7
$\begingroup$

I am looking for a reference to cite, for the following "folklore" asymptotic behaviour of the maximum of $n$ independent Gaussian real-valued random variables $X_1,\dots, X_n\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma)$ (mean $0$ and variance $\sigma^2$): $$ \mathbb{E} \max_i X_i = \sigma\left(\tau\sqrt{\log n}+\Theta(1)\right) $$ (where, if I'm not mistaken, $\tau=\sqrt{2}$). I've been pointed to a reference book of Ledoux and Talagrand, but I can't see the satement "out-of-the-box" there -- only results that help to derive it.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Actually $E(M_n)\leqslant\sigma\sqrt{2\log n}$ is a one-line computation. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25, 2014 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ Mmh, I just realized my question was slightly wrong, as phrased. I should have written $\Theta(1)$ instead of $O(1)$ (for both upper and lower bound). $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 25, 2014 at 15:36

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

I eventally found these two references:

  • from [1]: the expected value of the maximum of $N$ independent standard Gaussians: Theorem 2.5 and Exercise 2.17, p. 49; for a concentration result, combined with the variance (which is $O(1)$). Exercise 3.24 (or Theorem 5.8 for directly a concentration inequality).
  • from [2], Theorem 3.12

[1] Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence By Stéphane Boucheron, Gábor Lugosi, Pascal Massart (2013)

[2] Concentration Inequalities and Model Selection, by Pascal Massart (2003)

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ @Chill2Macht How so? Look e.g. at the discussion after the proof (specifically equation (3.26)) in [2]; or as mentioned above Exercise 2.17 in [1]. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2018 at 2:10
  • $\begingroup$ The discussion near 3.26 [2] is helpful, but one has to prove first that the max is sub-Gaussian before being able to use it. Thankfully theorem 5.8 from [1] gives a proof of that, which does help. I have to admit that when I complained I didn't actually bother looking at Theorem 5.8 because I didn't see how it could help with this problem, since the earlier parts of [1] mentioned did not seem very helpful. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2018 at 22:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Chill2Macht Starting with 1.: No. Why would you have a $\sqrt{n}$ in the denominator, while the first expression has a $\sqrt{2\log n}$? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 1:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Chilll2Macht i think the best way to proceed is by asking a new question, with a link to this one possibly. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 2:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ stats.stackexchange.com/questions/367942/… It seems I was wrong on both counts. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 22, 2018 at 23:13
4
+100
$\begingroup$

You have an explicit asymptotic result concerning the limit distribution in this post and the associated references.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.