strong opposing types of dependence, are shown to exist side by side in models of categorical data analysis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1214/aos/1176346079

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pitt's Gaussian correlation inequality gives the qualitative bound γW ≥ 0 but not a quantitative comparison to γ.

    “Pitt's Gaussian correlation inequality (Pitt, 1977;Esary et al., 1967;Joag-Dev and Proschan, 1983) gives the qualitative bound γW ≥ 0 but not a quantitative comparison to γ, so direct estimation is the right move.”

    From RoPoLL: Robust Panel of LLM Judges (2026) · cites this paper as Joag-Dev and Proschan, 1983

    Section 3.4 (p. 8) refers to the known result that positively correlated normal variables are associated, which supports a qualitative nonnegative-association point. It does not define γW or γ, establish the stated bound for γW, or discuss whether a quantitative comparison between them is available. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For jointly Gaussian competent noise with positive score correlation, the cluster indicators are positively associated by Pitt's Gaussian correlation inequality, so γW ≥ 0.

    “For jointly Gaussian competent noise with positive score correlation, the cluster indicators are positively associated by Pitt's Gaussian correlation inequality (Pitt, 1977;Esary et al., 1967;Joag-Dev and Proschan, 1983), so γW ≥ 0”

    From RoPoLL: Robust Panel of LLM Judges (2026) · cites this paper as Joag-Dev and Proschan, 1983

    Section 3.4 (p. 8) explicitly refers to the result that positively correlated normal random variables are associated, supporting the Gaussian-association premise. It does not address competent noise, cluster indicators, or γW, so it does not establish the claimed application or its inequality. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Joag-Dev, K., & Proschan, F.
Venue
The Annals of Statistics
Published
1983-03-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
286-295
ISSN
  • 0090-5364
  • 2168-8966
Cited by
1,057
References
0

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review