1
$\begingroup$

Suppose $(x_n, y_n)$ are i.i.d. samples (that is, $x_n$ and $y_n$ are not independent, but $(x_n, y_n)$ is i.i.d. with regards to $(x_m, y_m)$ if $n\ne m$) from a joint distribution, with $0 < x_n, y_n \le 1$. The quantity I am interested in is $$ \left\|\frac{Nx_1}{\sum_{n=1}^Nx_n} - \frac{Ny_1}{\sum_{n=1}^Ny_n}\right\|_p, $$ where I used the $p$-norm $\|u\|_p = \mathbb E[|u|^p]^{1/p}$. I'm not entirely sure how best to describe this quantity in words (hence the vague title), but it is something that comes up as part of a proof I'm working on.

The conjecture I'd like to prove is that, for all $p\ge2$, $$ \left\|\frac{Nx_1}{\sum_{n=1}^Nx_n} - \frac{Ny_1}{\sum_{n=1}^Ny_n}\right\|_p \le \frac{2\|x\|_p}{\mathbb E[x]\mathbb E[y]}\|x - y\|_p. $$ I believe this bound will hold, as it does so for $N=1$ -- in which case the left-hand side is zero -- and in the "limit to infinity" when $\sum_{n=1}^Nx_n/N$ is replaced by $\mathbb E[x]$ (and similarly for $y$). It seems logical to me that the left-hand side grows monotonically with $N$, from which my conjecture follows. I've spent quite some time trying to prove the statement, but have so far been unsuccessful. Lemma 2 of this paper seemed promising, but did not result in a proof for me.

Any help would be greatly appreciated! If you can (dis)prove the conjecture, that would be awesome, but pointers/ideas for me to pursue are welcome as well. For my purpose, I could also work with several relaxations of the conjecture:

  • The bound may use $\|x-y\|_r$ for any $r$ instead of $p$. This $r$ can only depend on $p$.
  • The bound may include a factor $N$ if need be (but no higher powers $N^\alpha$ with $\alpha>1$).
  • The factor $\frac{2\|x\|_p}{\mathbb E[x]\mathbb E[y]}$ can be replaced by pretty much anything that depends on the distributions of $x$ and $y$ and that doesn't "blow up". Something like $\|1/x\|_p$ cannot be included, as it might not exist.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read through my post. I look forward to seeing your opinions on this problem.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ It is seldom a good idea to denote random variables by lower-case letters. Such letters should be reserved to denote values of the random variables. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 3:11
  • $\begingroup$ Also, there is no need to use the upper-case letter $N$ here. You can use $k,n$ instead of $n,N$. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 3:15
  • $\begingroup$ Good point on the random variables! As for $N$, I personally like having a lowercase $n$ counting up to its uppercase version $N$. It helps me with readability. $\endgroup$
    – ArBo
    Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 7:48

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Such bounds do not exist.

Indeed, suppose that $N=2$; $X_1,X_2$ are independent random variables each uniformly distributed on the interval $(0,1)$; $Y_1=h+(1-h)X_1$ and $Y_2=h+(1-h)X_2$, where $h\in(0,1)$.

Then \begin{equation} \|X_1-Y_1\|_r=\frac h{(1+r)^{1/r}} \end{equation} for all real $r>0$.

On the other hand, \begin{equation} \frac1h\Big(\frac{X_1}{X_1+X_2}-\frac{Y_1}{Y_1+Y_2}\Big) =\frac{X_1-X_2}{(X_1+X_2)(X_1+X_2+h(2-(X_1+X_2)))}. \end{equation} So, letting $h\downarrow0$ and $c_p:=2^p/3^{2p}$, by monotone convergence we get \begin{equation} \frac1{h^p}\Big\|\frac{X_1}{X_1+X_2}-\frac{Y_1}{Y_1+Y_2}\Big\|_p^p \to\int_0^1\int_0^1 dx_1\,dx_2\,\frac{|x_1-x_2|^p}{(x_1+x_2)^{2p}} \\ \ge\int_0^1 dx_1\int_0^{x_1/2} dx_2\,\frac{c_p}{x_1^p}=\infty, \end{equation} since $p\ge2$. So, the inequality \begin{equation} \Big\|\frac{X_1}{X_1+X_2}-\frac{Y_1}{Y_1+Y_2}\Big\|_p\le C\|X_1-Y_1\|_r \end{equation} cannot hold for any real $C$, any real $r>0$, and all $h\in(0,1)$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ @ArBo : I suggest you post these additional questions separately, after appropriate preparation. That would be better in several ways. In particular, then your additional questions will probably attract more attention. Anyhow, according to MathOverflow guidelines, there should be only one question in one post. Therefore, please roll back the edit of your question. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ Will do, thanks! $\endgroup$
    – ArBo
    Commented Oct 8, 2023 at 16:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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