Gaussian limiting distribution for the three-letter pair count

At least 14 years old · documented by

Let X3(n)X^{(n)}_3 denote the number of distinct adjacent pairs of distinct letters in a geometrically distributed word of length nn. Gaussian-limit conjecture. The asymptotic distribution of X3(n)X^{(n)}_3 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.

References

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.

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A posted argument claims a complete proof, but it has not been independently checked, while the published work still leaves the conjecture open.

Louchard, Schachinger, and Ward stated in 2022 that the limiting distribution of X3(n)X^{(n)}_3, the number of distinct unequal adjacent pairs in a geometrically distributed word, should be Gaussian.

Known results

  • The authors’ heuristic assumes asymptotic independence and uses a total covariance contribution of O(1)O(1); it is explicitly non-rigorous.
  • Independent comparison variables are argued to satisfy a central limit theorem through cumulant estimates.
  • Transferring that limit to X3(n)X^{(n)}_3 requires bounds on higher-order dependence corrections, which the paper does not establish.
  • Exact first- and second-moment formulas and asymptotics are known, but not the Gaussian limit.

Posted attempt

A posted argument claims a complete proof for every geometric parameter, using row/column truncation, a Poisson approximation for rare pair types, and an independent triangular-array central limit theorem. The argument has not been independently verified.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture remains rigorously open; a complete proof has been posted but is unverified, and no corroborating proof or counterexample was found.

Sources

Solutions 1

ProofThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

Proof of the full Gaussian limiting-distribution conjecture for every geometric parameter.

Fix 0<p<10<p<1, write q=1−pq=1-p, and let independent letters satisfy Pi=Pr⁡(Zr=i)=pqi−1P_i=\Pr(Z_r=i)=pq^{i-1}. For distinct ordered pairs set

Iij=1{∃r<n:(Zr,Zr+1)=(i,j)},Xn=∑i≠jIij.I_{ij}=\mathbf1\{\exists r<n:(Z_r,Z_{r+1})=(i,j)\}, \qquad X_n=\sum_{i\ne j}I_{ij}.

We prove

Xn−EXnVar⁡(Xn)⟹N(0,1).\frac{X_n-\mathbb EX_n}{\sqrt{\operatorname{Var}(X_n)}} \Longrightarrow N(0,1).

1. Common-letter rows have uniformly bounded fluctuations. Independent disjoint position trials and a union bound give

Pr⁡(Iij=0)≤e−⌊n/2⌋PiPj,Pr⁡(Iij=1)≤nPiPj.\Pr(I_{ij}=0)\le e^{-\lfloor n/2\rfloor P_iP_j}, \qquad \Pr(I_{ij}=1)\le nP_iP_j.

For fixed ii, let jij_i be the last index with nPiPji≥1nP_iP_{j_i}\ge1. Relative to the deterministic cutoff di=#{j≤ji:j≠i}d_i=\#\{j\le j_i:j\ne i\}, Minkowski's inequality gives

∥∑j≠iIij−di∥2≤∑r≥0e−q−r/6+∑r≥1q(r−1)/2=:Cq<∞.\left\|\sum_{j\ne i}I_{ij}-d_i\right\|_2 \le \sum_{r\ge0}e^{-q^{-r}/6} + \sum_{r\ge1}q^{(r-1)/2} =:C_q<\infty.

The same estimate holds for columns and restricted rows. Put L=log⁡nL=\log n,

K=⌈10log⁡L∣log⁡q∣⌉,ρ=qK≤L−10.K=\left\lceil\frac{10\log L}{|\log q|}\right\rceil, \qquad \rho=q^K\le L^{-10}.

If EnE_n counts all directed unequal pair types with at least one letter at most KK, summing the row and column bounds gives

∥En−EEn∥2=O(K)=O(log⁡log⁡n).(1)\|E_n-\mathbb EE_n\|_2=O(K)=O(\log\log n). \tag{1}

2. Poisson coupling for rare central types. Among i,j>Ki,j>K, i≠ji\ne j, declare types with nPiPj>L4nP_iP_j>L^4 saturated. Their simultaneous occupancy fails with probability O(L2)e−L4/3O(L^2)e^{-L^4/3}. For the remaining types use occurrence indicators

Wr,i,j=1{Zr=i,Zr+1=j}.W_{r,i,j}=\mathbf1\{Z_r=i,Z_{r+1}=j\}.

Their dependency neighborhoods are precisely the occurrence indices whose positions differ by at most one. Set b=L4/nb=L^4/n and

Rj=∑i>KiPj≤bPi≤min⁡(ρ,bpPj).R_j=\sum_{\substack{i>K\P_iP_j\le b}}P_i \le\min\left(\rho,\frac{b}{pP_j}\right).

Geometric summation, split at Pj=b/(pρ)P_j=b/(p\rho), gives

S=∑rarePiPj=O(bL),H=∑j>KPjRj2=O(ρb).S=\sum_{\rm rare}P_iP_j=O(bL), \qquad H=\sum_{j>K}P_jR_j^2=O(\rho b).

Hence the Chen--Stein dependency sums satisfy

b1≤3nS2=O(L10/n),b2≤2nH=O(L−6),b3=0.b_1\le3nS^2=O(L^{10}/n), \qquad b_2\le2nH=O(L^{-6}), \qquad b_3=0.

The point-process theorem of Arratia, Goldstein, and Gordon therefore couples the entire rare-type occupancy field to independent variables

Bij=1{Nij>0},Nij∼Pois⁡((n−1)PiPj),B_{ij}=\mathbf1\{N_{ij}>0\}, \qquad N_{ij}\sim\operatorname{Pois}((n-1)P_iP_j),

with total-variation error

δn=O(L10/n+L−6).(2)\delta_n=O(L^{10}/n+L^{-6}). \tag{2}

Let Cn=Xn−EnC_n=X_n-E_n and

Vn=#{saturated central types}+∑rareBij.V_n=\#\{\text{saturated central types}\} +\sum_{\rm rare}B_{ij}.

Truncating letters above J=⌈12L/∣log⁡q∣⌉J=\lceil12L/|\log q|\rceil costs O(n−11)O(n^{-11}). The remaining counts are bounded by J2=O(L2)J^2=O(L^2), so (2) yields

∣ECn−EVn∣=O(L2δn)+o(1)=o(1),|\mathbb EC_n-\mathbb EV_n|=O(L^2\delta_n)+o(1)=o(1), ∣Var⁡(Cn)−Var⁡(Vn)∣=O(L4δn)+o(1)=o(1).(3)|\operatorname{Var}(C_n)-\operatorname{Var}(V_n)| =O(L^4\delta_n)+o(1)=o(1). \tag{3}

3. Independent triangular-array central limit theorem. Independence gives

σn2=Var⁡(Vn)=∑raree−λij(1−e−λij),λij=(n−1)p2qi+j−2.\sigma_n^2=\operatorname{Var}(V_n) =\sum_{\rm rare}e^{-\lambda_{ij}}(1-e^{-\lambda_{ij}}), \qquad \lambda_{ij}=(n-1)p^2q^{i+j-2}.

Choose unu_n with 1≤(n−1)p2qun−2<q−11\le(n-1)p^2q^{u_n-2}<q^{-1}. The antidiagonal i+j=uni+j=u_n contains Θ(L)\Theta(L) admissible ordered types, each contributing variance bounded below by a positive constant. Summing adjacent antidiagonals using

e−λ(1−e−λ)≤min⁡(λ,e−λ)e^{-\lambda}(1-e^{-\lambda})\le\min(\lambda,e^{-\lambda})

also gives the matching upper bound. Therefore

σn2=Θ(log⁡n).\sigma_n^2=\Theta(\log n).

The independent centered Bernoulli summands are bounded, so the Lindeberg theorem yields

Vn−EVnσn⟹N(0,1).\frac{V_n-\mathbb EV_n}{\sigma_n}\Longrightarrow N(0,1).

By (2)--(3) this transfers to CnC_n, and (1) contributes only O(log⁡log⁡n)=o(log⁡n)O(\log\log n)=o(\sqrt{\log n}) in L2L^2. Moreover,

Var⁡(Xn)=σn2+O(log⁡nlog⁡log⁡n+(log⁡log⁡n)2)=σn2(1+o(1)).\operatorname{Var}(X_n) =\sigma_n^2+O(\sqrt{\log n}\log\log n+(\log\log n)^2) =\sigma_n^2(1+o(1)).

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.