Local limit theorems for smoothed Bernoulli and other convolutions
Sergey G. Bobkov, Arnaud Marsiglietti

TL;DR
This paper investigates the asymptotic behavior of the densities of sums of independent random variables convolved with small continuous noise, providing insights into their local limit theorems.
Contribution
It introduces new local limit theorems for smoothed Bernoulli and other convolutions, extending classical results to include small noise perturbations.
Findings
Derived asymptotic density behaviors for smoothed Bernoulli sums
Extended local limit theorems to convolutions with small continuous noise
Provided conditions under which classical limit theorems hold in the smoothed setting
Abstract
We explore an asymptotic behavior of densities of sums of independent random variables that are convoluted with a small continuous noise.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsProbability and Risk Models · Financial Risk and Volatility Modeling · Stochastic processes and financial applications
School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. Research was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1612961.
Department of Mathematics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA.
Corresponding author: Arnaud Marsiglietti, Email address: [email protected]
Local limit theorems for smoothed
Bernoulli and other convolutions
Sergey G. Bobkov1 missing and
Arnaud Marsiglietti2 missing
Abstract.
We explore an asymptotic behavior of densities of sums of independent random variables that are convoluted with a small continuous noise.
Key words and phrases:
Central limit theorem, local limit theorem
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 60E, 60F
1. Introduction
Let be independent Bernoulli random variables taking the values with probability . Given a random variable with density , let us consider densities of the normalized sums
[TABLE]
By the central limit theorem, are convergent weakly in distribution to the standard normal law, which means that, as ,
[TABLE]
Therefore, one may wonder whether or not this property can be sharpened as convergence of to in a stronger sense. This question appears naturally in the area of entropic limit theorems with involved problems of estimation of the entropy of , especially in a high-dimensional setting (here, we however do not discuss such applications). When and the ’s are i.i.d., a celebrated result of Gnedenko provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the uniform convergence of when these densities exist ([G-K], [B-RR]). Here, we will see that the presence of a non-zero noise in may enlarge the range of applicability of local limit theorems. Let us focus on the possible convergence in the -distance
[TABLE]
and on the uniform convergence, i.e, for the -norm (which is stronger than the -convergence). As it turns out, the answers essentially depend on some delicate properties of the density of , as may be seen from the following characterization in terms of the characteristic function
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.1. If
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
Conversely, if , and is square integrable, then the -convergence holds under the condition .
Under a stronger assumption on , the -convergence of densities may be strengthened to the uniform convergence.
Theorem 1.2. Assume that the condition is fulfilled. If , and is integrable, then the random variables have continuous densities such that
[TABLE]
The square integrability assumption in Theorem 1.1 is not so restrictive. By Plancherel’s theorem, it may be stated in terms of the density of as the property
[TABLE]
This holds true as long as is bounded, and .
As for the condition (1.2), it is of a different nature and is also fulfilled for a certain family of characteristic functions. This family includes, for example, which corresponds to the uniform distribution on the interval , and more generally with an arbitrary characteristic function , which means that the distribution of contains as a component. The condition (1.2) may also be stated explicitly in terms of the density , by virtue of the Poisson summation formula. As we will see, if has a bounded total variation, (1.2) is equivalent to the property that
[TABLE]
As a relatively large subfamily, one may involve all characteristic functions that are supported on , in which case we obtain the uniform convergence (1.3). But, staying in a similar class, one may remove the assumption that have a Bernoulli distribution and allow a multidimensional setting. In the sequel, we use the standard notations and to denote respectively the canonical inner product and the Euclidean norm in . A random vector in is said to have an isotropic distribution, if
[TABLE]
Equivalently, for all , where is the Kronecker symbol.
In the next statement, we assume that is a random vector in with characteristic function , , and that are mean zero, independent, identically distributed random vectors in with an isotropic distribution. By the central limit theorem, the normalized sums are convergent weakly in distribution to the standard normal law in with density
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.3. There exists depending on the distribution of with the following property. If is supported on the ball , then the random vectors have continuous densities such that holds true. If
[TABLE]
is finite, one may take . If has a non-lattice distribution, may be arbitrary.
Theorems 1.1-1.2 also admit multidimensional extensions, which we discuss in Sections 2-3. Theorem 1.3 is proved in Section 4. In Sections 5-6 we recall the Poisson formula, including the multidimensional case, and discuss its applications to (1.2). In the last Section 7, we consider an asymptotic behavior of densities in dimension one without the property (1.2). Under mild regularity assumptions on the distribution of , it will be shown in particular that uniformly over all
[TABLE]
This asymptotic representation illustrates a strong oscillatory behavior of the densities for all points , which may actually be different for even versus odd values of .
2. Multidimensional variant of Theorem 1.1
We denote by , , the space of all (complex-valued) functions on with finite norm
[TABLE]
Turning to the multidimensional variant of Theorem 1.1, suppose that are independent random vectors uniformly distributed in the discrete cube , so that their components (coordinates) represent independent Bernoulli random variables. Also, let be a random vector in with characteristic function
[TABLE]
Like the one dimensional case, if has an absolutely continuous distribution, the normalized sums
[TABLE]
have (some) densities . In addition, the distributions of are convergent weakly as to the standard normal law in with density given in (1.4). We would like to strengthen this convergence with respect to the -distance .
Theorem 2.1. If have densities such that
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
Conversely, suppose that and
[TABLE]
where denotes the distance from the point to the lattice . Then, have densities , and the -convergence holds true under the condition .
The moment assumption on guarantees that the characteristic function has a continuous derivative (gradient) with its Euclidean norm , so that (2.3) makes sense. This condition implies that is in as stated in Lemma 2.2 below, hence necessarily and all have densities. In dimension one, the condition (2.3) is fulfilled as long as and are in (by Cauchy’s inequality). If , (2.3) is a bit more complicated; it is fulfilled when
[TABLE]
where , . This is true, for example, under the decay assumptions such as
[TABLE]
holding for all with some constants and . For instance, this is the case, when is uniformly distributed in the cube .
Lemma 2.2. If the characteristic function of the random vector in with finite first absolute moment satisfies the condition , and , then has an absolutely continuous distribution with density in . Moreover, if
[TABLE]
and , then has a bounded continuous density.
For the proof of the lemma, as well as of Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 3.1, we partition into the cubes introduced above, so that for .
Proof. For a given -smooth function on , consider the functions , . Since , we have
[TABLE]
Change of the variable leads to
[TABLE]
with some constant depending on only, where for . It follows that
[TABLE]
For the first claim of the lemma, we apply this inequality with . It is -smooth and satisfies . Hence, the right-hand side of (2.5) is finite, which means that . Hence, has density in as well, by the Plancherel theorem. Choosing , we obtain that is integrable, so that the second claim follows from the inverse Fourier formula. ∎
Before turning to the proof of Theorem 2.1, note that the property (2.1) is equivalent to the convergence of the -norms
[TABLE]
Indeed, formally the latter is weaker than (2.1). On the other hand, assuming (2.6) and applying the central limit theorem with weak convergence, we have
[TABLE]
where is a standard normal random vector in .
Now, (2.1) requires that, for all large enough, the characteristic functions
[TABLE]
belong to , where
[TABLE]
Thus, introducing the characteristic function of and applying the Plancherel theorem, (2.1) may be restated as the property that
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 2.1.
Necessity part. To explore the latter property, consider the integrals
[TABLE]
Using the partition of as before and the periodicity of the cosine function, we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Given , choose small enough such that in . We have
[TABLE]
implying that
[TABLE]
Since was arbitrary, we get
[TABLE]
A similar upper bound on is obvious, and we conclude that
[TABLE]
Now, suppose that (2.2) is violated for some , that is, . By the continuity of , there exist and such that in . Hence,
[TABLE]
implying that
[TABLE]
Combining this bound with (2.9), we eventually obtain in (2.8) that
[TABLE]
which contradicts to (2.7). This proves the necessity part in Theorem 2.1.
Sufficiency part. By Lemma 2.2, the characteristic functions belong to , so that the densities are in as well. To prove the required relation (2.7), let us return to the representation (2.8). Recalling (2.9), our task is therefore to show that
[TABLE]
To this aim, for a fixed , using for , we have
[TABLE]
where , as in the proof of Lemma 2.2. Hence, by (2.4), and changing the variable , and then , we get
[TABLE]
with some constant depending on the dimension, only. Performing summation over all , we get
[TABLE]
Since , and recalling the assumption (2.3), one may apply the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem and conclude that the right-hand side of (2.11) tends to zero, and thus (2.7) and (2.10) hold true.
∎
3. Multidimensional extension of Theorem 1.2
Keeping notations and the setting of the previous section, the multidimensional variant of Theorem 1.2 reads as follows.
Theorem 3.1. Let be a random vector in with and with characteristic function such that
[TABLE]
where denotes the distance from to the lattice . If for all , , then the normalized sums have continuous densities such that
[TABLE]
In dimension one, (3.1) means that is integrable. If , this condition is fulfilled when
[TABLE]
for example, under the decay assumptions such as
[TABLE]
with some constants and . Note that this is not the case, when is uniformly distributed in the cube .
This claim is very similar to Theorem 2.1, and only minor modifications should be done in the proof of the sufficiency part.
Proof. As before, put . By Lemma 2.2, the characteristic functions
[TABLE]
are integrable. Hence, have continuous densities given by the Fourier inversion formula
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
Here, one may remove from the integrand by using the bound . More precisely, this may be done at the expense of an error not exceeding in absolute value
[TABLE]
up to some absolute constant . Hence
[TABLE]
where as . One may now turn to the approximation of by the Gaussian function. With some absolute constant , we have
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
Therefore, after another replacement, (3.5) is simplified to
[TABLE]
where as . Thus, the term in (3.3) corresponding to produces the desired normal approximation, and we are left to show that as uniformly over all .
For a fixed , put . Applying again for in (3.4), we have
[TABLE]
Using (2.4), we therefore obtain in full analogy with the derivation from the previous section that
[TABLE]
with some constant depending on the dimension, only. Performing summation over all , we get
[TABLE]
Finally, by (3.1), one may apply the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem and conclude that the right-hand side of (3.6) tends to zero, and thus (3.2) holds true.
∎
4. Proof of Theorem 1.3
The argument is rather standard, cf. e.g. [P1-2]. Let , , be the common characteristic function of ’s. If is supported on the ball , the characteristic functions
[TABLE]
of the normalized sums are supported on the ball of radius . Hence, have continuous densities given according to the Fourier inversion formula
[TABLE]
In order to explore an asymptotic behavior of these integrals, first note that one may always choose a number such that, for any ,
[TABLE]
Moreover, by the second moment assumption,
[TABLE]
with as . Let us choose such that for all . Then in this ball, and
[TABLE]
Combining this estimate with (4.2), we conclude that for any sequence with ,
[TABLE]
where , and denotes the volume of the -dimensional Euclidean unit ball.
Using the principal value of the logarithm, by Taylor expansion, for we also have
[TABLE]
with as . Therefore,
[TABLE]
where the convergence is uniform in the balls such that as . Hence,
[TABLE]
Moreover, if sufficiently slow,
[TABLE]
as . Thus, by (4.3),
[TABLE]
In view of (4.1), we obtain the desired relation (1.3), that is,
[TABLE]
If has a non-lattice distribution, the property (4.2) holds true with any , cf. [BR-R], Section 21. Otherwise, let us mention how one may quantify the choice of satisfying (4.2). If is a mean zero random variable with , one has (cf. e.g. [B], Lemma 15.1)
[TABLE]
Applying this bound with , , , , we get
[TABLE]
where . If , the above right-hand side does not exceed . Hence, is admissible. ∎
Remark 4.1. One may remove the 3rd moment assumption and take in Theorem 1.3 (in dimension one) under the following hypotheses about the distribution of (in addition to the basic moment assumptions and ):
The distribution of is symmetric about the origin;
;
The distribution of is different than the symmetric Bernoulli distribution on .
In that case, the property (4.2) still holds true. Indeed, otherwise take the smallest such that . This implies that has a lattice distribution supported on with (cf. [P2], Chapter 1, Lemma 3). Equivalently, for some integer-valued random variable . By the assumption , necessarily for some integer . Adding an integer number to , we may assume without loss of generality that or .
In the first case, , so that, by , and thus . Hence , implying that (4.2) holds with any . In the second case, , hence and thus . Here, by , the equality is only possible when takes the values 0 and 1 with probability , which is excluded by . Hence and , implying that (4.2) holds with .
5. Poisson formula
As we mentioned before, the property (1.2), needed in Theorems 1.1-1.2 and their multidimensional variants, may be stated explicitly in terms of the density of . Such a reformulation is based on the Poisson formula which we recall in this section.
Consider the Fourier transform
[TABLE]
for a given integrable function . The Poisson formula indicates that, under certain mild assumptions on (or ), we have the equality
[TABLE]
In dimension , it is sufficient to require that be continuous and have a bounded total variation on the real line. In this case, the left series in (5.1) is absolutely convergent, while the value of the right series is understood as the limit of the corresponding symmetric sums, cf. [Z], Theorem 13.5. For higher dimensions, (5.1) holds true as long as belongs to the Schwarz space of functions on , as mentioned in [I-K], Theorem 4.5.
Let us recall a standard argument and indicate somewhat weaker conditions in terms of , enlarging the Schwarz class, but restricting ourselves to the case where or are real-valued and non-negative.
Proposition 5.1. Let be an integrable non-negative function on whose Fourier transform is also integrable and has a continuous derivative satisfying
[TABLE]
where denotes the distance from the point to the lattice . Then we have the equality , in which the second series is absolutely convergent.
As the next proof shows, the differentiability assumption may slightly be relaxed, assuming that is locally Lipschitz and using the generalized modulus of the gradient
[TABLE]
Note that the function in Proposition 5.1 is bounded and continuous (which we require below), by the integrability of and by the inverse Fourier formula which may be written as
[TABLE]
This formula also shows that the role of and in (5.1) may be interchanged. In that case, Proposition 5.1 may be restated as follows.
Proposition 5.2. Let be an integrable, locally Lipschitz function on whose Fourier transform is integrable and non-negative. Suppose that
[TABLE]
where denotes the distance from the point to the lattice . Then we have the equality , in which the first series is absolutely convergent.
In dimension , the above condition on just means that has bounded total variation on the real line, and then we arrive at the usual one-dimensional formulation of (5.1) under an additional assumption that is non-negative.
Proof of Proposition 5.1. Let us partition into the cubes , , , and apply the bound
[TABLE]
It holds true as long as is locally Lipschitz, with definition (5.2) of the modulus of the gradient of . Indeed, for any , the function is locally Lipschitz on the line, and therefore it is absolutely continuous. If is a Radon-Nikodym derivative of , it follows from (5.2) that a.e., while .
Now, arguing as in the proof of Lemma 2.2, we have
[TABLE]
with some constant depending on only. Hence
[TABLE]
The next summation over all leads to
[TABLE]
so that the second series in (5.1) is absolutely convergent.
Next, consider the periodic function
[TABLE]
It is a.e. finite and integrable on the unit cube , since
[TABLE]
Therefore, admits a multiple Fourier series expansion with coefficients
[TABLE]
The Fourier series is thus absolutely convergent, and as a consequence, a.e., where
[TABLE]
By (5.4), represents a continuous function. Once is finite and continuous as well, we could conclude that for all . But, for , the latter equality becomes the Poisson formula (5.1).
The boundedness and continuity of (needed at zero only) may be explored in terms of smoothness properties of . Instead, let us apply a smoothing argument. Using the Fourier couple on the real line,
[TABLE]
the function with a parameter has the Fourier transform , . Define
[TABLE]
with its Fourier transform
[TABLE]
Put with the corresponding periodic function
[TABLE]
Since is bounded, the above series is absolutely convergent. Indeed, using , , we have, for any with ,
[TABLE]
where denotes an absolute constant which may be different in different places. It follows that the sum of the series in (5.5) is uniformly bounded. Since all terms in (5.5) are continuous in , we may conclude that is continuous as well.
It also follows from (5.5) and the property that
[TABLE]
It is the only place where the property that is non-negative is used. Since , we have . On the other hand, since , for any fixed
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, we get and thus arrive at (5.6).
Now, the Fourier transform of represents the normalized convolution , which is integrable and satisfies
[TABLE]
The latter follows from the equality together with the bound holding true with a constant independent of . Thus,
[TABLE]
and we obtain the Poisson formula for the smoothed functions, that is,
[TABLE]
In order to turn to the limit in this equality, note that , so that we may write
[TABLE]
Hence, by (5.3),
[TABLE]
Changing the variable and using for , with for , the last double integral may be bounded by
[TABLE]
with some constant depending on only. Hence, summing over all , we get
[TABLE]
where R_{T}=\bigcup_{k}\big{(}[-\frac{2\pi}{T},\frac{2\pi}{T}]^{d}+2\pi k\big{)}. This region shrinks to the lattice for growing , while the integral on the right is finite, when the integration is performed over the whole space. Therefore, by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, both sides of (5.8) tend to zero. In particular, as . Thus, in the limit (5.7) together with (5.6) yield the desired equality . ∎
6. Poisson formula for convoluted densities
Let us restate once more Propositions 5.1-5.2, assuming that is the characteristic function of a random vector in .
Proposition 6.1. Let , and assume that is integrable and satisfies
[TABLE]
where denotes the distance from to the lattice . Then has a bounded continuous density , and we have the equality , in which the second series is absolutely convergent.
Here, the moment assumption on ensures that has a continuous derivative .
Proposition 6.2. Let be integrable and non-negative, and assume that the density of is locally Lipschitz and satisfies
[TABLE]
where denotes the distance from to the lattice . Then we have the equality , in which the sums of both series are finite.
By the integrability of , the random vector has a bounded continuous density given by the inverse Fourier formula. It implies in particular that has a bounded continuous derivative as soon as . The latter condition is however not necessary.
Recall that in dimension , the assumptions in Proposition 6.2 may be weakened. It is sufficient to require that have a continuous density of bounded total variation (removing any hypotheses on ). This requirement may be related to the properties of the characteristic function. For example, it is sufficient to have (cf. e.g. [B-C-G], Proposition 5.2) that
[TABLE]
In case , the assumptions (6.1) and (6.2) are respectively fulfilled under decay bounds
[TABLE]
holding for all and respectively with some constants and . These bounds may be strengthened to
[TABLE]
The latter is fulfilled for all functions on from the Schwarz space.
Let us now turn to the density description of the condition for all appearing in Theorems 1.1-1.2 and 2.1-3.1. It may equivalently be stated as the property
[TABLE]
Note that is non-negative and represents the characteristic function of the random vector , where is an independent copy of . If has density , the density of is given by
[TABLE]
Hence, under the corresponding regularity assumptions, the Poisson formula (5.1) for the couple becomes
[TABLE]
which is equivalent to (6.3), if and only if
[TABLE]
Let us precise the regularity assumptions. Since , the condition (6.1) is fulfilled as long as
[TABLE]
where denotes the distance from to the lattice . Hence, from Proposition 6.1 we obtain:
Corollary 6.3. Let , and assume that is square integrable and satisfies the condition . Then for all , , if and only if the equality holds.
The assumption that implies that has a square integrable density , in which case the density is continuous. Let us also note that the condition (6.5) is exactly the assumption (2.3) from Theorem 2.1. Hence, under (6.5), (6.4) is equivalent to the local limit theorem (2.1), that is, to the property
[TABLE]
One may also develop an application of Proposition 6.2 to the density (in place of ). Assuming that the density has a continuous derivative, we have that has the derivative
[TABLE]
To weaken the assumptions, consider the one-dimensional case. Then, the only requirement we need to meet is that is continuous and has a bounded total variation on the real line. The continuity is met as long as , while . Hence, we arrive at:
Corollary 6.4. Assume that the random variable has a density with bounded total variation. Then for all , , if and only if
[TABLE]
7. Asymptotic behavior of densities without condition
Let us now return to the setting of Theorem 1.2, thus restricting ourselves to dimension . Without the condition (1.2), the densities of the normalized sums have an oscillating character at all points . Here we describe a typical situation, assuming that the density of the random variable is sufficiently regular.
Theorem 7.1. Assume that has a continuous density of bounded total variation, with finite second moment. If the characteristic function and its derivatives and are integrable, then have uniformly bounded densities satisfying uniformly over all
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Thus, the behavior of might be different for even and odd. The point turns out to be special, since then the oscillatory character disappears along even and odd values of respectively.
Corollary 7.2. Under the same assumptions,
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 7.1. Since is integrable, the random variables have bounded continuous densities described by the inverse Fourier formula
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
are the characteristic functions of . As before, let us split the integration in (7.2) into the intervals , , , to get the representation
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
Using , to denote quantities bounded by an absolute constant, from the asymptotic expression
[TABLE]
we obtain that
[TABLE]
This gives an asymptotic representation for the first integral in (7.4).
The second integral has a smaller order. Put (assuming that ). We use , , so that for . This implies that
[TABLE]
With a similar bound for the interval , we get
[TABLE]
For the interval , we use the Taylor integral formula up to the quadratic form,
[TABLE]
By (7.5), the linear term makes a contribution
[TABLE]
Hence, for the integral
[TABLE]
we get
[TABLE]
Together with (7.6)-(7.7), we thus arrive at
[TABLE]
with bounded quantities and .
To perform summation over all , first note that , as was emphasized in Proposition 6.1. Similarly, , since is integrable. Returning to (7.3), we thus obtain that
[TABLE]
that is, uniformly over all
[TABLE]
Since the factors are uniformly bounded, so are . We now apply Proposition 6.1 to the random variables
[TABLE]
whose characteristic functions and densities are given by
[TABLE]
With this choice we get
[TABLE]
∎
This observation implies that we cannot hope to obtain the convergence of to even in . For example, let us consider the two-sided exponential distribution with density . In this case, by Corollary 7.2,
[TABLE]
The same expressions are obtained for the values . The function has period . Let , , . Then along even indexes ,
[TABLE]
The latter expression is bounded away from zero for all small enough. Hence, according to (7.1), we have .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1]
- 2[2]
- 3[B-RR] Bhattacharya, R. N.; Ranga Rao, R. Normal approximation and asymptotic expansions. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1976. Also: Soc. for Industrial and Appl. Math., Philadelphia, 2010.
- 4[B] Bobkov, S. G. Asymptotic expansions for products of characteristic functions under moment assumptions of non-integer orders. Convexity and concentration, 297–357, IMA Vol. Math. Appl., 161, Springer, New York, 2017.
- 5[B-C-G] Bobkov, S. G.; Chistyakov, G. P.; Götze, F. Fisher information and the central limit theorem. Probab. Theory Related Fields 159 (2014), issue 1-2, 1–59.
- 6[G-K] Gnedenko, B. V.; Kolmogorov, A. N. Limit distributions for sums of independent random variables. Translated and annotated by K. L. Chung. With an Appendix by J. L. Doob. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., 1954. ix+264 pp.
- 7[I-K] Iwaniec, H.; Kowalski, E. Analytic number theory. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 53. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004. xii+615.
- 8[P 1] Petrov, V. V. Local limit theorems for sums of independent random variables. (Russian) Teor. Verojatnost. Primenen. 9 (1964), 343–352.
