Let $x_i$ be iid nonnegative discrete random variables $E[x_i]=N/M$ for some integers $N, M$, variance $\sigma^2$ and higher moments known (finite).
Then, the sum $\displaystyle S = \sum_{i=1}^M x_i$ will have $E[S]=N$.
I'm interested in the probability that $S$ takes that precise value: $A=P\left(S=E[S]\right)$.
Applying the central limit theorem, I can write
$\displaystyle A \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{ 2 \pi M \sigma^2}}$
My question is: can this approximation be refined?
ADDED: To add some example-context-motivation:
Lets consider $X$ as a sum of $N$ Bernoullis (0/1) with prob=$p$, such that $E(X)=E(N p)$ is an integer. We can compute exactly the probability that $X$ attains its expected value, it's a Binomial:
$\displaystyle P = P(X= N p) = {N \choose N p} p^{N p} q^{N q} \hspace{2cm}$ [1a]
We might also get an approximate value of that probability using the CTL (Central Limit Theorem)
$\displaystyle P \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi N p q}} \hspace{2cm} $ [2a]
If we take [1a] and use the Stirling approximation, with $K \approx (K/e)^K \sqrt{2 \pi K}$, we get the same value. Fine.
Now, we may try to refine the approximation, both from [1a] and [2a].
Plugging the next orden Stirling approximation in [1a], we get (I am not mistaken)
$\displaystyle P \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi N p q}} \left(1 - \frac{1- p q}{12 N p q} \right) \hspace{2cm} $ [1b]
To refine the CTL, one can think of
use some "continuity correction" to evaluate more precisely the (hipothetical) gaussian integral
add some terms from the Edgeworth expansions
do nothing of the above - because the CLT does not justify those procedures in this scenario (just one value of a discrete variable)
I'm not sure which is the correct way.
But let's try the first one: the next order approximation of the integral gives me (again, if I'm not mistaken)
$\displaystyle P \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi N p q}} \left(1 - \frac{1}{24 N p q} \right) \hspace{2cm} $ [2b]
This is not the same as [1b], but it's close.
Is this just casual? Was it a reasonable thing to do? Should I look (also/instead) after the Edgeworth expansions?
x
takes nonegative (and smooth) values on all integers greater than somex_0
– leonbloy Feb 15 '11 at 00:00