The mode-one conjecture for the largest exponential m-spacing
Let be a fixed integer. For independent exponential random variables with rates , define the limiting maximizing index
where
and write . Mode-one conjecture. For every fixed integer , the limiting distribution of has a mode at ; that is,
The conjecture is motivated by Monte Carlo simulations for and , which found estimated probabilities at of approximately and , respectively. An explicit characterization of the probabilities is difficult because of the dependence among overlapping -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
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 , the limiting maximizing index has its mode at .
Known results
- Henze (2026) proves existence and almost-sure uniqueness of the limiting maximizer for every fixed .
- Henze (2026) proves for every and .
- Monte Carlo estimates give and .
Posted attempt
A reader-written argument claims the stronger bound for every , using pairwise comparison bounds for , a tail estimate for , and explicit integral lower bounds for . 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 solution
A strict majority bound for the maximizing index.
Let , , be independent exponential random variables with rates , and, for an integer , put
We prove the stronger inequality
Consequently is the unique mode of , 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, almost surely: for every , the series converges. Thus almost surely. Since , 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 .
1. Exact pairwise comparison probabilities
Write . A sum of independent exponential variables with consecutive rates has the property that its negative exponential is beta distributed with parameters . Indeed, its Laplace transform is
where denotes the beta integral. In particular, a sum with rates has distribution function for .
For , cancellation of the overlapping terms gives
The two sums on the first line are independent. The beta identity proves the second line by taking the expectation of at the first sum.
For , the two entire windows are independent, and the same calculation gives
The total of these nonoverlapping comparison probabilities is
Here the sum telescopes using
For , the union bound therefore yields
Both fractions are strictly smaller than .
2. All lengths at least seven
Consider the event
On this event, the first window beats every overlapping competitor: for ,
Independence and the exponential distribution of give
Subtracting the probability of any nonoverlapping competitor winning, we obtain
For , the factorial formula gives
We used and . Hence decreases. Since
we have for every . The preceding lower bound is therefore strictly greater than .
3. The remaining lengths two, three and four
Define the smallest initial average
If every with is smaller than , then the first window wins. For an overlapping competitor, the removed initial terms sum to at least , while the replacement terms sum to less than . A nonoverlapping window sums to less than .
Let , and write for its density on . Conditioning on the first variables gives
For the three lengths in question the distribution functions of are
For completeness, these formulas can be obtained without any distributional approximation. Set . Their joint density on is
For , define and successively
Integrating the joint density over gives
Evaluating this formula for and substituting gives exactly the three polynomials above. In particular their derivatives are
It remains to lower-bound the infinite product. For and , the union bound for the tail factors gives
The right-hand side is allowed to be negative; the inequality remains valid. Because is a density, multiplication and integration preserve the inequality. Put
These are integrals of explicit polynomials: the denominator cancels against . Expanding the finite products and using gives
Thus also for . Together with the preceding cases, this proves the bound for every . For every ,
which proves the conjecture, with a unique mode at .