The mode-one conjecture for the largest exponential m-spacing

Let m≥2m\geq 2 be a fixed integer. For independent exponential random variables YkY_k with rates kk, define the limiting maximizing index

R(m)=arg⁡ max⁡⁡r≥1Zr(m),R^{(m)}=\operatorname*{\arg\,\max}_{r\geq 1} Z_r^{(m)},

where

Zr(m)=∑k=rr+m−1Yk,Z_r^{(m)}=\sum_{k=r}^{r+m-1}Y_k,

and write qr(m)=P(R(m)=r)q_r^{(m)}=\mathbb{P}(R^{(m)}=r). Mode-one conjecture. For every fixed integer m≥2m\geq 2, the limiting distribution of R(m)R^{(m)} has a mode at 11; that is,

q1(m)=max⁡r≥1qr(m).q_1^{(m)}=\max_{r\geq 1}q_r^{(m)}.

The conjecture is motivated by Monte Carlo simulations for m=2m=2 and m=3m=3, which found estimated probabilities at r=1r=1 of approximately 0.6450.645 and 0.7220.722, respectively. An explicit characterization of the probabilities qr(m)q_r^{(m)} is difficult because of the dependence among overlapping mm-spacings; the asserted mode property remains open.

References

Primary source

Norbert Henze, “The location of the largest exponential spacing and Euler's generalized pentagonal numbers”, arXiv:2606.23547 (2026).

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A reader-written attempt claims a complete proof that the first position is uniquely most likely, but it has not been independently verified.

Henze’s June 2026 preprint formulates the conjecture that, for every fixed window length m≥2m\geq 2, the limiting maximizing index has its mode at 11.

Known results

  • Henze (2026) proves existence and almost-sure uniqueness of the limiting maximizer for every fixed m≥1m\geq 1.
  • Henze (2026) proves qr(m)>0q_r^{(m)}>0 for every r≥1r\geq 1 and ∑r≥1qr(m)=1\sum_{r\geq 1}q_r^{(m)}=1.
  • Monte Carlo estimates give q1(2)≈0.6449q_1^{(2)}\approx 0.6449 and q1(3)≈0.7221q_1^{(3)}\approx 0.7221.

Posted attempt

A reader-written argument claims the stronger bound P(R(m)=1)>1/2\mathbb{P}(R^{(m)}=1)>1/2 for every m≥2m\geq 2, using pairwise comparison bounds for m≥5m\geq 5, a tail estimate for m≥7m\geq 7, and explicit integral lower bounds for m=2,3,4m=2,3,4. It therefore claims a complete proof, but the argument has not been independently verified.

Current status (as of August 2026): Henze’s existence, uniqueness, and full-support results are settled, while the mode-one conjecture has only a posted, unverified proof claim and is not established.

Sources

Solutions 1

ProofThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

A strict majority bound for the maximizing index.

Let YkY_k, k≥1k\geq 1, be independent exponential random variables with rates kk, and, for an integer m≥2m\geq 2, put

Zr=Yr+⋯+Yr+m−1,R=arg⁡ max⁡⁡r≥1Zr.Z_r=Y_r+\cdots+Y_{r+m-1},\qquad R=\operatorname*{\arg\,\max}_{r\geq 1} Z_r.

We prove the stronger inequality

P(R=1)>12.\mathbb P(R=1)>\frac12.

Consequently 11 is the unique mode of RR, proving Henze's Conjecture 1.

The argument separates short windows from long ones. For long windows, simple comparisons with the first window suffice. The remaining three lengths are handled by an explicit sufficient event whose probability has an elementary polynomial lower bound.

First, Yk→0Y_k\to 0 almost surely: for every ε>0\varepsilon>0, the series ∑kP(Yk>ε)=∑ke−kε\sum_k\mathbb P(Y_k>\varepsilon)=\sum_k e^{-k\varepsilon} converges. Thus Zr→0Z_r\to0 almost surely. Since Z1>0Z_1>0, a maximum is attained at a finite index. Any two distinct windows differ by a nontrivial linear combination of independent continuous random variables, so ties have probability zero. This also establishes directly the existence and uniqueness used in the definition of RR.

1. Exact pairwise comparison probabilities

Write (x)a=x(x+1)⋯(x+a−1)(x)_a=x(x+1)\cdots(x+a-1). A sum of independent exponential variables with consecutive rates b,b+1,…,b+a−1b,b+1,\ldots,b+a-1 has the property that its negative exponential is beta distributed with parameters (b,a)(b,a). Indeed, its Laplace transform is

∏j=bb+a−1jj+s=B(b+s,a)B(b,a),s≥0,\prod_{j=b}^{b+a-1}\frac{j}{j+s} =\frac{\mathrm B(b+s,a)}{\mathrm B(b,a)},\qquad s\geq0,

where B\mathrm B denotes the beta integral. In particular, a sum with rates 1,…,a1,\ldots,a has distribution function (1−e−t)a(1-e^{-t})^a for t≥0t\geq0.

For 1≤a≤m−11\leq a\leq m-1, cancellation of the overlapping terms gives

P(Za+1>Z1)=P(Ym+1+⋯+Ym+a>Y1+⋯+Ya)=(a)a(m+a+1)a.\begin{aligned} \mathbb P(Z_{a+1}>Z_1) &=\mathbb P(Y_{m+1}+\cdots+Y_{m+a}>Y_1+\cdots+Y_a)\\ &=\frac{(a)_a}{(m+a+1)_a}. \end{aligned}

The two sums on the first line are independent. The beta identity proves the second line by taking the expectation of (1−e−t)a(1-e^{-t})^a at the first sum.

For r≥m+1r\geq m+1, the two entire windows are independent, and the same calculation gives

P(Zr>Z1)=(m)m(r+m)m.\mathbb P(Z_r>Z_1)=\frac{(m)_m}{(r+m)_m}.

The total of these nonoverlapping comparison probabilities is

Tm:=∑r=m+1∞P(Zr>Z1)=(m)m(m−1)(2m+1)m−1=(2m−1)!(2m)!(m−1)!(m−1)(3m−1)!.\begin{aligned} T_m&:=\sum_{r=m+1}^{\infty}\mathbb P(Z_r>Z_1) =\frac{(m)_m}{(m-1)(2m+1)_{m-1}}\\ &=\frac{(2m-1)!(2m)!}{(m-1)!(m-1)(3m-1)!}. \end{aligned}

Here the sum telescopes using

1(x)m=1m−1(1(x)m−1−1(x+1)m−1).\frac1{(x)_m} =\frac1{m-1}\left(\frac1{(x)_{m-1}}-\frac1{(x+1)_{m-1}}\right).

For m=5,6m=5,6, the union bound therefore yields

P(R≠1)≤∑a=1m−1(a)a(m+a+1)a+Tm={592312012,m=5,2848172930,m=6.\mathbb P(R\ne1) \leq\sum_{a=1}^{m-1}\frac{(a)_a}{(m+a+1)_a}+T_m =\begin{cases} \dfrac{5923}{12012},&m=5,\\[4pt] \dfrac{28481}{72930},&m=6. \end{cases}

Both fractions are strictly smaller than 1/21/2.

2. All lengths at least seven

Consider the event

Em={Y1>Ym+1+⋯+Y2m−1}.E_m=\{Y_1>Y_{m+1}+\cdots+Y_{2m-1}\}.

On this event, the first window beats every overlapping competitor: for 1≤a≤m−11\leq a\leq m-1,

Y1+⋯+Ya>Ym+1+⋯+Ym+a.Y_1+\cdots+Y_a>Y_{m+1}+\cdots+Y_{m+a}.

Independence and the exponential distribution of Y1Y_1 give

P(Em)=∏k=m+12m−1kk+1=m+12m.\mathbb P(E_m)=\prod_{k=m+1}^{2m-1}\frac{k}{k+1} =\frac{m+1}{2m}.

Subtracting the probability of any nonoverlapping competitor winning, we obtain

P(R=1)≥m+12m−Tm.\mathbb P(R=1)\geq\frac{m+1}{2m}-T_m.

For m≥2m\geq2, the factorial formula gives

Tm+1Tm=4(m2−1)3m22m+13m+12m+13m+2<4063<23≤mm+1.\frac{T_{m+1}}{T_m} =\frac{4(m^2-1)}{3m^2} \frac{2m+1}{3m+1}\frac{2m+1}{3m+2} <\frac{40}{63}<\frac23\leq\frac{m}{m+1}.

We used (2m+1)/(3m+1)≤5/7(2m+1)/(3m+1)\leq5/7 and (2m+1)/(3m+2)<2/3(2m+1)/(3m+2)<2/3. Hence mTmmT_m decreases. Since

7T7=700719380<12,7T_7=\frac{7007}{19380}<\frac12,

we have Tm<1/(2m)T_m<1/(2m) for every m≥7m\geq7. The preceding lower bound is therefore strictly greater than 1/21/2.

3. The remaining lengths two, three and four

Define the smallest initial average

Cm=min⁡1≤a≤mY1+⋯+Yaa.C_m=\min_{1\leq a\leq m}\frac{Y_1+\cdots+Y_a}{a}.

If every YkY_k with k≥m+1k\geq m+1 is smaller than CmC_m, then the first window wins. For an overlapping competitor, the removed aa initial terms sum to at least aCmaC_m, while the replacement terms sum to less than aCmaC_m. A nonoverlapping window sums to less than mCm≤Z1mC_m\leq Z_1.

Let Um=e−CmU_m=e^{-C_m}, and write fmf_m for its density on (0,1)(0,1). Conditioning on the first mm variables gives

P(R=1)≥∫01fm(u)∏k=m+1∞(1−uk) du.\mathbb P(R=1)\geq \int_0^1 f_m(u)\prod_{k=m+1}^{\infty}(1-u^k)\,du.

For the three lengths in question the distribution functions of UmU_m are

P(U2≤u)=2u2−u3,P(U3≤u)=3u3−4u5+2u6,P(U4≤u)=4u4−7u7−4u8+14u9−6u10.\begin{aligned} \mathbb P(U_2\leq u)&=2u^2-u^3,\\ \mathbb P(U_3\leq u)&=3u^3-4u^5+2u^6,\\ \mathbb P(U_4\leq u)&=4u^4-7u^7-4u^8+14u^9-6u^{10}. \end{aligned}

For completeness, these formulas can be obtained without any distributional approximation. Set Aj=Y1+⋯+YjA_j=Y_1+\cdots+Y_j. Their joint density on 0<a1<⋯<am0<a_1<\cdots<a_m is

m!exp⁡(a1+⋯+am−1−mam).m!\exp(a_1+\cdots+a_{m-1}-ma_m).

For c≥0c\geq0, define F0(x,c)=1F_0(x,c)=1 and successively

Fj(x,c)=∫jcxetFj−1(t,c) dt(x≥jc).F_j(x,c)=\int_{jc}^{x} e^tF_{j-1}(t,c)\,dt \qquad (x\geq jc).

Integrating the joint density over aj≥jca_j\geq jc gives

P(Cm≥c)=m!∫mc∞e−mtFm−1(t,c) dt.\mathbb P(C_m\geq c) =m!\int_{mc}^{\infty}e^{-mt}F_{m-1}(t,c)\,dt.

Evaluating this formula for m=2,3,4m=2,3,4 and substituting u=e−cu=e^{-c} gives exactly the three polynomials above. In particular their derivatives are

f2(u)=4u−3u2,f3(u)=9u2−20u4+12u5,f4(u)=16u3−49u6−32u7+126u8−60u9.\begin{aligned} f_2(u)&=4u-3u^2,\\ f_3(u)&=9u^2-20u^4+12u^5,\\ f_4(u)&=16u^3-49u^6-32u^7+126u^8-60u^9. \end{aligned}

It remains to lower-bound the infinite product. For 0<u<10<u<1 and K≥m+1K\geq m+1, the union bound for the tail factors gives

∏k=m+1∞(1−uk)≥∏k=m+1K(1−uk)(1−uK+11−u).\prod_{k=m+1}^{\infty}(1-u^k) \geq\prod_{k=m+1}^{K}(1-u^k) \left(1-\frac{u^{K+1}}{1-u}\right).

The right-hand side is allowed to be negative; the inequality remains valid. Because fmf_m is a density, multiplication and integration preserve the inequality. Put

Lm,K=∫01fm(u)∏k=m+1K(1−uk)(1−uK+11−u) du.L_{m,K}=\int_0^1 f_m(u)\prod_{k=m+1}^{K}(1-u^k) \left(1-\frac{u^{K+1}}{1-u}\right)\,du.

These are integrals of explicit polynomials: the denominator 1−u1-u cancels against 1−um+11-u^{m+1}. Expanding the finite products and using ∫01ud du=1/(d+1)\int_0^1u^d\,du=1/(d+1) gives

L2,7=45347222749879025222055850>12,L3,7=1450125123577328880710578720>12,L4,8=6907986754875911811345655451257488800>12.\begin{aligned} L_{2,7}&=\frac{4534722274987}{9025222055850}>\frac12,\\[3pt] L_{3,7}&=\frac{14501251235773}{28880710578720}>\frac12,\\[3pt] L_{4,8}&=\frac{690798675487591181}{1345655451257488800}>\frac12. \end{aligned}

Thus P(R=1)>1/2\mathbb P(R=1)>1/2 also for m=2,3,4m=2,3,4. Together with the preceding cases, this proves the bound for every m≥2m\geq2. For every r≥2r\geq2,

P(R=r)≤1−P(R=1)<P(R=1),\mathbb P(R=r)\leq1-\mathbb P(R=1)<\mathbb P(R=1),

which proves the conjecture, with a unique mode at 11.