arXiv reader

Entropic Inequalities and Limit Theorems in Boolean Probability

Kewei Pan

arXiv
2610.20178v1 · PDF · 14 October 2026
Categories
math.PR, cs.IT, math.IT
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We study Boolean entropy and Fisher information in information inequalities and the Boolean central limit theorem. We prove a fractional Stam inequality for the Boolean Fisher information associated with arbitrary fractional partitions of subset sums, and derive an entropy power inequality for sums of Boolean independent random variables and its weighted version. We then establish a Boolean analogue of Barron’s entropy convergence result along the Boolean central limit theorem: Boolean entropy converges to the entropy of the Rademacher law if and only if the initial entropy is finite. Furthermore, under a finite fourth moment, in the Boolean central limit theorem, we obtain

\Gamma(\mu_n\mid\mathbf b)= \frac{m_4(\mu)-1-m_3(\mu)^2}{2}\frac{\log n}{n} +o\!\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right),

with an explicit example showing sharpness. For symmetric laws with finite fourth moment and finite Boolean Fisher information,

\Psi(\mu_n\mid\mathbf b) =2\bigl(m_4(\mu)-1\bigr)\frac{\log n}{n} +o\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right).

Our approach is based on the Nevanlinna representation of Cauchy transforms.

Items 25

Theorem

Theorem 1.1

O8SY

Let X_1,\ldots,X_n be Boolean independent self-adjoint random variables with symmetric laws and let [n]=\{1,\ldots,n\}. For any A\subseteq[n], set S_A=\sum_{i\in A}X_i. Let \mathcal C be a collection of nonempty subsets of [n], and let (\beta_A)_{A\in\mathcal C} be a fractional partition, namely

\beta_A\geq 0, \qquad \sum_{A\in\mathcal C:\,i\in A}\beta_A=1 \quad\text{for every }i=1,\ldots,n.

Then

\frac{1}{\Psi(S_{[n]})}\geq\sum_{A\in\mathcal C}\frac{\beta_A}{\Psi(S_A)}.
Theorem

Theorem 1.2

42EE

Let \mu and \mu_t be as defined above. If \Gamma(\mu)>-\infty, then

\Gamma(\mu_t)\longrightarrow\Gamma(\mathbf{b})=0.

If \Gamma(\mu)=-\infty, then \Gamma(\mu_t)=-\infty for every t\ge1.

Theorem

Theorem 1.3

DTCZ

If m_4(\mu)<\infty and \Gamma(\mu)>-\infty, then

\Gamma(\mu_n\mid \mathbf{b}) =\frac{m_4(\mu)-1-m_3(\mu)^2}{2}\frac{\log n}{n} +o\!\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right).
Theorem

Theorem 1.4

6MGU

If \mu is symmetric, m_4(\mu)<\infty and \Psi(\mu)<\infty, then

\Psi(\mu_n\mid \mathbf{b}) =2\bigl(m_4(\mu)-1\bigr)\frac{\log n}{n} +o\!\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right).
Lemma

Lemma 2.1

JO72

For every \rho\in\mathcal P(\mathbb{R}_+),

\Psi^{(2)}(\rho) =\int_0^\infty h_\rho(s)^2\,ds =\int_0^\infty\frac{ds}{(s+r_\rho(s))^2}.

Moreover, r_\rho is nonnegative and nondecreasing on (0,\infty).

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.1

For x,y>0, the elementary identity

\frac{\log x-\log y}{x-y} =\int_0^\infty\frac{ds}{(x+s)(y+s)}

allows us, by Fubini’s theorem, to obtain the first equality in (2.1) and hence the representation in terms of r_\rho. Since h_\rho(s)\le s^{-1}, we have r_\rho(s)\ge0. Finally, differentiation gives

r_\rho'(s) =\frac{\displaystyle\int (x+s)^{-2}\,d\rho(x)}{\displaystyle\left(\int (x+s)^{-1}\,d\rho(x)\right)^2}-1\ge0

by Cauchy–Schwarz.

Lemma

Lemma 2.2

U695

For any \rho\in\mathcal P(\mathbb{R}_+) and c\ge1, we have

\Psi^{(2)}(\rho^{\uplus c})\le\frac1c\Psi^{(2)}(\rho).
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.2

Since K_{\rho^{\uplus c}}=cK_\rho, we have r_{\rho^{\uplus c}}(s)=cr_\rho(s). Therefore, by Lemma 2.1 and the change of variables s=ca,

\Psi^{(2)}(\rho^{\uplus c}) =\int_0^\infty\frac{ds}{(s+cr_\rho(s))^2} =\frac1c\int_0^\infty\frac{da}{(a+r_\rho(ca))^2}.

The monotonicity of r_\rho gives r_\rho(ca)\ge r_\rho(a), proving the claim.

Lemma

Lemma 2.3

92SH

For any \mu\in\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R}) with m_2(\mu)=1 and \Gamma(\mu)>-\infty, we have

\Gamma(\mu\mid \mathbf{b}) = \frac{1}{2}\int_0^\infty \left(h_{\mu^{(2)}}(s)-\frac{1}{1+s}\right)\,ds
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.3

Recall that if m_2(\mu)=1, one has

\Gamma(\mu\mid\mathbf b) =-\Gamma(\mu), \qquad \Gamma(\mu)=\int_{\mathbb R}\log|x|\,d\mu(x),

For every x\neq0, note that the following identity holds

\log|x| = \frac12\int_0^\infty \left(\frac{1}{1+s}-\frac{1}{x^2+s}\right)\,ds,

which follows from

\int_0^\infty \left(\frac{1}{s+a}-\frac{1}{s+b}\right)\,ds =\log\frac{b}{a}, \qquad a,b>0.

Therefore,

\Gamma(\mu) = \frac12\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_0^\infty \left(\frac{1}{1+s}-\frac{1}{x^2+s}\right) \,ds\,d\mu(x).

Since \Gamma(\mu)>-\infty, the interchange of the two integrals is justified by splitting the integral into the regions |x|\leq1 and |x|>1. Indeed,

\int_0^\infty \left| \frac{1}{1+s}-\frac{1}{x^2+s} \right|\,ds =2|\log|x||,

and \log^+|x| is integrable whenever \mu has finite second moment, while \Gamma(\mu)>-\infty guarantees the integrability of \log^-|x|. Hence

\Gamma(\mu) = \frac12\int_0^\infty \left( \frac{1}{1+s} - \int_{\mathbb R}\frac{1}{x^2+s}\,d\mu(x) \right)\,ds,

which yields the desired formula.

Remark

Remark 2.4

3X4C

The representation in Lemma 2.3 admits a useful interpretation in terms of the nonmicrostates Boolean Fisher information. Recall that for a probability measure \mu, the nonmicrostates Fisher information of \mu is defined as

\Psi^*(\mu)=\int_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{1}{x^2}\,d\mu(x).

Now let (\tilde{\mu}_t)_{t\geq0} be the flow defined by

\tilde{\mu}_t=(T_t)_\#\mu, \quad T_t(x)=\operatorname{sgn}(x)\sqrt{x^2+t}.

That is, \tilde{\mu}_t^{(2)}=(x\mapsto x+t)_\#\mu^{(2)}, and hence

\Psi^*(\tilde{\mu}_t)=\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{1}{x^2}\,d\tilde{\mu}_t(x)=\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{x+t}\,d\mu^{(2)}(x)=h_{\mu^{(2)}}(t).

Moreover,

\frac{d}{dt}\Gamma(\tilde{\mu}_t)=\frac12\Psi^*(\tilde{\mu}_t).

Indeed, T_t'(x)=1/(2T_t(x)), and therefore

\frac{d}{dt}\log|T_t(x)|=\frac{1}{2T_t(x)^2}.

This should be compared with the nonmicrostates de Bruijn identity along the Boolean heat flow established in [CebronPan2026].

Proof

Proof

ND88

First assume that \Psi(X_i)<\infty for all i=1,\ldots,n. By the Stam inequality (?), we have \Psi(S_A)<\infty for all A\subset [n]. Set \rho_i=\mathcal L(X_i^2), \rho_A=\mathcal L(S_A^2). By (?),

K_{\rho_A}=\sum_{i\in A}K_{\rho_i}, \qquad r_{\rho_A}(s)=\sum_{i\in A}r_{\rho_i}(s).

Thus Lemma 2.1 gives

\Psi(S_A)=\int_0^\infty \frac{ds}{\left(s+\sum_{i\in A}r_{\rho_i}(s)\right)^2}.

Since each r_{\rho_i} is nonnegative,

A\subseteq B\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \Psi(S_B)\le\Psi(S_A).

Set

a_A=\frac1{\Psi(S_A)}>0, \qquad T=\sum_{A\in\mathcal C}\beta_Aa_A.

If a_A\ge T for some A, then (Proof) immediately gives

\frac1{\Psi(S_{[n]})}\ge a_A\ge T.

We may therefore assume a_A<T for every A. Define

c_A=\frac{T}{a_A}>1, \qquad w_A=\frac{\beta_Aa_A}{T}.

Then \sum_Aw_A=1 and w_Ac_A=\beta_A. Let \tilde\rho_A=\rho_A^{\uplus c_A}. By the definition of fractional partition and (Proof),

\sum_Aw_AK_{\tilde\rho_A} =\sum_A\beta_AK_{\rho_A} =\sum_{i=1}^m\left(\sum_{A\ni i}\beta_A\right)K_{\rho_i} =K_{\rho_{[n]}}.

Since K_\rho(z)=z-F_\rho(z) and \sum_A w_A=1, we obtain

F_{\rho_{[n]}}(z)=\sum_A w_A F_{\tilde\rho_A}(z).

Evaluating at z=-s for s>0, we have F_{\rho_{[n]}}(-s)<0 and F_{\tilde\rho_A}(-s)<0 for every A. Since x\mapsto x^{-2} is convex on (-\infty,0), Jensen’s inequality therefore gives

G_{\rho_{[n]}}(-s)^2 \le\sum_Aw_AG_{\tilde\rho_A}(-s)^2.

Integrating with respect to s and applying Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2,

\Psi(S_{[n]}) \le\sum_Aw_A\Psi^{(2)}(\tilde\rho_A) \le\sum_A\frac{w_A}{c_A}\Psi^{(2)}(\rho_A) =\frac1T.

Taking reciprocals yields the desired inequality.

If \Psi(X_i)=\infty for some i\in[n], we regularize the corresponding law by setting \rho_i(\varepsilon):=\rho_i\uplus\delta_\varepsilon. Then r_{\rho_i(\varepsilon)}(s)=r_{\rho_i}(s+\varepsilon). Applying the previous argument to the perturbed laws and then by Lemma 2.1, letting \varepsilon\downarrow0, the monotone convergence theorem completes the proof.

Corollary

Corollary 3.1

6UO0

Let X_1,\ldots,X_{n} be Boolean independent self-adjoint random variables with symmetric laws. Then

\frac{1}{\Psi\!\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i\right)} \ge \frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^{n} \frac{1}{\Psi\!\left(\sum_{i\ne j}X_i\right)}.
Corollary

Corollary 3.2

3IZM

Under the assumptions of Corollary 3.1, let a=(a_1,\ldots,a_{n})\in\mathbb R^{n} satisfy \sum_i a_i^2=1, and set S_a=\sum_i a_iX_i. For |a_j|<1, define

S_a^{(j)}=\frac1{\sqrt{1-a_j^2}}\sum_{i\ne j}a_iX_i.

Then

\frac1{\Psi(S_a)} \ge\frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{1-a_j^2}{\Psi(S_a^{(j)})},

where terms with a_j^2=1 are omitted, and

\Psi(S_a)\le\frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^{n}(1-a_j^2)\Psi(S_a^{(j)}).
Proof of Corollary 3.2

Apply Corollary 3.1 to a_1X_1,\ldots,a_{n}X_{n}. By scaling,

\frac1{\Psi\left(\sum_{i\ne j}a_iX_i\right)} =\frac{1-a_j^2}{\Psi(S_a^{(j)})},

which gives the reciprocal inequality. Setting p_j=(1-a_j^2)/(n-1), we have p_j\ge0 and \sum_jp_j=1. The weighted harmonic-arithmetic mean inequality then yields the second bound.

Corollary

Corollary 3.3

71PB

Under the assumptions of Corollary 3.2, assume further that X_1,\ldots,X_n are bounded, then we have

\Gamma(S_a) \ge\frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^{n}(1-a_j^2)\Gamma(S_a^{(j)}).
Proof of Corollary 3.3

Let B_1,\ldots,B_{n} be Boolean independent Rademacher variables independent of the X_i. The square-convolution identity shows that both

\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_iB_i \quad\text{and}\quad \frac1{\sqrt{1-a_j^2}}\sum_{i\ne j}a_iB_i

have the Rademacher law. Applying the weighted Stam inequality (3.2) to X_i+\sqrt s B_i gives, for s>0,

\Psi(S_a+\sqrt s B) \le\frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^{n}(1-a_j^2) \Psi(S_a^{(j)}+\sqrt s B_j').

Subtracting from (1+s)^{-1}, integrating in s, and using the Boolean de Bruijn identity (?) yields the stated entropy inequality.

Corollary

Corollary 3.4

RPG2

Under the assumptions of Corollary 3.3, set S_n=\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i and S_n^{(j)}=\sum_{i\ne j}X_i. Then

\exp\bigl(2\Gamma(S_n)\bigr) \ge\frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^{n} \exp\bigl(2\Gamma(S_n^{(j)})\bigr).
Proof of Corollary 3.4

Set

N_j=e^{2\Gamma(S_n^{(j)})}, \qquad N=\frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^{n}N_j.

If N_j\ge N for some j, then (?) gives e^{2\Gamma(S_n)}\ge N. Otherwise define q_j=N_j/N and a_j=\sqrt{1-q_j}. Since \sum_jq_j=n-1, we have \sum_ja_j^2=1. Applying Corollary 3.3 to the rescaled variables a_j^{-1}X_j gives

\Gamma(S_n) \ge\frac1{n-1}\sum_{j=1}^{n}q_j \Gamma\bigl(q_j^{-1/2}S_n^{(j)}\bigr).

Using scaling once more,

\Gamma(S_n) \ge\frac1{n-1}\sum_jq_j \left(\Gamma(S_n^{(j)})-\frac12\log q_j\right) =\frac12\log N.

Exponentiating proves the result.

Proof

Proof

893I

For any s>0, set

h_t(s)=\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{d\mu_t(x)}{x^2+s}=-\mathrm{Im} \frac{1}{\sqrt{s}}G_{\mu_t}(i\sqrt{s}).

Fix s>0. Differentiating with respect to t and using the semigroup relation (?) gives

t\partial_th_t(s) =-\bigl(\mathrm{Re}\,G_{\mu_t}(i\sqrt s)\bigr)^2 -s\left(\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{d\mu_t(x)}{(x^2+s)^2}-h_t(s)^2\right).

The second term on the right-hand side is nonnegative, and we deduce that t\partial_th_t(s)\le 0. Moreover,

\operatorname{Re}G_{\mu_t}(i\sqrt s) = -\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{x}{x^2+s}\,d\mu_t(x).

Therefore, by Cauchy-Schwarz,

\begin{aligned} \bigl(\operatorname{Re}G_{\mu_t}(i\sqrt s)\bigr)^2 &\leq \int_{\mathbb R}\frac{x^2}{(x^2+s)^2}\,d\mu_t(x)\\ &= \int_{\mathbb R} \left( \frac{1}{x^2+s} -\frac{s}{(x^2+s)^2} \right)d\mu_t(x)\\ &= h_t(s)-s\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{d\mu_t(x)}{(x^2+s)^2}. \end{aligned}

Substituting this inequality into (Proof) yields

-h_t(s)\le t\partial_t h_t(s)\le0.

The right-hand inequality implies that t\mapsto h_t(s) is decreasing. For the left-hand inequality, we observe that \partial_t\bigl(t h_t(s)\bigr) =h_t(s)+t\partial_t h_t(s)\ge0. Thus t\mapsto t h_t(s) is increasing, which implies that t h_t(s)\ge h_1(s), and consequently,

\frac1t h_1(s)\le h_t(s)\le h_1(s),\quad t\ge1.

For \varepsilon>0, introduce the regularized logarithmic integral

\Gamma_\varepsilon(\nu)=\frac12\int_{\mathbb R}\log(x^2+\varepsilon)\,d\nu(x).

Tonelli’s theorem gives,

\Gamma_\varepsilon(\mu_t)-\Gamma(\mu_t) =\frac12\int_0^\varepsilon h_t(s)\,ds.

Assume first that \Gamma(\mu)>-\infty. Taking t=1 in (?) shows that h_1 is integrable on every interval (0,\varepsilon). For fixed s>0, weak convergence \mu_t\Rightarrow \mathbf{b} gives

h_t(s)\longrightarrow h_\infty(s)=\frac1{1+s}.

The upper bound in (Proof) and dominated convergence therefore yield

\Gamma_\varepsilon(\mu_t)-\Gamma(\mu_t) \longrightarrow \frac12\int_0^\varepsilon\frac{ds}{1+s} =\frac12\log(1+\varepsilon).

On the other hand, for sufficiently large M>0, decompose

\Gamma_\varepsilon(\mu_t)=\frac{1}{2}\int \log (x^2+\varepsilon)\wedge M\,d\mu_t(x)+\frac{1}{2}\int (\log (x^2+\varepsilon)-\log (x^2+\varepsilon)\wedge M)\,d\mu_t(x).

Since the family \{\mu_t\}_{t\ge1} has uniformly bounded second moments, it is uniformly integrable. Thus, the second term can be made uniformly arbitrarily small. The first term tends to \Gamma_\varepsilon(\mathbf{b}) by the weak convergence \mu_t\Rightarrow \mathbf{b}. Therefore, letting M\to \infty yields

\Gamma_\varepsilon(\mu_t)\longrightarrow\Gamma_\varepsilon(\mathbf{b})=\frac12\log(1+\varepsilon).

Combining this with (?) proves \Gamma(\mu_t)\longrightarrow0.

Now assume \Gamma(\mu)=-\infty. Then (?) at t=1 implies

\int_0^\varepsilon h_1(s)\,ds=\infty.

The lower bound in (Proof) gives

\int_0^\varepsilon h_t(s)\,ds \ge \frac1t\int_0^\varepsilon h_1(s)\,ds =\infty.

Since \Gamma_\varepsilon(\mu_t) is finite, (?) forces \Gamma(\mu_t)=-\infty.

Proof

Proof

L7QN

By (?), (?), let \nu be such that F_\mu(z)=z-G_\nu(z), and hence

G_n(z):=G_{\mu_n}(z) =\frac{1}{z-\sqrt n\,G_\nu(\sqrt n z)}.

Write b_3=m_1(\nu)=m_3(\mu),\ b_4= m_2(\nu)=m_4(\mu)-1. For any s>0, define

R_s:=\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{x}{x^2+s^2}\,d\nu(x), \qquad I_s:=\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{1}{x^2+s^2}\,d\nu(x),

so that G_\nu(is)=-R_s-isI_s. By Lemma 2.3, after the change of variables s\mapsto s^2/n, (2.3) becomes

\Gamma(\mu_n\mid\mathbf b) = \int_0^\infty \frac{s}{n} \left( f_n(s)-\frac{n}{n+s^2} \right)\,ds,

where

f_n(s) :=h_n\left(\frac{s^2}{n}\right)=-\operatorname{Im}\frac{1}{s/\sqrt n} G_n\left(\frac{is}{\sqrt n}\right)= \frac{I_s+n^{-1}} {R_s^2+s^2(I_s+n^{-1})^2}.

The compact region. Fix M>0. By Jensen’s inequality,

I_s \geq \frac{1}{b_4+s^2} \geq \frac{1}{b_4+M^2}, \qquad 0<s\leq M.

Hence, for all sufficiently large n, I_s\geq n^{-1} on (0,M], and therefore

f_n(s)\leq 2f_\infty(s), \qquad f_\infty(s):= \frac{I_s}{R_s^2+s^2I_s^2}.

On the other hand, F_\mu(is) = is-G_\nu(is) = R_s+is(1+I_s), so

-\operatorname{Im}G_\mu(is) = \frac{s(1+I_s)} {R_s^2+s^2(1+I_s)^2}.

By the lower bound I_s\geq (b_4+M^2)^{-1}, there exists a constant C_M>1 such that 1+I_s\leq C_M I_s for all 0<s\leq M, and consequently sf_\infty(s)\leq C^2_M\bigl[-\operatorname{Im}G_\mu(is)\bigr]. Moreover, note that

\begin{aligned} \int_0^M-\operatorname{Im}G_\mu(is)\,ds &= \int_{\mathbb R} \left( \int_0^M\frac{s}{x^2+s^2}\,ds \right)d\mu(x)\\ &= \frac12 \int_{\mathbb R} \log\left(1+\frac{M^2}{x^2}\right)d\mu(x) <\infty. \end{aligned}

Here the finiteness follows from \Gamma(\mu)>-\infty. Thus

\int_0^M \frac{s}{n} f_n(s)\,ds=O_M(n^{-1}).

Finally,

\int_0^M \frac{s}{n}\frac{n}{n+s^2}\,ds = \frac12\log\left(1+\frac{M^2}{n}\right) = O_M(n^{-1}).

Therefore

\int_0^M \frac{s}{n} \left| f_n(s)-\frac{n}{n+s^2} \right|\,ds = O_M(n^{-1}),

Expansion on the tail. We now consider s\geq M, and set A_n(s):=s^{-2}+n^{-1}. Since m_2(\nu)=b_4,

I_s=s^{-2}-b_4s^{-4}+\varepsilon_s, \qquad \varepsilon_s:= s^{-4}\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{x^4}{x^2+s^2}\,d\nu(x).

Hence

0\leq\varepsilon_s\leq b_4s^{-4}, \qquad s^4\varepsilon_s = \int_{\mathbb R}\frac{x^4}{x^2+s^2}\,d\nu(x) \xrightarrow[s\to\infty]{}0,

where the convergence follows from the dominated convergence theorem.

Similarly,

R_s=b_3s^{-2}+\eta_s, \qquad \eta_s:= -s^{-2}\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{x^3}{x^2+s^2}\,d\nu(x).

By |x|/(x^2+s^2)\leq 1/(2s), we obtain

|\eta_s| \leq \frac{b_4}{2}s^{-3}.

Set

d_s:=I_s-s^{-2}=-b_4s^{-4}+\varepsilon_s.

Then I_s+n^{-1}=A_n(s)+d_s, and (Proof) gives

f_n(s) = \frac{s^{-2}(A_n(s)+d_s)} {s^{-2}R_s^2+(A_n(s)+d_s)^2}.

Let

B_n(s):=s^{-2}R_s^2+(A_n(s)+d_s)^2.

Since \frac{n}{n+s^2}=\frac{s^{-2}}{A_n(s)}, we have the exact identity

f_n(s)-\frac{s^{-2}}{A_n(s)} =-\frac{s^{-2}\bigl(A_n(s)d_s+d_s^2+s^{-2}R_s^2\bigr)} {A_n(s)B_n(s)}.

Write

R_s^2=b_3^2s^{-4}+\delta_s, \qquad \delta_s:=R_s^2-b_3^2s^{-4}.

By (?),

|\delta_s| \leq 2|b_3|s^{-2}|\eta_s|+\eta_s^2 \leq C_\mu s^{-5}.

Substituting

d_s=-b_4s^{-4}+\varepsilon_s, \qquad R_s^2=b_3^2s^{-4}+\delta_s

into (?), we obtain

\begin{aligned} f_n(s)-\frac{s^{-2}}{A_n(s)} ={}& \frac{b_4s^{-6}}{B_n(s)} -\frac{b_3^2s^{-8}}{A_n(s)B_n(s)} -\frac{s^{-2}\varepsilon_s}{B_n(s)}\\ &-\frac{s^{-2}d_s^2}{A_n(s)B_n(s)} -\frac{s^{-4}\delta_s}{A_n(s)B_n(s)}. \end{aligned}

Therefore, if we define

\begin{aligned} \xi_n(s):={}& b_4s^{-6} \left(\frac{1}{B_n(s)}-\frac{1}{A_n(s)^2}\right)\\ &+b_3^2s^{-8} \left(\frac{1}{A_n(s)^3} -\frac{1}{A_n(s)B_n(s)}\right) -\frac{s^{-2}\varepsilon_s}{B_n(s)}\\ &-\frac{s^{-2}d_s^2}{A_n(s)B_n(s)} -\frac{s^{-4}\delta_s}{A_n(s)B_n(s)}, \end{aligned}

then

f_n(s)-\frac{s^{-2}}{A_n(s)} = \frac{b_4s^{-6}}{A_n(s)^2} -\frac{b_3^2s^{-8}}{A_n(s)^3} +\xi_n(s).

Estimate of the remainder. From (?) and (?), there exists some constant C_\mu>0 such that

|d_s|\leq C_\mu s^{-4}, \qquad |R_s|\leq C_\mu s^{-2}.

Since A_n(s)\geq s^{-2}, for M sufficiently large,

|d_s|\leq \frac{A_n(s)}{2}, \qquad s^{-2}R_s^2\leq \frac{A_n(s)^2}{4}.

Hence

cA_n(s)^2\leq B_n(s)\leq CA_n(s)^2

for some constants c,C>0 depending only on \mu. Moreover,

B_n(s)-A_n(s)^2 = 2A_n(s)d_s+d_s^2+s^{-2}R_s^2,

so that

|B_n(s)-A_n(s)^2| \leq C_\mu A_n(s)s^{-4}.

Consequently,

\left| \frac{1}{B_n(s)}-\frac{1}{A_n(s)^2} \right| \leq C_\mu\frac{s^{-4}}{A_n(s)^3}, \qquad \left| \frac{1}{A_n(s)^3} -\frac{1}{A_n(s)B_n(s)} \right| \leq C_\mu\frac{s^{-4}}{A_n(s)^4}.

For fixed M, let

\theta_M:= \sup_{s\geq M}s^4\varepsilon_s.

By (?), \theta_M\to0 as M\to\infty. Using the previous estimates and |d_s|\leq C_\mu s^{-4}, we obtain

\begin{aligned} |\xi_n(s)| \leq C_\mu\Bigg( \frac{s^{-10}}{A_n(s)^3} +\frac{s^{-12}}{A_n(s)^4} +\theta_M\frac{s^{-6}}{A_n(s)^2}+\frac{s^{-10}}{A_n(s)^3} +\frac{s^{-9}}{A_n(s)^3} \Bigg). \end{aligned}

With the change of variable u=s^{-2}, we have

\frac{s}{n}\,ds=-\frac{1}{2n}u^{-2}\,du,

and it follows that

\begin{aligned} \int_M^\infty\frac{s}{n}|\xi_n(s)|\,ds \leq \frac{C_\mu}{n}\Bigg[ &\int_0^{M^{-2}}\frac{u^3}{(u+n^{-1})^3}\,du+\int_0^{M^{-2}}\frac{u^4}{(u+n^{-1})^4}\,du +\theta_M\int_0^{M^{-2}} \frac{u}{(u+n^{-1})^2}\,du\\ &+\int_0^{M^{-2}}\frac{u^3}{(u+n^{-1})^3}\,du+\int_0^{M^{-2}}\frac{u^{5/2}}{(u+n^{-1})^3}\,du \Bigg]. \end{aligned}

The first, second, fourth and fifth integrals are uniformly bounded in n, while

\int_0^{M^{-2}} \frac{u}{(u+n^{-1})^2}\,du = \log n+O_M(1).

Thus

\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{n}{\log n} \int_M^\infty\frac{s}{n}|\xi_n(s)|\,ds \leq C_\mu\theta_M.

Integration of the leading terms. From (?), the two leading contributions are

\begin{aligned} T_{4,n}(M) &:= \int_M^\infty \frac{s}{n}\frac{b_4s^{-6}}{A_n(s)^2}\,ds\\ &= \frac{nb_4}{2} \int_{M^2}^\infty\frac{dy}{y(n+y)^2}, \end{aligned}

and

\begin{aligned} T_{3,n}(M) &:= -\int_M^\infty \frac{s}{n}\frac{b_3^2s^{-8}}{A_n(s)^3}\,ds\\ &= -\frac{n^2b_3^2}{2} \int_{M^2}^\infty\frac{dy}{y(n+y)^3}, \end{aligned}

where y=s^2. Using the elementary decompositions

\frac{1}{y(n+y)^2} = \frac{1}{n^2}\frac{1}{y} -\frac{1}{n^2}\frac{1}{n+y} -\frac{1}{n}\frac{1}{(n+y)^2},

and

\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{y(n+y)^3} =& \frac{1}{n^3}\frac{1}{y} -\frac{1}{n^3}\frac{1}{n+y}-\frac{1}{n^2}\frac{1}{(n+y)^2} -\frac{1}{n}\frac{1}{(n+y)^3}, \end{aligned}

we obtain

T_{4,n}(M) = \frac{b_4}{2}\frac{\log n}{n} +O_M(n^{-1}),

and

T_{3,n}(M) = -\frac{b_3^2}{2}\frac{\log n}{n} +O_M(n^{-1}).

Combining (?), (?), (?), and (?), we deduce that

\limsup_{n\to\infty}\left|\frac{n}{\log n}\Gamma(\mu_n\mid\mathbf b)-\frac{b_4-b_3^2}{2}\right| \leq C_\mu\theta_M.

Finally, letting M\to\infty and using \theta_M\to0, we conclude that

\Gamma(\mu_n\mid\mathbf b) = \frac{b_4-b_3^2}{2}\frac{\log n}{n} +o\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right),

as claimed.

Example

Example 4.1 (Sharpness of the entropic rate)

FV90

Fix d\in(0,1) and consider

\nu_d=\frac14\bigl(\delta_{\sqrt{1+d}}+\delta_{-\sqrt{1+d}}+\delta_{\sqrt{1-d}}+\delta_{-\sqrt{1-d}}\bigr).

Write \nu_{d,n}=D_{n^{-1/2}}(\nu_d^{\uplus n}). Then

\Gamma(\nu_{d,n})=-\frac{d^2}{2}\frac{\log n}{n}+O\!\left(\frac1n\right),
Used by Example 4.2
Proof of Example 4.1

A direct calculation gives

G_{\nu_d}(w)=\frac{w(w^2-1)}{(w^2-1)^2-d^2}, \qquad F_{\nu_d}(w)=w-\frac1w-\frac{d^2}{w(w^2-1)}.

Using the Boolean convolution and dilation identities,

F_{\nu_{d,n}}(z) =z-\frac1z-\frac{d^2}{z(nz^2-1)},

and therefore

G_{\nu_{d,n}}(z) =\frac{z(nz^2-1)}{(z^2-1)(nz^2-1)-d^2}.

Set

\Delta_n=\sqrt{(n-1)^2+4nd^2}, \qquad u_{\pm,n}=\frac{n+1\pm\Delta_n}{2n},

and

\omega_{+,n}=\frac{n-1+\Delta_n}{2\Delta_n}, \qquad \omega_{-,n}=\frac{\Delta_n-(n-1)}{2\Delta_n}.

Partial fractions give

\nu_{d,n} =\frac{\omega_{+,n}}{2}(\delta_{\sqrt{u_{+,n}}}+\delta_{-\sqrt{u_{+,n}}}) +\frac{\omega_{-,n}}{2}(\delta_{\sqrt{u_{-,n}}}+\delta_{-\sqrt{u_{-,n}}}).

Hence

\Gamma(\nu_{d,n}) =\frac{\omega_{+,n}}{2}\log u_{+,n}+\frac{\omega_{-,n}}{2}\log u_{-,n}.

As n\to\infty,

\Delta_n=n-1+2d^2+O(n^{-1}),
u_{+,n}=1+\frac{d^2}{n}+O(n^{-2}), \qquad u_{-,n}=\frac{1-d^2}{n}+O(n^{-2}),

and

\omega_{+,n}=1-\frac{d^2}{n}+O(n^{-2}), \qquad \omega_{-,n}=\frac{d^2}{n}+O(n^{-2}).

Substitution yields

\Gamma(\nu_{d,n})=-\frac{d^2}{2}\frac{\log n}{n}+O(n^{-1}).

Since \nu_{d,n}\in\mathcal{P}_{0,1}(\mathbb{R}), the identity (?) gives

\Gamma(\nu_{d,n}\mid \mathbf{b}) =\frac{d^2}{2}\frac{\log n}{n}+O(n^{-1}),

as claimed.

Proof

Proof

PFJK

Let \rho=\mu^{(2)}. Then \rho is supported on \mathbb{R}_+, \int x\,d\rho(x)=1, and

\int(x-1)^2\,d\rho(x)=m_4(\mu)-1.

For any s>0, set

h(s)=\int_0^\infty\frac{d\rho(x)}{s+x}, \qquad r(s)=\frac1{h(s)}-s, \qquad q(s)=1-r(s).

Jensen’s inequality gives

\frac1{s+1}\le h(s)<\frac1s,

so 0<r(s)\le1 and 0\le q(s)<1. By (?),

\mu_n^{(2)}=D_{1/n}(\rho^{\uplus n}), \qquad K_{\mu_n^{(2)}}(z)=K_\rho(nz).

Hence, for any s>0,

-G_{\mu_n^{(2)}}(-s)=\frac1{s+r(ns)}.

Applying the change of variables u = ns to the identity \int_0^\infty (s+1)^{-2} \, ds = 1, and setting b_n(u) \coloneqq 1 + u/n, we have

1 = \frac{1}{n} \int_0^\infty \frac{du}{b_n(u)^2}.

Substituting the identity in the integral representation of \Psi(\mu_n) in Lemma 2.1 yields

\Psi(\mu_n) - 1 = \frac{1}{n} \int_0^\infty H_n(u) \, du,

where H_n(u) \coloneqq (b_n(u) - q(u))^{-2} - b_n(u)^{-2}. A straightforward calculation gives

\begin{aligned} H_n(u) &= \frac{b_n(u)^2 - (b_n(u) - q(u))^2}{b_n(u)^2 (b_n(u) - q(u))^2} \\ &= q(u) \frac{2b_n(u) - q(u)}{b_n(u)^2 (b_n(u) - q(u))^2}, \end{aligned}

Recall that b_4=m_4(\mu)-1. We first establish the following asymptotic behavior of q:

\lim_{u\to \infty}uq(u)=b_4.

Indeed, a rearrangement gives

q(u)=\frac{(u+1)h(u)-1}{h(u)},

and by \int(x-1)d\rho(x)=0, we have

uq(u) =\frac{\displaystyle\int_0^\infty\frac{u(x-1)^2}{u+x}\,d\rho(x)}{\displaystyle(u+1)\int_0^\infty\frac1{u+x}\,d\rho(x)}.

The dominated convergence theorem yields (Proof). If b_4=0, then \rho=\delta_1 and symmetry forces \mu=\mathbf{b}, so the conclusion is immediate. Assume henceforth b_4>0, and it remains to prove

\frac{1}{n}\int_0^\infty H_n(u)\,du =2b_4\frac{\log n}{n}+o\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right).

We split the integral into a bounded part, an intermediate bulk, and a tail.

Bounded region. From (Proof), 0\le H_n(u)\le r(u)^{-2}. Moreover, r(s)/s=(sh(s))^{-1}-1 is decreasing in s, since sh(s) is increasing in s. Thus for any 0<u\le M,

r(u)\ge\frac{r(M)}M u, \qquad u+r(u)\le\left(1+\frac M{r(M)}\right)r(u).

Since

\Psi(\mu)=\int_0^\infty\frac{du}{(u+r(u))^2}<\infty,

we obtain

\sup_{n\ge1}\int_0^M H_n(u)\,du<\infty.

Bulk region. Fix \eta\in(0,b_4). By (Proof), there exists some sufficiently large M such that

\frac{b_4-\eta}{u}\le q(u)\le\frac{b_4+\eta}{u} \qquad (u\ge M).

For M\le u\le\delta n, write

H_n(u)=q(u)\Phi(b_n(u),q(u)), \qquad \Phi(b,q)=\frac{2b-q}{b^2(b-q)^2}.

Because \Phi(1,0)=2, one may first choose M large and then \delta>0 small enough that

2-\eta\le \Phi(b_n(u),q(u))\le2+\eta

uniformly on [M,\delta n]. Hence

(2-\eta)(b_4-\eta) \log\frac{\delta n}{M} \le\int_M^{\delta n}H_n(u)\,du \le(2+\eta)(b_4+\eta) \log\frac{\delta n}{M}.

Tail. Again by (Proof), there exists C>0 such that q(u)\le C/u for u\ge M. For fixed \delta>0 and sufficiently large n, u\ge\delta n implies q(u)\le1/2, and hence

H_n(u)\le\frac{8q(u)}{(1+u/n)^3} \le\frac{8C}{u(1+u/n)^3}.

Therefore

\int_{\delta n}^\infty H_n(u)\,du \le 8C\int_\delta^\infty\frac{dv}{v(1+v)^3} =O_\delta(1).

Dividing (?), (?), and (?) by n, then letting n\to\infty and \eta\downarrow0, yields (Proof). Substitution into (Proof) gives

\Psi(\mu_n)-1 =2b_4\frac{\log n}{n}+o\!\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right),

as claimed.

Example

Example 4.2 (Sharpness of the Boolean Fisher information rate)

PXTF

Under the setup and notation of Example 4.1, the Boolean Fisher information of \nu_{d,n} satisfies

\Psi(\nu_{d,n}) - 1 = 2d^2 \frac{\log n}{n} + O\!\left(\frac1n\right).

Using the explicit discrete representation of \nu_{d,n} from Example 4.1, the Boolean Fisher information evaluates directly to

\Psi(\nu_{d,n}) = \omega_{+,n}^2 \frac{1}{u_{+,n}} + 2 \omega_{+,n} \omega_{-,n} \frac{\log u_{+,n} - \log u_{-,n}}{u_{+,n} - u_{-,n}} + \omega_{-,n}^2 \frac{1}{u_{-,n}}.

Substituting the asymptotic expansions of u_{\pm,n}, \omega_{+,n}, and \omega_{-,n} as n \to \infty, we expand each term separately:

\begin{aligned} \omega_{+,n}^2 \frac{1}{u_{+,n}} = \left(1 - \frac{2d^2}{n} + O(n^{-2})\right) \left(1 - \frac{d^2}{n} + O(n^{-2})\right) = 1 - \frac{3d^2}{n} + O(n^{-2}). \end{aligned}
\begin{aligned} 2 \omega_{+,n} \omega_{-,n} \frac{\log u_{+,n} - \log u_{-,n}}{u_{+,n} - u_{-,n}} &= \left(\frac{2d^2}{n} + O(n^{-2})\right) \frac{\log n - \log(1-d^2) + O(n^{-1})}{1 + O(n^{-1})} \\ &= 2d^2 \frac{\log n}{n} - \frac{2d^2 \log(1-d^2)}{n} + O\!\left(\frac{\log n}{n^2}\right). \end{aligned}
\begin{aligned} \omega_{-,n}^2 \frac{1}{u_{-,n}} &= \left(\frac{d^4}{n^2} + O(n^{-3})\right) \left(\frac{n}{1-d^2} + O(1)\right) = \frac{d^4}{(1-d^2)n} + O(n^{-2}). \end{aligned}

Summing these three contributions gives

\Psi(\nu_{d,n}) = 1 + 2d^2 \frac{\log n}{n} + O\!\left(\frac1n\right).

Using the identity (?) yields the desired result.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2610.20178v1 by Kewei Pan, 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/2610/2610.20178.jsonl.