5
$\begingroup$

Recall that a coupling of probability measures $\mu_i$ is a set of random variables $X_i$ defined on the same probability space $\Omega$ such that $X_i \sim \mu_i$.

Question: Let $\mu_1, \dots, \mu_n$ all be uniform on $[0, 1]$. What coupling maximises the essential infimum

$$I_n := \text{essinf}_{\omega \in \Omega} (X_1 (\omega) + \dots + X_n (\omega))$$

and what is the achieved value?

In particular, if we let $I^*_n$ be the optimal value, I wonder if the sequence $\frac{1}{n}I^*_n$ exhibits any kind of predictable behaviour.

$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

9
$\begingroup$

Let me complete Iosif Pinelis’ answer by presenting an example for $n=3$ (in fact, it seems that a similar construction itself works for all $n$).

If $X_1<1/2$, set $X_2=1-2X_1$ and $X_3=1/2+X_1$.

If $X_1\geq 1/2$, set $X_2=2-2X_1$ and $X_3=X_1-1/2$.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Nice and elementary! Concerning the general $n$ case, you can probably generalise this construction properly, but the essential infimum can also be obtained just by coupling together all remaining pairs into deterministic random variables that always sum to $1$, as mentioned by Iosif. $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Commented Oct 25 at 11:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That’s why I wrote only this case, yes. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice! Can you disclose how you came up with this solution? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25 at 12:05
  • $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis i’ve just found a desired coupling when the variables are uniform on $\{0,1,\dots,d\}$; then it was easy to find a continuous analogue. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25 at 12:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps, it is just an easier version of partitioning $\{0,1,\dots,d\}$ into triples with the same sum (for a suitable $d$) which I was aquainted with before. I dont think I can add much more... $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25 at 13:47
7
$\begingroup$

Note that $$I_n^*\le E(X_1+\cdots+X_n)=n/2.$$ This upper bound $n/2$ on $I_n^*$ is attained if $n=2m$ is even and $X_{2i}=1-X_{2i-1}$ for $i=1,\dots,m$.

So, $$I_n^*=n/2$$ for even $n$.

It also follows that $$(n-1)/2=I_{n-1}^*\le I_n^*\le n/2$$ for odd $n$.

So, $$I_n^*\sim n/2$$ for $\Bbb N\ni n\to\infty$.


Conjecture: $I_n^*=n/2$ for all natural $n\ge2$.

Remark 1: Obviously, $I_1^*=0$. In view of the above, it is enough to show that $I_n^*=n/2$ for all odd $n\ge3$. Moreover, in view of the above cancellations, it is enough to show that $I_3^*=3/2$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Very slick as usual, the only remaining question is what the precise optimal configuration is for odd $n$. $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Commented Oct 25 at 1:06
  • $\begingroup$ @NateRiver : Isn't it odd that the odd case here is probably much harder than the even one? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25 at 1:38
  • $\begingroup$ Odd indeed @Iosif Pinelis. I guess even ones just cancel out whereas the odd case it’s not quite clear where to fit the extra guy… $\endgroup$
    – Nate River
    Commented Oct 25 at 2:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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