What is a method to compute the asymptotics of a sum resulting from the inclusion-exclusion principle? Each term of the sum can be approximated perhaps by Stirling's formula or the Gaussian distribution. However the alternating sign should effect some cancellation. As an example, the answer to this combinatorial problem generates a probability $$p=\frac c{n\choose j},$$ where $$c=\sum_{k=w}^j(-1)^{k-w}(j-k+1){n-k+1\choose j-k+1}.$$ What is the asymptote of $p$ for $\big|\frac jn-a\big|=o(n)$ and $\big|\frac wn-b\big|=o(n)$ for some positive numbers $a$ and $b$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$?
-
3It is an alternating sum with terms in decreasing size so the first term gives an upper bound and the first minus the second gives a lower bound. That might be tight enough for an answer. If not, use more terms for tighter bounds. – Aaron Meyerowitz Apr 06 '19 at 04:57
-
@AaronMeyerowitz: You are right. Upvoted. I thought of that as well, but wondered if there might be tighter bounds and slicker in form. – Hans Apr 06 '19 at 18:53
4 Answers
Many unsolved asymptotics problems can be written as inclusion-exclusion sums. There is no general method for solving them.
However, in your case the terms decrease in absolute value and nearly form a geometric series. This is an easy case.
If $t_k$ is the $k$-term, then $t_{w+i}\approx (-1)^i (j/n)^i t_w$, so $$c \sim \frac{t_w}{1+j/n}.$$ To get rigorous bounds, you can use the fact that the partial sums of an alternating series with absolutely decreasing terms alternate above and below the full sum.
- 37,203
Another way to approach this from the generating function perspective. Notice that $$\sum_{k=l}^u (-1)^k [x^k]\, f(x) = [x^u]\,\frac{f(-x)}{1-x} - [x^{l-1}]\,\frac{f(-x)}{1-x},$$ and so the question reduces to studying the asymptotic of the coefficients of $\frac{f(-x)}{1-x}$.
In your example, we have $$(j-k+1)\binom{n-k+1}{j-k+1} = (n-j+1)\,[x^{j-k}]\,(1-x)^{-(n+2-j)}$$ and thus \begin{split} c &=\sum_{k=w}^{j} (-1)^{k-w} (j-k+1)\binom{n-k+1}{j-k+1} \\ &= (n-j+1)(-1)^{j-w} \sum_{t=0}^{j-w} (-1)^t\,[x^t]\,(1-x)^{-(n+2-j)} \\ &= (n-j+1)(-1)^{j-w}\,[x^{j-w}]\,\frac{1}{(1+x)^{n+2-j}(1-x)} \\ &= (n-j+1)\,[x^{j-w}]\,\frac{1}{(1-x)^{n+2-j}(1+x)}. \end{split}
Now, noticing the partial fraction decomposition $$\frac{1}{(1-x)^m(1+x)} = \frac{2^{-m}}{1+x} + \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \frac{2^{-(i+1)}}{(1-x)^{m-i}},$$ we obtain the formula: $$c=(n-j+1)\left(\frac{(-1)^{j-w}}{2^{n+2-j}} + \sum_{i=0}^{n+1-j} \frac{1}{2^{i+1}}\binom{n+1-i-w}{j-w}\right).$$ Here all terms in the sum are positive and thus are more amenable to asymptotic analysis. For example, we can deduce $$\frac{n-j+1}{2}\binom{n+1-w}{j-w} \lesssim c \lesssim (n-j+1)\binom{n+1-w}{j-w}.$$
- 30,425
-
Very nice. But it seems you have not finished it. Are you not going to give some asymptotic analysis, via perhaps complex analysis, to the last expression for $c$? – Hans Apr 06 '19 at 21:39
-
My answer got posted prematurely (misclick?) and is indeed unfinished. For the rest, I was going to use Lagrange Inversion but had to abandon my answer due to lack of time. I leave it as is now, and will get back to it later. – Max Alekseyev Apr 06 '19 at 21:58
-
1Meanwhile, I can give a reference to Section 5 in Generatingfunctionology for basic asymptotic analysis methods for g.f. coefficients. – Max Alekseyev Apr 06 '19 at 22:29
-
I have completed my answer using partial fraction decomposition, which works better than Lagrange inversion here. – Max Alekseyev Apr 07 '19 at 18:07
-
I’m not sure that the precision of the final result $U/2 \lt c \lt U$ justifies all machinery. Your upper bound $U$ looks like another way to write the first term (which is indeed an upper bound) . Then the first two terms give a lower bound of $(1-j/n)U.$ I suppose it depends on the size of $j/n.$ one can also use a few more terms in that case. – Aaron Meyerowitz Apr 07 '19 at 18:40
-
It's not the final result, but a sample conclusion (low hanging fruit). If you like, the final result is the formula with no alternating signs. But overall point was the use of g.f. – Max Alekseyev Apr 07 '19 at 19:04
-
Very nice. +1. But can you carry out the details of the asymptotic analysis from the non-alternating-sign sum, in the form of, say a nested bounds in increasing tightness? I do not care too much about the specificity of the asymptotic bounds of this particular problem per se, but want to gain a general tool to deal with the class of similar problems. So I would really appreciate it if you would explicate all details. I will accept this answer if you would be so kind as to add all the details. – Hans Apr 09 '19 at 17:19
-
@Hans: I did not mean to provide a working recipe for such problems (and solve your example), but just to demonstrate a method, which may be helpful in some cases. I did not work out completely your example as my point was just to illustrate that the method can bring a new perspective to the analysis (which may not be necessarily better than other proposed methods). It is still an art, not a general tool. – Max Alekseyev Apr 11 '19 at 20:58
-
I understand your motivation for your solution. In fact, I was hoping to see exactly such methodology, e.g. generating function induced asymptotic analysis via complex analysis via Cauchy's theorem, when I posted my question. I do not care so much about the best asymptotic form for this particular problem as how this generating function induced asymptotic analysis would work for similar problems, and whether this is the best specific solution for this problem per se. I was hoping you could carry out all the details as a demonstration of how this methodology would work – Hans Apr 11 '19 at 21:13
-
from the beginning to the end so I can learn the technique. I would very much appreciate it if you would be willing to do so. – Hans Apr 11 '19 at 21:15
Your question seems extremely general! Perhaps the most famous result of this type states that the number of fixed points of the $N$-letter permutations $$\chi:S_N\to\mathbb N,\quad,\quad\chi(\sigma)=\#\{i|\sigma(i)=i\}$$ becomes Poisson (1) in the $N\to\infty$ limit. The proof uses the inclusion-exclusion principle at fixed $N\in\mathbb N$, and then some simple asymptotics in the limit. All this generalizes the fact that $$\mathbb P(\chi(\sigma)=0)\simeq\frac{1}{e}$$ in other words that "a random permutation is a derangement with probability about $1/e$''. All beautiful mathematics all this, you can take a look at papers by Diaconis et al. for more.
- 1,363
- 9
- 30
-
Could you please give a few specific references of the result in your answer? Thanks. – Hans Apr 06 '19 at 23:28
-
-
-
No idea, don't remember.. but you can follow the wikipedia links, some of them probably lead into OEIS, with more links, do some Google too, and so on. – Richard Apr 07 '19 at 17:33
-
1@Hans may be Diaconis papers mentioned here: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/320497/metrics-on-finite-groups-and-generalizations-of-central-limit-theorems-for-balls – Alexander Chervov Apr 07 '19 at 18:29
The limiting probability is $0$ and it goes there pretty rapidly if we fix the ratios $\frac{j}n \approx a \lt 1$ and $\frac{w}n \approx b \gt 0$ and then let $n$ grow. In fact $p\lt n a^{w} \approx n{a}^{bn}$
This is a kind of cheap way out of the interesting problem of estimating $c$ but that is how it is.
The convergence to $0$ is pretty apparent from numerical experiments, however here is a calculation:
$$c\lt j\binom{n-w+1}{j-w+1}=j\frac{(n-w+1)!}{(j-w+1)!(n-j)!}$$
so $$\frac{c}{\binom{n}{j}} \lt j\frac{(n-w+1)!j!}{n!(j-w+1)!}=j\frac{j(j-1)(j-2)\cdots(j-w+2)}{n(n-1)(n-2)\cdots(n-w+2)} $$
since $a=\frac{j}{n} \gt\frac{j-k}{n-k}$
$$\frac{c}{\binom{n}{j}} \lt j(a)^{w-1}\approx na^w. $$
- 30,015
-
What does the symbol $(j)$ mean? Does $(j)=j$? Should it not be $j-w+1$ if you just take the first term in the sum? – Hans Apr 07 '19 at 16:29
-
I started with $(j+w-1)$ but realized that for the inequality it came out cleaner to use $j*w-1 \lt j$ . – Aaron Meyerowitz Apr 07 '19 at 16:59
-
1I actually think it would be cleaner to use $j+w-1$ as it cancels with the same on the denominator and factors out $n-w+1$ on the numerator. But I suppose it does not make much of a difference. – Hans Apr 07 '19 at 17:51
-
True, that might be cleaner. Instead of replacing $an-w+1$ by $an$ one could cancel and then replace $n-w+1$ by $n$ . But as you say, it doesn’t matter too much. – Aaron Meyerowitz Apr 07 '19 at 18:26