Abstract
Following (Shevtsova, 2013) we introduce detailed classification of the asymptotically exact constants in natural estimates of the rate of convergence in the Lindeberg central limit theorem, namely in Esseen’s, Rozovskii’s, and Wang–Ahmad’s inequalities and their structural improvements obtained in our previous works. The above inequalities involve algebraic truncated third-order moments and the classical Lindeberg fraction and assume finiteness only the second-order moments of random summands. We present lower bounds for the introduced asymptotically exact constants as well as for the universal and for the most optimistic constants which turn to be not far from the upper ones.
1. Introduction
In various applications of probability theory, one has to approximate an unknown distribution of a sum of independent random variables with some known law. Such problems arise, for example, in insurance, financial mathematics, reliability theory, queueing theory, and many other areas. The most common approximation is the normal one which is based on the central limit theorem. The adequacy of the normal approximation can be estimated with the help of convergence rate estimates in the central limit theorem such as the celebrated Berry–Esseen [1,2] inequality (in terms of full moments and under the additional moment-type assumptions), or Osipov–Petrov’s [3,4], Esseen’s [5], Rozovskii’s [6], Wang-Ahmad’s [7] inequalities and their generalizations [8,9,10,11] (in terms of truncated moments without any additional assumptions). However, the most natural estimates, such as Esseen’s, Rozovskii’s and Wang–Ahmad’s inequalities contained unknown constants, and their application in practice was made possible only by the results of [8,11], where in particular, the unknown constants in the above inequalities were evaluated. A detailed overview of the cited inequalities can be found in [11] and for brevity, we do not duplicate it here. Since the crucial role in estimation of the adequacy of the normal approximation is played by the values (upper bounds, in fact) of appearing absolute constants, it is very important to understand how accurate the existing upper bounds for the constants are, how much they might be lowered and if it is worth trying to improve the method of their evaluation. The problem becomes much deeper as soon as we observe that estimates of the accuracy of the normal approximation are usually used with large sample sizes or when the majorizing expressions are assumed to be small, so that, in fact, not only the absolute values of the appearing constants are of interest, but also their presumably more optimistic (smaller) values which may be used under the corresponding asymptotic assumptions. Every set of asymptotic assumptions generates the corresponding asymptotic constant. Hence, we can introduce a whole classification of asymptotic constants. The present study is devoted to investigation of the various asymptotic constants and the main purpose is to construct their lower bounds.
Let be independent random variables (r.v.’) with distribution functions (d.f.’s) , expectations , variances , , and such that
For denote
The function is called the Lindeberg fraction. It is easy to see that , . In case of independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) r.v.’s we denote their common d.f. by F and write .
In [8] it was proved that
where the functions depend only on and (that is, they turn into absolute constants as soon as and are fixed), both are monotonically non-increasing with respect to , and is also non-increasing with respect to . The question on the boundedness of as is still open, while for every and for every . To avoid ambiguity, in what follows by constants appearing here in various inequalities we mean their exact values; in particular, in majorizing expressions—their least possible values. Upper bounds for the constants and for some and computed in [8] are presented in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. Here the symbol stands for the point of minimum of the upper bound for , obtained within the framework of the method used in [8], i.e., the upper bound for found in [8] remains constant as grows for every fixed . More precisely, the quantity is defined as follows:
where is the unique root of the equation
is the unique root of the equation
Table 1.
Two-sided bounds for the constants from inequality (1), Upper bounds were obtained in [8], and the lower ones in Theorem 3 below.
Table 2.
Two-sided bounds for the constants from inequality (2), Upper bounds were obtained in [8], and the lower ones in Theorem 3 below.
In the same paper [8] there were found sharpened upper bounds for the constants and provided that the corresponding fractions
take small values. In particular, there were introduced asymptotically exact constants
and the following upper bounds were obtained for them:
where are the upper and the lower gamma-functions, respectively,
, were defined above. The values of the upper bounds for the asymptotically exact constants and in (5) and (6) for some and are given in the third and the seventh columns of Table 3, respectively.
Moreover, in [8] it was shown that the asymptotically exact constants are unbounded as :
Let us note that estimate (2) with coincides with the Rozovskii inequality [6] ([Corollary 1]) and establishes an upper bound for the appearing absolute constant . Estimate (1) with and , improves both Esseen’s inequalities from [5], where the absolute value sign and the least upper bound with respect to stand inside the sum in comparison with (1). In particular, estimate (1) yields upper bounds for the absolute constants in Esseen’s inequalities and which were remaining unknown for a long time. Esseen’s inequality where the least upper bound is taken over a bounded range (see (1) with ) yields, in its turn, the Osipov inequality [3]:
(for details see [8]). The latest bound obtained by Osipov [3] with some constant (whose best known value is published in [12]) yields, in its turn, the Lindeberg theorem: indeed, under the Lindeberg condition and with the account of , from (7) we have
Hence, by Feller’s theorem, in case of uniformly infinitesimal random summands (in particular, in the i.i.d. case) the right- and the left-hand sides of (7) are either both infinitesimal or both do not tend to zero. According to the terminology, introduced by Zolotarev [13], such convergence rate estimates are called natural. Together with (1), inequality (2) is a natural convergence rate estimate in the Lindeberg–Feller theorem certainly under the additional assumption of existence of such an that for all sufficiently large n (see, e.g., [11]), in particular, if the r.v.’s have symmetric distributions.
Let us also note that Esseen-type inequality (1) not only links the criteria of convergence with the rate of convergence, as Osipov’s inequality does, but also provides a numerical demonstration of the Ibragimov’s criteria [14] of the rate of convergence in the CLT to be of order order . According to [14], in the i.i.d. case we have as if and only if as Inequality (1) trivially yields the sufficiency of the Ibragimov condition to as .
Let us denote by a set of all non-decreasing functions such that for and is also non-decreasing for . The set was initially introduced by Katz [15] and used later in the works [4,9,10,11,12,16]. In [9] it was proved that
- (i)
- For every function andwith
- (ii)
- Every function from is continuous on .
Property (8) means that every function from is asymptotically (as its argument goes to infinity) between a constant and a linear function. For example, besides , the class also includes the following functions:
for all , and .
For we set
Please note that the introduced fractions with coincide with the fractions in the Esseen- and Rozovskii-type inequalities (1), (2) considered above:
Inequalities (1) and (2) were generalized in [11] in the following way:
where
(recall that according to the above convention, all the equalities between the constants including are exact with formal definitions of and being given in (19) below).
It is easy to see that the both fractions are invariant with respect to scale transformations of :
Moreover, in [11] ([Theorem 2]) it was proved that for all
Extreme properties of the functions
in (8) with yield
for every fixed set of distributions of , so that the extreme values of the constants and in (11) and (12) with fixed n and are attained at . Moreover, with the extreme functions g the fraction satisfy the following relations for :
Inequality (11) also generalizes and improves up to the values of the appearing absolute constant the classical Katz–Petrov inequality [4,15] (which is equivalent to the Osipov inequality [3]) because of involving the algebraic truncated third order moments instead of the absolutes ones and also a recent result of Wang and Ahmad [7] at the expense of moving the modulus and the least upper bound signs outside of the sum sign. In particular, inequality (11) established an upper bound of the constant in the Wang–Ahmad inequality .
A detailed survey and analysis of the relationships between inequalities (1), (2), (11), (12) with inequalities of Katz [15], Petrov [4], Osipov [3], Esseen [5], Rozovskii [6], and Wang–Ahmad [7] can be found in papers [8,11].
The main goal of the present work is construction of the lower bounds of the absolute constants , in inequalities (11), (12), and also of the constants , in inequalities (1), (2), in particular, we show that even in the i.i.d. case
We consider various statements of the problem of construction of the lower bounds, namely we introduce a detailed classification of the asymptotically exact constants and construct their lower bounds. As a corollary, we obtain two-sided bounds for the asymptotically exact constants and defined in (3) and (4), in particular, we show that
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce exact, asymptotically exact and asymptotically best constants defining the corresponding statements for the construction of the lower bounds. Section 4, Section 5 and Section 6 are devoted namely to the construction of the lower bounds for the introduced constants. Section 3 contains some auxiliary results which might represent an independent interest, in particular, the values of the fractions and are found for all n, and some in the case where have identical two-point distribution.
2. Exact, Asymptotically Exact and Asymptotically Best Constants
Following [13,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25], let us define exact, asymptotically exact and asymptotically best constants in inequalities (11), (12). Let be a set of all d.f.’s with zero means and finite second order moments. Denote
Please note that the fractions , also depend on d.f.’s , but we omit these arguments for the sake of brevity.
The constants and are the minimal possible (exact) values of the constants and in inequalities (11), (12) for the fixed function , while their universal values , that provide the validity of the inequalities under consideration for all are called exact constants and namely they are the minimal possible (exact) values of the constants and in (11) and (12), respectively. In order not to introduce excess notation and following the above convention, we use namely these exact values for the definitions of and in the present work:
and call them the exact constants. Please note that
hence, every lower bound for the constants , serves as a lower bound for the constants , as well.
The least upper bounds in (18) are taken without any restrictions on the values of the fractions , , while inequalities (11), (12) represent the most interest with small values of these fractions, when the normal approximation is adequate and only the concrete estimates of its accuracy are needed. That is why it is interesting to study not only the absolute, but also the asymptotic constants in (11), (12), some of which were already introduced in (3), (4). Since we are interested in the lower bounds, we assume that have identical distributions. Generalization of the definitions introduced below to the non-i.id. case is not difficult (see, for example, definitions (3) and (4) of the asymptotically exact constants for the general case).
For each of the fractions appearing in inequalities (11), (12) we define the asymptotically best constants
the upper asymptotically exact constants
the asymptotically exact constants
the lower asymptotically exact constants
the conditional upper asymptotically exact constants
In order not to introduce excess indexes, we use identical notation for the asymptotic constants in (11), (12), in what follows every time specifying the inequality in question. All the introduced constants aim to improve the structure of the simplest upper bounds of the form with the help of introducing an additional term which is allowed to be infinitesimal of a higher order than as :
where the assumptions on define the value of the corresponding minimal constant . For example, in (20) it is supposed that the distribution of the random summands does not depend on the number of summands n and, hence, if and only if , so that in (25) is not obliged to tend to zero uniformly for all d.f.’s as . All the rest introduced constants allow a double array scheme. The values of are obliged to be infinitesimal in (20), (22), and (23). The distinction between (22) and (23) is in the upper bound and the limit with respect to n, so that , where the strict inequality may also take place, as it happens indeed, for example, with the similar constants in the classical Berry–Esseen inequality [19,20,21,22,23,24]. In terms of inequalities, this means that inequality (25) with assumes that tends to zero uniformly for all d.f.’s with fixed value of as , while taking in (25) leads to separating of in (25) into two terms:
where . The constants in the classical Berry–Esseen inequality similar to those defined in (20)–(24) were first considered in [18] for (20), [17] for (22), [13,26] for (21), [23] for (23), and [25] for (24). The upper asymptotically exact (21) and the conditional upper asymptotically exact (24) constants are linked by the following relation by definition, and we shall construct lower bounds namely for . As for the constants , we introduce them here to pay tribute to the classical works [13,26]. The function g in (20), (21), (24) may be arbitrary from the class , while the constants and (see (22) and (23)) are defined not for all . For example, and are not defined in any of the inequalities (11), (12), since the corresponding fractions , are bounded from below by one uniformly with respect to and (see (13) and (14)) and, hence, cannot be infinitesimal.
3. Two-Point Distributions
Most of the lower bounds will be obtained by the choice of a two-point distribution
for the random summands. The present section contains the corresponding required results. In particular, we will find values of the fractions , with for all (Theorem 1). We will also investigate the uniform distance between the d.f. of (27) and the standard normal d.f. and find the corresponding extreme values of the argument of d.f.’s (see Theorem 2):
3.1. Computation of the Fractions
For distribution (27) we have , , , ,
Recall that for
That is why in the formulation of the next Theorem 1, we do not indicate values of , , , for separately.
Theorem 1.
(i) For all , and we have
(ii) For all
(iii) For all , , , and
In particular,
for and all
for and all
Proof.
Observe that in the i.i.d. case under consideration we have ,
Let us find , . For all we have
(1) Compute and . For all , we have
in particular, for . Now let us find for . We have
If , then ,
and hence,
so that we may write for all
If , then
and with the account of , for ,we finally obtain
for all and , i.e., for all the identity
holds also for . In particular, with and for all we have
(2) Let us find and . For all , we have
in particular, for and all as well as for , For we have
If , then
and hence,
otherwise
and hence,
for all and . In particular,
(3) Let us compute and . With the account of
and , , for all , we obtain
in particular, for . Now let . Taking into account that does not increase with respect to , and using the just computed , we obtain
in particular, for we have for all , and hence, for all .
(4) Let us compute and . Taking into account that does not increase with respect to and , for all , and we obtain
in particular, for and for all . Now let . With the account of
we have
in particular, for . □
3.2. Computation of the Uniform Distance
In the present section, we compute the uniform distance between the d.f. of (27) and the standard normal d.f. Let us denote
Please note that is an even function, therefore, it suffices to investigate it only for
Lemma 1
(see [27]). The function is positive for increases for decreases for and attains its maximal value in the point where is the unique root of the equation
Remark 1.
The statement about the interval of monotonicity is absent in the formulation of the corresponding lemma in [27], but these intervals were investigated in the proof.
The definition of and lemma 1 immediately imply that the function
is positive for increases for , decreases for and
Lemma 2.
On the intervalthe function
monotonically increases, while its derivative
monotonically decreases.
Proof.
The function monotonically increases as a superposition of monotonically increasing functions. Please note that the derivative takes only positive values, hence, we may define its logarithm
The derivative
changes its sign in the points that are the roots of the equation
which has a unique solution on . Since
then is strictly decreasing on , and hence, is also strictly decreasing on □
Theorem 2.
Proof.
Please note that
where
Let Then and it suffices to show that
Let us prove that . Using lemma 2, we conclude that the derivative
decreases on with
hence, has a unique stationary point on , which is a point of maximum, so that
The inequality follows from the properties of the function with the account of
Thus, the theorem has been proved in the case . The validity of the statement of the theorem for follows from that and . □
Lemma 3
(see [27,28]). For an arbitrary d.f. F with zero mean and unit variance we have
Remark 2.
In [28] [(2.32), (2.33)] it is proved that
In [27] it is proved that in the inequality
the equality is attained at a two-point distribution.
4. Lower Bounds for the Exact Constants
In the present section, we construct lower bounds for the quantities
and
for all Recall that
By virtue of invariance of the fractions , with respect to scale transform of g and extreme property of (see (15)) we have
on one hand, and by definition of the lower bound, on the other hand. Therefore
where the second equality is proved similar to the first one.
Let us show that
Indeed, for arbitrary , and due to the extremality of (see (15)) we have
hence, , on one hand. On the other hand, this inequality may hold true only with the equality sign, since by definition. The same reasoning holds also true for .
Thus, , are the most optimistic constants, while , are the most pessimistic, but universal (exact) ones. The next theorem establishes lower bounds for the exact constants , , and also for the constants and appearing in inequalities (1) and (2).
Theorem 3.
(i) For all we have
(ii) For set
Take any . Let us denote for
and for
Then for all we have
and for also
In particular,
and for the both constants with the following lower bound holds:
Values of the greatest lower bounds of and for some and are given in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. Values of the greatest lower bounds of and with the corresponding extremal values of p are given in Table 4 for some and .
Table 4.
Values of the lower bounds for the constants and obtained in Theorem 3 for some and .
Proof.
Let and the r.v. have the two-point distribution (27) with . Then, by Theorem 2, we have , and all the constants , can be bounded from below as
In particular, for we have and by Theorem 1
whence the statement of point (i) follows immediately.
To prove point (ii) it suffices to make sure that for all and
Theorem 1 (i) with implies that for ,
, while for , by the same Theorem 1 (iii), we have
(recall that for ). Please note that for all and
so that from the three conditions in (35) under the additional condition there remain only two:
In particular, for
and for
whence we obtain the above expressions for , .
Now let us consider the particular cases. The coinciding lower bounds for , and follow from that for all , and also from, as it can easily be made sure,
for , where is the unique root of the equation on the segment . The lower bound for follows from that . □
Now let us find lower bouds for the most optimistic constants and .
Theorem 4.
(i) For all we have
(ii) For set
Take any . Let us denote for
and for
Then for all we have
In particular,
if , or where is defined in Lemma 1,
Values of the greatest lower bounds of and with the corresponding extremal values of p are given in Table 5 for some and .
Table 5.
Values of the lower bounds for the most optimistic constants and obtained in Theorem 3 for some and .
Remark 3.
Theorem 4 yields the following lower bound for the exact constantin the Esseen-type inequality (1):
which coincides with the one obtained directly in Theorem 3.
Proof.
Let and the r.v. have the two-point distribution (27) with . Then, by Theorem 2 we have , and all the constants are bounded from below as
In particular, for we have while by Theorem 1
whence the statement of point (i) follows immediately.
To prove point (ii), it suffices to make sure that for all , we have
Theorem 1 (i) (see (30) and (32)) with implies that for , and we have
while for , by Theorem 1 (ii) and (iii), respectively, we have
which coincides with the statement of point (ii).
Now let us consider the particular cases. The lower bound for with follows from that, for the specified and , we have , . For we have and, hence,
The lower bound for with is obtained similarly. The given values of the constants , are computed trivially. □
5. Lower Bounds for the Asymptotically Best Constants
Let us investigate the constants in (11) and (12) and construct their lower bounds. Due to the extremity of the functions and (see (15)) we have
in both inequalities (11) and (12).
Theorem 5.
For all
(ii) in inequality (12)
Values of for some and the corresponding extreme values of p are given in Table 6.
Proof.
Let us show that . According to (13) and (14), , for all , so that for the both inequalities (11) and (12) we have whence, with the account of non-negativity of , the statement of point (iii) follows.
Now let us estimate from below the constants . Take i.i.d. r.v.’s with distribution (27), where . Then, by virtue of Theorem 1, for we have
The r.v. is lattice with a span . The Esseen asymptotic expansion [18] for lattice distributions with the span h implies that
For the chosen distribution of we have , , therefore
and, hence, in inequality (11) we have
for all , , whence, with the account of arbitrariness of the choice of p, the statement of point (ii) follows. In particular, for we obtain
for (extremality of the specified p was proved in [18]).
Now let us consider inequality (12). Taking into account that for we have
and denoting
we obtain
Let us investigate the behaviour of in dependence of . For the numerator of takes the form
so that is monotonically decreasing, if , and monotonically increasing, if , while for the numerator of has the form
and hence, decreases strictly monotonically. Therefore,
whence the statement of point (ii) follows immediately. □
6. Lower Bounds for the Asymptotically Exact Constants
First of all, please note that asymptotically exact constants and the lower asymptotically exact constants are defined for none of the inequalities (11), (12), since the corresponding fractions , are bounded from below by one uniformly with respect to and (see (13) and (14)) and, hence, cannot be infinitesimal.
Theorem 6.
As a lower bound to the asymptotically exact constant , due to (26), both the asymptotically best and the lower asymptotically exact constants may serve. However, the lower bound of the lower asymptotically exact constant stated in (38) turns to be less accurate in Rozovskii-type inequality, than the lower bound of the asymptotically best constant in (37), since the minorant in (37) is monotone with respect to for and with respect to for varying within the range from as to
and thus staying always greater than . The minorant to the asymptotically best constant in (36) monotonically decreases with respect to and does not depend on . Hence, there exists a unique value such that (and even due to that for we have ), so that for all we have . It is easy to make sure that Therefore, as a lower bound for the constant in Esseen-type inequality (11) it is reasonable to choose the lower bound in (38) for and the lower bound in (36) for . Let us formulate this as a corollary.
Corollary 1.
Proof of Theorem 6.
The relations between the constants follow from their definitions (see also (26)). Therefore, it remains to prove the lower bounds for , , and .
Following [29] ([§ 2.3.2]), consider i.i.d. r.v.’s with a symmetric tree-point distribution
whose d.f. will be denoted by . Then
and the fractions , coincide, do not depend on and take the form
Due to the monotonicity of , we have
and hence,
in particular,
and for Moreover, for all we have
As a result, the fractions do not depend on , we obtain the lower bounds
in particular, for all we have
Let us find the lower bound for the uniform distance . Due to the symmetry, we have , i.e., , whence for even n we obtain
Please note that while with , we have
where
In [29] ([pp. 268–269]) it was shown that for every
Therefore,
Let us bound from below expressions such as as
From (39) with we obtain
Inequalities (39) and (40) imply that
The plot of the function looks monotonically increasing for and monotonically decreasing for with therefore it is reasonable to estimate upper bounds from below as
Hence, we finally obtain
□
7. Conclusions
In the present work, we introduced a detailed classification of the exact and asymptotically exact constants in natural convergence rate estimates in the Lindeberg’s theorem such as Esseen’s and Rozovskii’s inequalities. We found the lower bounds for the exact (universal) constants and the most optimistic absolute constants. Also we constructed the lower bounds for the asymptotically best, the lower asymptotically exact and the conditional upper asymptotically exact constants. With the account of the previously known upper estimates for the asymptotically exact constants, this allowed to obtain two-sided bounds for all of the introduced asymptotic constants. The values of the constructed bounds were computed for some and the results of the calculations were presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5. As we can see, the obtained lower bounds are note far from the upper ones, so that, from the point of practical use, there is no high motivation to improve the method of construction of the upper bounds.
As regards the historical values in both inequalities (11) and (12), , in (11), we obtained the following results for the absolute constants:
Recall that
(see Table 1 and Table 2), and, as it follows from the presented results, these upper bounds cannot be lowered more than by 5 times. As regards the most optimistic constants, i.e., the values of the constants under the “best” choice of the function , we have shown that they cannot nevertheless be less than
Since , the latest inequality immediately yields the lower bound that was also obtained directly in Theorem 3. Recall that (see Table 1).
Asymptotic lower bounds for and for infinitely large sample sizes n may be constructed in terms of the upper asymptotically exact and the conditional upper asymptotically exact constants which are linked as . We constructed the lower bounds for with which turned out to coincide for :
in both inequalities (11) and (12) (the same lower bound was obtained directly for in Theorem 6).
The next series of the lower bounds for was obtained under the additional assumptions on the smallness of the fractions , , which allow constructing more optimistic upper bounds, for example, in terms of the asymptotically exact constants, i.e., to consider estimates such as (25) with . Recall that in this situation the following upper bounds are known from [11]: Observation that the constants , coincide with in (22) with , respectively, allows taking as a lower bound to (or, more generally, to ) any of and : However, the lower bound in the both inequalities (11) and (12) is less than each of the lower bounds in (11) and in (12), so that the best choice of the lower bound for is in both inequalities (11) and (12). Hence, the following two-sided bounds hold true:
Therefore, the asymptotic values , of the constants and in (11), (12), valid for small , can neither be improved more than by 4.5 times.
Further research might include construction of the estimates of the rate of convergence in non-classical Lindeberg’s theorem whose conditions were obtained in a recent paper [30] or some extensions to the case of dependent random summands (see [31]).
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, I.S.; methodology, I.S.; formal analysis, I.S., R.G., V.M.; investigation, I.S., R.G., V.M.; writing—original draft preparation, V.M.; writing—review and editing, I.S.; supervision, I.S.; funding acquisition, I.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (projects Nos. 19-07-01220-a, 20-31-70054) and by the Ministry for Education and Science of Russia (grant No. MD–5748.2021.1.1).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank an anonymous referee for pointing out the reference to [31].
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| r.v. | random variable |
| i.i.d. | independent identically distributed |
| d.f. | distribution function |
| w.r.t. | with respect to |
References
- Berry, A.C. The accuracy of the Gaussian approximation to the sum of independent variates. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 1941, 49, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esseen, C.G. On the Liapounoff limit of error in the theory of probability. Ark. Mat. Astron. Fys. 1942, A28, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Osipov, L.V. Refinement of Lindeberg’s theorem. Theory Probab. Appl. 1966, 11, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrov, V.V. An estimate of the deviation of the distribution function of a sum of independent random variables from the normal law. Sov. Math. Dokl. 1965, 6, 242–244. [Google Scholar]
- Esseen, C.G. On the remainder term in the central limit theorem. Arkiv för Matematik 1969, 8, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rozovskii, L.V. On the rate of convergence in the Lindeberg–Feller theorem. Bull. Leningr. Univ. 1974, 1, 70–75. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, N.; Ahmad, I.A. A Berry–Esseen inequality without higher order moments. Sankhya A Indian J. Stat. 2016, 78, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabdullin, R.; Makarenko, V.; Shevtsova, I. Esseen–Rozovskii type estimates for the rate of convergence in the Lindeberg theorem. J. Math. Sci. 2018, 234, 847–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gabdullin, R.; Makarenko, V.; Shevtsova, I. A generalization of the Wang–Ahmad inequality. J. Math. Sci. 2019, 237, 646–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabdullin, R.; Makarenko, V.; Shevtsova, I. A generalization of the Rozovskii inequality. J. Math. Sci. 2019, 237, 775–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabdullin, R.; Makarenko, V.; Shevtsova, I. On natural convergence rate estimates in the Lindeberg theorem. Indian J. Statis. Sankhya A 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korolev, V.; Dorofeyeva, A. Bounds of the accuracy of the normal approximation to the distributions of random sums under relaxed moment conditions. Lith. Math. J. 2017, 57, 38–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zolotarev, V.M. Modern Theory of Summation of Random Variables; VSP: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Ibragimov, I.A. On the accuracy of the approximation of distribution functions of sums of independent variables by the normal distribution. Theory Probab. Appl. 1966, 11, 559–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, M.L. Note on the Berry–Esseen theorem. Ann. Math. Stat. 1963, 34, 1107–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korolev, V.Y.; Popov, S.V. Improvement of convergence rate estimates in the central limit theorem under weakened moment conditions. Dokl. Math. 2012, 86, 506–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolmogorov, A.N. Some recent works in the field of limit theorems of probability theory. Bull. Mosc. Univ. 1953, 10, 29–38. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Esseen, C.G. A moment inequality with an application to the central limit theorem. Skand. Aktuarietidskr. 1956, 39, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chistyakov, G.P. Asymptotically proper constants in the Lyapunov theorem. J. Math. Sci. 1999, 93, 480–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chistyakov, G.P. A new asymptotic expansion and asymptotically best constants in Lyapunov’s theorem. I. Theory Probab. Appl. 2002, 46, 226–242, Original Russian text: Teor. Veroyatn. Primen. 2001, 46, 326–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chistyakov, G.P. A new asymptotic expansion and asymptotically best constants in Lyapunov’s theorem. II. Theory Probab. Appl. 2002, 46, 516–522, Original Russian text: Teor. Veroyatn. Primen. 2001, 46, 573–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chistyakov, G.P. A new asymptotic expansion and asymptotically best constants in Lyapunov’s theorem. III. Theory Probab. Appl. 2003, 47, 395–414, Original Russian text: Teor. Veroyatn. Primen. 2002, 46, 475–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shevtsova, I.G. The lower asymptotically exact constant in the central limit theorem. Dokl. Math. 2010, 81, 83–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shevtsova, I.G. On the asymptotically exact constants in the Berry–Esseen–Katz inequality. Theory Probab. Appl. 2011, 55, 225–252, Original Russian text: Teor. Veroyatn. Primen. 2010, 55, 271–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shevtsova, I.G. On the absolute constants in the Berry–Esseen-type inequalities. Dokl. Math. 2014, 89, 378–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibragimov, I.A.; Linnik, Y.V. Independent and Stationary Sequences of Random Variables; Wolters–Noordhoff Publishing: Groningen, The Netherlands, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Chebotarev, V.I.; Kondrik, A.S.; Mikhailov, K.V. On an Extreme Two-Point Distribution. arXiv 2007, arXiv:0710.3456. [Google Scholar]
- Agnew, R.P. Estimates for global central limit theorems. Ann. Math. Stat. 1957, 28, 26–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shevtsova, I.G. Accuracy of the Normal Approximation: Methods of Estimation and New Results; Argamak–Media: Moscow, Russia, 2016. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Ibragimov, I.A.; Presman, E.L.; Formanov, S.K. On modifications of the Lindeberg and Rotar’ conditions in the central limit theorem. Theory Probab. Appl. 2020, 65, 648–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-García, J.G.; Chesneau, C. A dependent Lindeberg central limit theorem for cluster functionals on stationary random fields. Mathematics 2021, 9, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).