3
$\begingroup$

Consider the Irwin-Hall distribution, which for me means $X_n$ is the sum of $n$ uniform iid variables in $[-1/2, 1/2]$. I would like an absolute lower bound for $E[|X_n|]$.

By general theory we know that it approaches an explicit constant times $\sqrt{n}$, but I would like a statement of the form: for all $n > N$, we have $E[|X_n|] > c\sqrt{n}$ for explicit $c$ and $N$. I am aware that one way to achieve such a statement is from Holder's inequality, applied to say the first and fourth moments and comparing with the second moment.

However, this may be a bit weak, and the $N$ we get may be quite large. Ideally I would want a statement that is true for $N$ relatively small (e.g. 1-digit would be great), and maybe a better bound if possible. Of course I can explicitly compute using a program what it is for small $N$. So one strategy that might work for what I need is a statement that the actual $c$ one gets for $n$ gets closer to the limiting value of $c$ after a certain point, and check the values by hand for all $n$ up to that value.

Edit: to clarify, and in light of Henry's answer, it seems that these $c$-values decrease with $N$, so that the limiting value is indeed an absolute lower bound. So I am really looking for a proof that these $c$-values do indeed decrease.

In some other contexts it seems that some results have been proven regarding monotonic convergence towards the central limit theorem, which is the flavor of result I need, but I haven't found anything that directly implies it.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the Irwin-Hall distribution is more usually the sum of $n$ iid uniform $[0,1]$ random variables, and to get to your $X_n$ requires subtraction of $\frac n2$, but this location issue is not particularly important here. $\endgroup$
    – Henry
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 1:58
  • $\begingroup$ Using the formula for the PDF given at the end of my post at stats.stackexchange.com/a/43075/919 (and doing half the integral and doubling the answer) you can work out the values explicitly as a sum of $\lceil (n+1)/2 \rceil$ terms. The sum doesn't simplify to any recognizable analytic or closed-form function. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 2:46

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

I am not quite clear what you are asking for.

For $n=1$ you get $\mathbb E[|X_1|]=\frac14=0.25\times \sqrt{1}$.

For $n=2$ you get $\mathbb E[|X_2|]=\frac13\approx 0.2357\times \sqrt{2}$.

The expectation of $X_n$ is $0$ and the variance of $X_n$ is $\frac{n}{12}$ with the central limit theorem applying to $X_n$, while the expectation of a half-normal distribution is $\sqrt{\frac{2 }{\pi}}\sigma$, so I would expect your limiting value $c$ to be $\sqrt{\frac{1}{6\pi}}$ and for this to be the lower bound, i.e. for all $n$

$$\mathbb E[|X_n|] \ge \sqrt{\frac{n}{6\pi}} \approx 0.2303 \times \sqrt{n}.$$

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1. The sequence $1/4,1/3$ continues $\frac{13}{32},\frac{7}{15},\frac{1199}{2304},\frac{239}{420},\frac{113149}{184320},\frac{1487}{2268},\frac{14345663}{20643840},\frac{292223}{399168},\frac{17110600987}{22295347200},\frac{14849671}{18532800},\frac{545242142639}{653996851200},\frac{961780559}{1111968000},$ $\frac{1704615588759647}{1904438830694400},\frac{856088316689}{926269344000},\frac{7836371329207844977}{8227175748599808000},\frac{1103759659545457}{1126343522304000},\frac{16895087931630048788047}{16783438527143608320000},\frac{59954362566895631}{58057888831488000},\ldots$ $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 2:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with the first couple of additional figures (which I had done by hand). That sequence whuber gave divided by $\sqrt{n}$ decreases (each term is smaller than the one before; all remaining above Henry's $\sqrt{\frac{1}{6\pi}}$). Perhaps it's possible that $E[|X_n|]/\sqrt{n}>E[|X_{n+1}|]/\sqrt{n+1}$ could be proven, which would establish the result that $0.2303... \times\sqrt{n}$ is a lower bound. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 3:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, an obvious upper bound is $\sqrt{\frac{n}{12}}\approx 0.2887\sqrt{n}$, but we can see that $0.25\sqrt{n}$ would appear to be sufficient. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 3:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, this is almost what I was after, but is there a proof that these $c$-values are decreasing with $n$? I obviously believe it to be true given the empirical data but a proof would be excellent. Or just a reference to any theorems in probability that might be relevant to proving this. $\endgroup$
    – Cyclicduck
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 3:37
  • $\begingroup$ For instance ams.org/journals/jams/2004-17-04/S0894-0347-04-00459-X/… seems close, but entropy isn't exactly what I'm looking for. $\endgroup$
    – Cyclicduck
    Commented Dec 14, 2023 at 4:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.