3
$\begingroup$

I'm wondering if there is any non-asymptotic upper bound for the following Gamma function: $$f_a(x)=\int_{x}^{\infty}t^a\exp(-t)dt$$ for $x>0,a>0$? Something like $x^a\exp(-x)$?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ In what sense are you looking for a "non-asymptotic" upper bound? Obviously $\Gamma(1+a)$ is an upper bound for all $x$, and $f_a(x)$ is not asymptotic to $\Gamma(1+a)$ (except as $x \to 0$) but that is clearly not what you are after. Are you looking for tight upper bounds, or for big-theta behavior, or what? $\endgroup$ Commented May 7, 2019 at 20:04
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, sorry for the unclear statement. I'm looking for some tight non asymptotic upper bound. The bound should be tight for both $x\to0$ and $x\to\infty$. The tightness is not that stringent. For example, I treat $C_1(C_2x)^n$ as a tight upper bound for $x^n$ as long as $C_1,C_2$ are absolute constants independent of $x$ and $n$. $\endgroup$ Commented May 7, 2019 at 20:13

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

In Gabcke thesis, that you can download at http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-1735-0000-0022-6013-8 page 84 you can find

Theorem: The incomplete gamma function $$\Gamma(a,x)=\int_x^\infty e^{-v}v^{a-1}\,dv,\qquad \text{$x>0$ and $a$ real numbers}$$ satisfies for $a\ge 1$ and $x>a$
$$\Gamma(a,x)\le a e^{-x} x^{a-1}.$$

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! That's not in English, which I guess is the reason I cannot find the result. $\endgroup$ Commented May 7, 2019 at 20:29
  • $\begingroup$ I think that Gabcke has translated his thesis to English. But I do not find now a link. I have also a translation to Spanish. $\endgroup$
    – juan
    Commented May 7, 2019 at 20:30
  • $\begingroup$ There is a problem with this answer for smallish $x$. For instance, at $a = 3$ and $x = 1.5$, we have $$3 e^{-1.5} (1.5)^2 < 1.5062 < 1.6176 < \Gamma(3,1.5)$$ You wanted an upper bound that works everywhere; this one does not. $\endgroup$ Commented May 7, 2019 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark Fischler The hypothesis of the theorem says x > a. Your values do not satisfy this condition. $\endgroup$
    – juan
    Commented May 7, 2019 at 22:04
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but the problem posed does not stipulate that $x > a$, it asks for an upper bound good for all $x,a>0$. $\endgroup$ Commented May 7, 2019 at 22:08
3
$\begingroup$

In terms of the OP, the result by Gabcke cited in the answer by user juan is as follows: \begin{equation*} f_a(x)=\int_{x}^{\infty}t^a e^{-t}\,dt=\Gamma(a+1,x)\le(a+1) x^a e^{-x}=:B_1(a,x) \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \text{for $a>0$ and $x\ge a+1$.} \end{equation*}

One can obtain the following improvement of this result: \begin{equation*} f_a(x)=\Gamma(a+1,x)\le x^a e^{-x}\,\frac1{1-a/x}=:B_2(a,x) \tag{1} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \text{for $a>0$ and $x>a$. } \tag{2} \end{equation*} Indeed, for $a>0$ and $x>a+1$ we have $B_2(a,x)<B_1(a,x)$.

Moreover, by l'Hospital's rule, for each real $a>0$ \begin{equation*} B_2(a,x)\sim f_a(x), \quad B_1(a,x)\sim (a+1)f_a(x) \end{equation*} as $x\to\infty$. So, the bound $B_2(a,x)$ is asymptotically optimal as $x\to\infty$, whereas the bound $B_2(a,x)$ is not.


Let us now prove the claim (1) under condition (2). For $t>x[>a>0]$, let $g(t):=a\ln t-t$. Since the function $g$ is concave, we have \begin{equation*} g(t)\le g_x(t):=g(x)+g'(x)(t-x)=a\ln x-x+(a/x-1)(t-x). \end{equation*} So, \begin{equation*} f_a(x)=\int_{x}^{\infty}e^{g(t)}\,dt \le \int_{x}^{\infty}e^{g_x(t)}\,dt =B_1(a,x), \end{equation*} as claimed.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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