We establish a sharp lower bound on the L_p-norm of sums of independent exponential random variables with fixed variance, for p \geq 2, thus extending Hunter’s positivity theorem (1976) for completely homogeneous polynomials. We determine the exact regime of p where such sums enjoy Schur-monotonicity.
Let p \geq 2. For every n \geq 1 and real numbers x_1, \dots, x_n, we have
where G \sim N(0,1) is a standard Gaussian random variable.
This bound is (asymptotically) sharp as seen by taking n = 2m, x = x_\star with x_{\star, 1} = -x_{\star, 2} = x_{\star, 3} = -x_{\star, 4} = \dots = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}} and letting m \to \infty. We conjecture that for a fixed even number of summands n, the infimal value of the L_p norm, p \geq 2, that is the infimal value of the left hand side of (1) is attained at the balanced vector of half plus-minus ones, x = x_\star. The very recent result of [BP] strongly supports this, where the conjecture is established for all integral even values of exponent p.
A natural relaxation of (1), that is the minimisation problem of the L_p-norm (p \geq 2) over a class of distributions from the class of sums of independent exponentials to the class of, say centred unimodal (or log-concave) random variables with the L_2-norm fixed leads to a different than Gaussian extremiser, namely the uniform one, see, e.g. Remark 16 in [ENT2]. This is in striking contrast to [MRTT], where the original problem for the sums of exponentials is solved in the larger class of all log-concave centred random variables, leading to (?) and (?). In that sense, bound (1) somehow exploits the structure of sums of independent exponentials.
In a similar vein, where exponentials pivot an answer to an extremisation problem, we also ought to mention Tang’s recent result [T] on minimal volume sections of the simplex, saying that
in the setting of Theorem 1, where f_X here denotes the (continuous version of) density of a random variable X (see also “Fake Theorem 4” therein). Equivalently (via a negative moment formula for the density, see, e.g. (1) in [CNT]),
In view of (1), we conjecture that for every -1 < p < 2,
That is, there is a phase transition of the extremising distribution at p_0 = -0.565.., defined as a unique value of p \in (-1, 2) for which the two L_p norms on the right hand side coincide.
For an arbitrary integer n \geq 2, function M_p is Schur-convex for -1 < p < 0, and Schur-concave for 0 \leq p \leq 4 on \mathbb{R}_+^n. Moreover, this function fails to be Schur-monotone as long as p > 4.
For every real numbers x_1, \dots, x_n and u, we have
Integration by parts indeed yields
Rearranging gives the result.
For every real numbers x_1, \dots, x_n and u, v, u \neq v, we have
In particular,
Applying Lemma 6 to the sum S_{(x, u)} = S_x + u\mathscr{E} (with n+1 terms) gives,
Similarly,
Subtracting off from this the previous line yields
as desired. Letting v \to u readily gives
For s>0 and 0<q<2, we have
Denote the integral on the left hand side by I_{q,s}. Set \alpha=\frac{1+s}{2} and \beta=\frac q2. With the change of variables u=t^{2}/s, we have
Using the Gamma representation
we obtain
Plugging this back and exchanging the order of integration,
For 0<\beta<1, changing the variables and integrating by parts,
hence
Therefore,
For \beta, x > 0, let
Then, for every \beta > 0,
Using Stirling’s formula, \Gamma(x) \sim \sqrt{2\pi}x^{x-1/2}e^{-x}, as x \to \infty, we have
Fix x > 0. Note that
Rewriting with
and iterating n-times yields
Thus letting n \to \infty, we find that
The following claim finishes the argument.
Claim. For every \beta > 0, the function x \mapsto R_\beta(x) is strictly decreasing on (0,+\infty).
Indeed,
For every n = 1, 2, \dots, and p \geq 2, we have
It is an elementary fact that the symmetric exponential distribution is a Gaussian mixture. Specifically, we have the following identity for distributions,
where G is a standard Gaussian random variable independent of the exponential random variable \mathscr{E}. This identity can perhaps be most conveniently checked by comparing the characteristic functions, see also Lemma 23 in [ENT1] and Remark (i) following it. Therefore,
where G_1, G_2, \dots are i.i.d. standard Gaussian random variables, independent of the \mathscr{E}_j. Thus,
Note that a crude application of the triangle inequality gives: \sum \sqrt{\mathscr{E}_j}|G_j| \geq \Big|\sum \sqrt{\mathscr{E}_j}G_j\Big|, a.s. Using independence, the sum \sum \sqrt{\mathscr{E}_j}G_j has the same distribution as \sqrt{\sum \mathscr{E}_j}G_1. As a result,
For p \geq 2, by convexity,
Let k be a nonnegative integer and let k < p < k+1. Define
Then Q_k(t) > 0, the integral
converges and for x > 0, we have
For t > 0, by Taylor’s formula with Lagrange’s remainder,
for some 0 < \theta < t, so in particular the left hand side is positive and O(t^{k+1}) as t \to 0. Therefore, C_p > 0 is well-defined, i.e. the integral defining C_p converges (it converges if and only if k+1 - p - 1 > -1 and -p-1+k < -1, that is k < p < k+1). For a fixed x > 0, the change of variables t \mapsto tx in the integral defining C_p yields the formula for x^p.
Let k be a nonnegative integer and let k < p < k+1. Then
Functions F_\ell are Schur-convex for \ell = 0, 1, 2, 3.
We have, \mathbb{E} \mathscr{E}_j^m = m!, thus
We shall use the Ostrowski criterion, so we will also need the partial derivatives,
For convenience, we will also use the variables b_j \equiv \sqrt{x_j}.
Case \ell = 0. We have, Q_0(t) = 1 - e^{-t}, thus
therefore,
When x_1 > x_2, equivalently b_1 > b_2, this difference of partial derivatives is negative, so F_0 is Schur-concave.
Case \ell = 1. We have, Q_1(t) = e^{-t} -1 + t, thus
therefore,
Plainly \frac{1+b_1+b_2}{(1+b_1)(1+b_2)} < 1 and P(x) < 1, so the second bracket is positive. As a result, when x_1 > x_2, equivalently b_1 > b_2, this difference of partial derivatives is negative, so F_1 is Schur-concave.
Case \ell = 2. We have, Q_2(t) = -e^{-t} +1 - t + \frac{t^2}{2}, thus
therefore,
This is perhaps less obvious, but the second bracket is positive.
Claim. For positive numbers b_1, \dots, b_n, we have
As a result, when x_1 > x_2, equivalently b_1 > b_2, this difference of partial derivatives is negative, so F_2 is Schur-concave.
Case \ell = 3. Again, we calculate that
Note that
since
and
Let p > 4. Function x \mapsto M_p(x^2,1-x^2) has a local maximum in (0, \frac{1}{\sqrt2}), hence it fails to be monotone on (0, \frac{1}{\sqrt2}), hence M_p is neither Schur-convex, nor Schur-concave.
For a, b > 0, the density of a\mathscr{E} + b\mathscr{E}' at x \geq 0 is \frac{e^{-x/a}-e^{-x/b}}{a-b}, thus
We consider
and argue that for a fixed p > 4, f(x) fails to be monotone. We check that
That means f'(x) is strictly increasing near x = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}, thus f'(x_0) < 0 for some x_0 < \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}. Consequently, f' vanishes at some point in (0, x_0), where it attains a local maximum.
When \sum b_j \geq 1, the inequality is obvious, so suppose \sum b_j <1. Note that
Let s = b_1 + b_2. It suffices to show that
Since b_1b_2 \leq (s/2)^2, it suffices to show that
This follows from
The text on this page is from arXiv:2602.03058v1 by Silouanos Brazitikos, Colin Tang and Tomasz Tkocz, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2602/2602.03058.jsonl.