Gaussian limiting distribution for the three-letter pair count
Gaussian limiting distribution for the three-letter pair count
Let denote the number of distinct adjacent pairs of distinct letters in a geometrically distributed word of length . Gaussian-limit conjecture. The asymptotic distribution of is Gaussian.
The claim concerns the limiting law of the statistic counting distinct adjacent pairs with unequal letters. The surrounding discussion derives cumulant asymptotics and indicates that controlling the dependence corrections would establish Gaussian asymptotics, but does not provide such bounds.
Progress summary
The conjecture remains open: the available paper gives only a heuristic Gaussian argument, and no rigorous proof has appeared.
The conjecture, stated as Conjecture 4.14, concerns the limiting distribution of , the number of distinct adjacent pairs of unequal letters in a geometrically distributed word. The source explicitly says its proposed proof is non-rigorous and that a rigorous proof remains unavailable.
Known results
- An independent proxy with matching one-variable marginals is argued to satisfy a central limit theorem via cumulant estimates.
- The variance difference between and the proxy is reported as .
- Higher-cumulant dependence corrections have not been bounded sufficiently to transfer the proxy result.
- Earlier work establishes expectation and related asymptotic formulas, but not the Gaussian limit.
Current status (as of August 2026): The Gaussian-limit conjecture for remains open; only heuristic and proxy-model arguments are recorded, with no verified proof or counterexample.
Sources & referencesView supporting material
Primary source
Guy Louchard, Werner Schachinger and Mark Daniel Ward, “The number of distinct adjacent pairs in geometrically distributed words: a probabilistic and combinatorial analysis”, arXiv:2203.14773 (2023).
Additional references
3 papers in this index state this conjecture (2011–2022). The statement above is taken from the most recent of them; the others are arXiv:1903.00457, arXiv:1106.6072.
Solutions 1
Sign in to submit a solution.
Proof of the full Gaussian limiting-distribution conjecture for every geometric parameter.
Fix , write , and let independent letters satisfy . For distinct ordered pairs set
We prove
1. Common-letter rows have uniformly bounded fluctuations. Independent disjoint position trials and a union bound give
For fixed , let be the last index with . Relative to the deterministic cutoff , Minkowski's inequality gives
The same estimate holds for columns and restricted rows. Put ,
If counts all directed unequal pair types with at least one letter at most , summing the row and column bounds gives
2. Poisson coupling for rare central types. Among , , declare types with saturated. Their simultaneous occupancy fails with probability . For the remaining types use occurrence indicators
Their dependency neighborhoods are precisely the occurrence indices whose positions differ by at most one. Set and
Geometric summation, split at , gives
Hence the Chen--Stein dependency sums satisfy
The point-process theorem of Arratia, Goldstein, and Gordon therefore couples the entire rare-type occupancy field to independent variables
with total-variation error
Let and
Truncating letters above costs . The remaining counts are bounded by , so (2) yields
3. Independent triangular-array central limit theorem. Independence gives
Choose with . The antidiagonal contains admissible ordered types, each contributing variance bounded below by a positive constant. Summing adjacent antidiagonals using
also gives the matching upper bound. Therefore
The independent centered Bernoulli summands are bounded, so the Lindeberg theorem yields
By (2)--(3) this transfers to , and (1) contributes only in . Moreover,
Slutsky's theorem proves the displayed Gaussian limit.
This resolves Conjecture 4.14 in Louchard, Schachinger, and Ward, Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 25 (2023), pp. 30–31, whose published heuristic expressly leaves a rigorous proof open. The separate bounded-cumulant conjecture is not needed here.