5
$\begingroup$

I got an interesting question. Consider this integral: $$ \int_{B(0,1)}\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{j}x_{j}^2\bigg)^m \mbox{d}x, \quad m,n\in \mathbb{N}, \ a_{i}>0, \ i=1,2,\ldots,n.$$

It is clear that if we choose all $a_{j}=1$, then it will be simple! Futhermore, I want to know if the answer is connected with some special functions like hyperbolic functions, please do not use a finite summation in the result.

If we just expand this multinomial directly, that is,
$$ \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{j}x_{j}^2\bigg)^m =\sum_{\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}+\ldots+\lambda_{n}=m}\frac{m!}{\lambda_{1}!\lambda_{2}\ldots\lambda_{n}!}a_{1}^{\lambda_{1}}a_{2}^{\lambda_{2}}\ldots a_{n}^{\lambda_{n}}x_{1}^{2\lambda_{1}}x_{2}^{2\lambda_{2}}\ldots x_{n}^{2\lambda_{n}}, $$ then, after a simple calculation, in Table of Integrals I found a related formula, $$\frac{\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^{r}a_{i}^{2}\bigg)^{\frac{n}{2}}}{n!}H_{n}\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{r}a_{i}x_{i}}{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{r}a_{i}^{2}}}\right)=\sum_{\substack{m_{1}+\ldots+m_{r}=n,\\{m_{i}\geq 0}}}\prod_{k=1}^{r}\bigg\{\frac{a_{k}^{m_{k}}}{m_{k}!}H_{m_{k}}(x_{k})\bigg\}, $$ where $H_{n}(x)$ denotes the Hermite polynomials; I don't know if it works. If this result is a little hard, one can just find the asymptotic representation as $m\leq n$ and $m\rightarrow \infty$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think there's a well-defined asymptotic with $m,n\to \infty$ as it depends on how far apart the $a_j$s are. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Jan 23, 2022 at 17:21
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have a response to the answers on this page? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 27, 2022 at 2:19
  • $\begingroup$ It's my first time asking a question in mathoverflow, sorry for a late response. I read both answers carefully and found some methods to enrich and improve the results. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – xiangsha
    Commented Jan 28, 2022 at 2:39

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

Let me separate the radial integration from the angular integration, $$\int_{|\mathbf{x}|\leq 1}f(\mathbf{x})d\mathbf{x}=\frac{2\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(n/2)}\int_0^1 r^{n-1}\bar{f}(r)\,dr,$$ where $\bar{f}(r)$ is the average of $f$ over the surface of the $n$-dimensional hypersphere of radius $r$. In our case $$f(\mathbf{r})=\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{j}x_{j}^2\bigg)^m.$$ For $n\gg 1$ at fixed $m$ the concentration of measure allows us to replace $x_j^2$ by $r^2/n$, so $$\bar{f}(r)\approx (r^2/n)^m\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{j}\bigg)^m,$$ and thus we estimate $$\int_{B(0,1)}\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{j}x_{j}^2\bigg)^m \,d\mathbf{x}\approx \frac{2\pi^{n/2}}{n^m(2m+n)\Gamma(n/2)}\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{j}\bigg)^m,\;\;n\gg 1.$$


Obviously, this estimate is exact if all $a_j$'s are equal to each other. To check for the other extreme, let me try (following the suggestion by Iosif Pinelis) the simple case $m=1$, $a_1=1$ and $a_j=0$ for $j=2,3,\ldots n$. The exact integration gives $$\int_{B(0,1)}x_1^2\, d\mathbf{x}=\frac{2 \pi ^{\frac{n-1}{2}}}{\Gamma \left(\frac{n-1}{2}\right)}\int_0^1 r^{n+1}dr\int_0^\pi\cos^2\phi\sin^{n-2}\phi\, d\phi= \frac{2\pi^{n/2}}{n(n+2)\Gamma(n/2)},$$ which again equals the large-$n$ estimate.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ I think the asymptotics will very much depend on how much the $a_j$'s differ from one another. E.g., if $a_1=1$ and $a_2=\cdots=a_n=0$, then it seems clear that the main contribution to the integral will be from $\mathbf x$ with $x_1^2\approx1$ and $x_j^2\approx0$ for $j\ge2$. So, then $\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{j}x_{j}^2$ will be close to $1$, rather than to $\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{j}r^2/n\approx1/n$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2022 at 17:23
  • $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis --- I tried this simple case for $m=1$ and actually find that the exact result equals the large-$n$ estimate... $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2022 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ But here $m\to\infty$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2022 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ my estimate is for $n\rightarrow\infty$ at fixed $m$, the double limit $m,n\rightarrow\infty$ is different. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2022 at 18:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot! The question is for both m→∞ and n →∞, however, I found your estimate held for m that not so large, for instance m=O(lnn) and n →∞. Thank you for the details which help me a lot! $\endgroup$
    – xiangsha
    Commented Jan 28, 2022 at 2:18
4
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\R{\mathbb R}\newcommand{\Ga}{\Gamma}$The integral in question is \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \int_0^1 dr\,\int_{rS_{n-1}}dx\,f(x) &=\int_0^1 dr\,r^{2m+n-1}\int_{S_{n-1}}du\,f(u) \\ &=\frac1{2m+n}\,|S_{n-1}|Ef(U_n), \end{aligned} \end{equation*} where \begin{equation*} f(x):=\Big(\sum_{j=1}^n a_j x_j^2\Big)^m \end{equation*} (so that $f$ is $2m$-homogeneous), $|S_{n-1}|$ is the surface area of the unit sphere $S_{n-1}$ in $\R^n$, and $U_n$ is a random vector uniformly distributed on $S_{n-1}$.

So, the problem reduces to finding the asymptotics of $Ef(U_n)$. Without loss of generality,
\begin{equation*} U_n=\frac G{\|G\|}, \end{equation*} where $G=(G_1,\dots,G_n)$ is a standard Gaussian vector in $\R^n$ and $\|\cdot\|$ is the Euclidean norm.

Let us normalize the $a_j$'s by assuming that \begin{equation*} \sum_{j=1}^n a_j=1 \tag{0} \end{equation*} and consider the following two extreme cases:

Case 1: $a_1=1$, $a_2=\cdots=a_n=0$ and

Case 2: $a_1=\cdots=a_n=1/n$.

In Case 1, \begin{equation*} f(U_n)=\Big(\frac{G_1^2}{\|G\|^2}\Big)^m, \end{equation*} and $\dfrac{G_1^2}{\|G\|^2}$ has the beta distribution with parameters $1/2,(n-1)/2$. So, here \begin{equation*} Ef(U_n)=\frac{\Ga(n/2)\Ga(m+1/2)}{\Ga(1/2)\Ga(m+n/2)}. \end{equation*} So, if e.g. $m=n\to\infty$, then the integral in question is \begin{equation*} \sim\frac1{3n}\,\sqrt6\,\Big(\frac2{3\sqrt3}\Big)^n\,|S_{n-1}|. \tag{1} \end{equation*} So, here the coefficient of $|S_{n-1}|$ decreases exponentially.

In the trivial Case 2, $f(U_n)=1/n^m$, and hence for $m=n\to\infty$ the integral in question is \begin{equation*} =\frac1{3n^{n+1}}\,|S_{n-1}|, \end{equation*} which is very different from the asymptotics for Case 1 given in (1).

Between these two extreme cases, any intermediate asymptotics (or absense of any asymptotics) should be possible. As was noted in comments, the asymptotics in general (if any) will very much depend on how much the $a_j$'s differ from one another.

Addendum 1: To be more specific, consider the following setting, intermediate between Cases 1 and 2:

$a_1=\cdots=a_k=1/k$, $a_{k+1}=\cdots=a_n=0$ for natural $k\in[2,n-1]$, where $k$ is allowed to vary with $n$ and $m$.

Then \begin{equation*} f(U_n)=\frac1{k^m}\,\Big(\frac{G_1^2+\cdots+G_k^2}{\|G\|^2}\Big)^m, \end{equation*} and $\dfrac{G_1^2+\cdots+G_k^2}{\|G\|^2}$ has the beta distribution with parameters $k/2,(n-k)/2$. So, here \begin{equation*} Ef(U_n)=\frac1{k^m}\,\prod_{r=0}^{m-1}\frac{k/2+r}{n/2+r}. \tag{2} \end{equation*}

So, if $k/m^2\to\infty$, then \begin{equation*} Ef(U_n)\sim\frac1{n^m}, \tag{3} \end{equation*} which is the same asymptotics as for $m$ fixed.

However, if $n/m^2\to\infty$ and $k\sim cm^2$ for some $c\in(0,\infty)$, then \begin{equation*} Ef(U_n)\sim\frac{e^{1/c}}{n^m}, \end{equation*} now with the additional factor $e^{1/c}$ as compared to (3).

If we now let $n/m^2\to\infty$ and $k\sim cm$ for some $c\in(0,\infty)$, then an additional exponentially growing (with $m$) factor (as compared to (3)) will appear.

Addendum 2: Letting $g(a_1,\dots,a_n):=Ef(U_n)$, we see that the function $g$ is symmetric and convex, and hence Schur convex -- see e.g. Theorem A on p. 258. So, in view of condition (0), \begin{equation*} Ef(U_n)\ge g(1/n,\dots,1/n)=\frac1{n^m}. \tag{$\clubsuit$} \end{equation*} That is, the smallest value of $Ef(U_n)$ is attained in Case 2 ($a_1=\cdots=a_n=1/n$), considered above.

Addendum 3: For completeness, consider also the case when $m$ is fixed (even though $m\to\infty$ in the OP). Then, by (2), \begin{equation*} Ef(U_n)\sim\frac1{n^m}\,\prod_{r=0}^{m-1}\Big(1+\frac{2r}k\Big) \end{equation*} if $a_1=\cdots=a_k=1/k$ and $a_{k+1}=\cdots=a_n=0$ for a fixed natural $k\in[2,n-1]$ and $n\to\infty$. We see that, even when $m$ is fixed, the asymptotics depends on $k$ and, more generally, on how much the $a_j$'s differ from one another.

Addendum 4: Here we complement the lower bound on $Ef(U_n)$ given by ($\clubsuit$) in Addendum 2 by providing a matching upper bound on $Ef(U_n)$ that implies the following:

If the $a_i$'s are uniformly small in the sense that \begin{equation*} a:=\max_{i=1}^n a_i\to0 \end{equation*} and, moreover, $m$ is at most moderately large in the sense that \begin{equation*} m^3 a\to0, \tag{4} \end{equation*} then \begin{equation*} Ef(U_n)\sim\frac1{n^m} \tag{$\heartsuit$} \end{equation*} (as $n\to\infty$).

Indeed, the random point $(x_1^2,\dots,x_n^2)$ has the Dirichlet distribution with parameters $1/n,\dots,1/n$, and the Dirichlet distribution has the negative association (NA) property. So, by (say) Theorem 2, \begin{equation*} Ef(U_n)\le E\Big(\sum_{j=1}^n a_j Y_j\Big)^m, \tag{5} \end{equation*} where the $Y_j$'s are iid random variables each with the beta distribution with parameters $1/2,(n-1)/2$. Denoting now the $L^m$ norm by $\|\cdot\|_m$ and using Minkowski's inequality, we get \begin{equation*} (Ef(U_n))^{1/m}\le\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^n a_j Y_j\Big\|_m \le \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^n a_j EY_j\Big\|_m +\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^n a_j Z_j\Big\|_m, \end{equation*} where $Z_j:=Y_j-EY_j$. Since $EY_j=1/n$, we have \begin{equation*} \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^n a_j EY_j\Big\|_m = \sum_{j=1}^n a_j EY_j=\frac1n. \tag{6} \end{equation*} Note also that $Var\,Y_j\sim2/n^2$ and $\|Z_j\|_m\le2\|Y_j\|_m\ll m/n$; here and in what follows, $A\ll B$ means $A\le CB$ for some universal real constant $C>0$. Using now an appropriate version of Rosenthal's inequality (see e.g. Theorem 6.1), we get \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^n a_j Z_j\Big\|_m &\ll\frac1n\,(m^2 a^{1-1/m}+m^{1/2} a^{1/2}) \\ &=\frac1n\,\frac1m\,((m^3 a)^{1-1/m}m^{3/m}+(m^3 a)^{1/2}) =o\Big(\frac1n\,\frac1m\Big), \end{aligned} \end{equation*} by (4). So, by (5) and (6), \begin{equation*} (Ef(U_n))\le\frac1{n^m}\Big(1+\frac{o(1)}m\Big)^m =\frac{1+o(1)}{n^m}. \end{equation*} Now ($\heartsuit$) follows, in view of ($\clubsuit$).

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! If m≈n, so many different asymptotics may arise. Thank you for your comprehensive consideration. If m is not so large, like O(lnn), or m=o(n), by Dirichlet's and Stirling's formula, one can prove that Beenakker's results holds uniformly for such m,n. $\endgroup$
    – xiangsha
    Commented Jan 28, 2022 at 2:30
  • $\begingroup$ @xiangsha : The above comment is only partially correct. Even if you assume that $m=O(\ln n)$, still the asymptotics will very much depend on how much the $a_j$'s differ from one another. I have added an Addendum with the corresponding details. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 28, 2022 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I will read the new comments later~ I do make a mistake that in above comment I actually mean Beenakker's estimate holds uniformly as lower bound for the asymptotics when m=O(lnn). $\endgroup$
    – xiangsha
    Commented Jan 29, 2022 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ @xiangsha : Well, this lower bound actually holds for all $m$ and in the exact, non-asymptotic sense -- see the just added Addendum 2. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 30, 2022 at 1:51
  • $\begingroup$ I have now added Addendum 4 providing the asymptotics for the case when the $a_j$'s are uniformly small and $m$ is at most moderately large. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 30, 2022 at 22:42

You must log in to answer this question.

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