2
$\begingroup$

Let $\{X_i\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be i.i.d. symmetric random variables, with $-1\leq X_i\leq 1$, $\mathbb{E}(X_i) =0$, $\mathbb{E}(X_i^2) = 1$. We have that: $$ P\left(\bigcap_{k = 1}^{n}\frac{|\sum_{i = 1}^{k}X_i|}{\sqrt{k}} \leq 1\right) = P\left(\max_{k = 1,\dots,n}\frac{|\sum_{i = 1}^{k}X_i|}{\sqrt{k}} \leq 1\right) \geq g(n)\to 0 \mbox{ as $n\to\infty$} $$ I would like to find a function $n\mapsto g(n)$ such that $g(n) > 0$ which satisfy the condition above $\forall n\geq n_0$, with $n_0$ sufficiently large. Is there a "known" inequality that could help to solve this question?

Update

Using the notations given in the first answer to this post, is it possible to bound $p_{1,2^{r+1}}$ in terms of $p_{1,2^r}$? For example something like: $$ p_{1,2^{r+1}} \geq p_{1,2^r}h(r) $$ where $h(r)$ is non trivial (non identically zero, at most it can approaches $0$ as $r\to\infty$, although it would be better if $h(r) \geq c>0$). Note that in general $p_{1,2^{r+1}} \leq p_{1,2^{r}}$, so I'm asking for a function $h$ that "flips" the inequality.

An example for $h(r)$ is the following: $$ h(r) = \min_{x\in[-\sqrt{2^{r}},\sqrt{2^r}]}P\left(|S_k -S_{2^r}+ x| \leq\sqrt{2^r} ,\forall m\in\{2^{r}+1,\dots,2^{r+1}\}\right) $$ Can we do better? Because in general this function goes to $0$ really quickly.

Important

Probably I solved it, I'll post an answer soon.

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ There's also an issue for $k=1$. What if $X_1$ is $\pm \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\epsilon\right)$ with probability $1-\delta$ (each sign with probability $\frac{1-\delta}{2}$) and $0$ with probability $\delta$, where $\epsilon > 0$ is small and $\delta > 0$ is chosen so that $\mathbb{E}[X_1^2] = \frac{1}{2}$. As $\epsilon \downarrow 0$, also $\delta \downarrow 0$, so there's no universal $g(1)$ that works. $\endgroup$ Commented May 10 at 15:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The $X_i$s are bounded and hence subgaussian; the expected maximum behaves as $\sqrt{\log n}$ and it's tightly concentrated about the mean. You can find all of this in the Boucheron, Lugosi, Massart book Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence. Let me know if you manage to extract an answer from this. If not, I could make it into one in a day or so. $\endgroup$ Commented May 10 at 15:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Because of the $k$ in the denominator, you'll get a tighter bound if you use a maximal inequality for non-homogeneous subgaussians. See Lemma 9 here arxiv.org/abs/2209.04054 $\endgroup$ Commented May 10 at 15:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can apply Hoeffding's Lemma to each $X_k/k$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoeffding%27s_lemma $\endgroup$ Commented May 10 at 15:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AryehKontorovich I see your work and in particular Lemma 9, which gives a very nice tight bound. In my case $Y_k = \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{k}X_i}{\sqrt{k/2}}$.. but you bound $P(\sup_{k\in\mathbb{N}} [Y_k]_{+} \geq t)$, how to use this fact to bound $P(\sup_{k\in\mathbb{N}}|Y_k| \leq 1)$? $\endgroup$ Commented May 10 at 15:43

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\ol\overline$In accordance with the comment by the OP, consider \begin{equation*} p_{N,n}:=P\Big(\max_{k\in\ol{N,n}}\frac{|S_k|}{\sqrt{k/2}}\le1\Big), \end{equation*} where $\ol{A,B}:=\{k\in\Bbb Z\colon A\le k\le B\}$ and $S_k:=\sum_1^k X_i$.

Let us show that for all large enough $N$ and all $n\ge N$ \begin{equation*} p_{N,n}=n^{-c}; \tag{10}\label{10} \end{equation*} here and in what follows $c$ denotes various expressions that are $\asymp1$.

Indeed, without loss of generality $N=2^{r_0}$ for some natural $r_0\ge2$ and $n=2^r$ for some natural $r>r_0$. Then \begin{align*} p_{N,n}&= P(|S_k|\le\sqrt{k/2}\ \ \forall j\in\ol{r_0+1,r}\ \forall k\in\ol{2^{j-1},2^j}) \\ &\ge P(|S_{2^{j-1}}|\le b_{j-1}, |S_k|\le b_j\ \ \forall j\in\ol{r_0+1,r}\ \forall k\in\ol{2^{j-1}+1,2^j}), \end{align*} where \begin{equation*} b_j:=\sqrt{2^{j-2}+1/2}. \end{equation*} So, \begin{equation*} p_{N,n}\ge\prod_{j=r_0+1}^r q_j, \end{equation*} where \begin{align*} q_j&:=\min_{x\in[-b_{j-1},b_{j-1}]}P(|S_k-S_{2^{j-1}}+x|\le b_j\ \ \forall k\in\ol{2^{j-1}+1,2^j}) \\ &:=\min_{x\in[-b_{j-1},b_{j-1}]}P(|S_m+x|\le b_j\ \ \forall m\in\ol{1,2^{j-1}}) \\ &\to\min_{u\in[-1/2,1/2]}P(|W_t+u|\le1/\sqrt2\ \ \forall t\in[0,1])=:q>0 \end{align*} as $j\to\infty$ by the invariance principle. So, for all large enough $N$ and all $n\ge N$ \begin{equation*} p_{N,n}\ge c_1(q/2)^{r-r_0}= c_1n^{-c}, \tag{20}\label{20} \end{equation*} where $c_1:=P(|S_{2^{r_0}}|\le b_{r_0})(q/2)^{-r_0}>0$ (by the central limit theorem) if $N=2^{r_0}$ is large enough.

On the other hand, again for $N=2^{r_0}$ and $n=2^r$ with $r>r_0$, \begin{equation*} p_{N,n}\le\prod_{j=r_0+1}^r Q_j, \end{equation*} where \begin{align*} Q_j&:=P(|S_{2^j}-S_{2^{j-1}}|\le\sqrt{2^{j-1}/2}+\sqrt{2^j}/2)\to Q\in(0,1) \end{align*} as $j\to\infty$ by the central limit theorem. So, for $Q_1:=(1+Q)/2\in(0,1)$ and all large enough $N$ and all $n\ge N$ \begin{equation*} p_{N,n}\le Q_1^{r-r_0}=n^{-c}. \tag{30}\label{30} \end{equation*}

Now \eqref{10} follows from \eqref{20} and \eqref{30}. $\quad\Box$.

$\endgroup$
20
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for pointing out this idea! But..there is no way to adjust this argument in order to fix $N = 1$? So that we can consider the maximum of the first $n$ instead of the maximum between the $N$-th and $n$-th observation. Please let me know and thank you again. $\endgroup$ Commented May 12 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ @MathRevenge : I followed your linked comment, made in response to the earlier comment by mathworker21. $\endgroup$ Commented May 12 at 15:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MathRevenge : Your post does not have any specifics as $X_i=\cos\theta_i$. Let's just stick to what your post says. $\endgroup$ Commented May 12 at 17:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MathRevenge : Well, again: it follows from the comment by mathworker21 that $p_{1,1}$ can be however small and hence $p_{1,n}$ can be however small. So, no nonzero lower bound on $p_{1,n}$ exists in general, and the distribution of the $X_i$'s is not specified in your post. $\endgroup$ Commented May 12 at 18:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MathRevenge : Concerning your latter comment, we divide $b_{j-1}\sim2^{(j-3)/2}$ by $\sim2^{(j-1)/2}$ and get $\sim1/2$. $\endgroup$ Commented May 14 at 22:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .