arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 12 Apr 2015

Transcription

1 REGULARIZED DISTRIBUTIONS AND ENTROPIC STABILITY OF CRAMER S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE NORMAL LAW arxiv: v [mathpr] 2 Apr 205 S G BOBKOV,4, G P CHISTYAKOV 2,4, AND F GÖTZE3,4 Abstract For regularized distributions we establish stability of the characterization of the normal law in Cramer s theorem with respect to the total variation norm and the entropic distance As part of the argument, Sapogov-type theorems are refined for random variables with finite second moment Introduction Let X and Y be independent random variables A theorem of Cramer [Cr] indicates that, if the sum X +Y has a normal distribution, then both X and Y are normal P Lévy established stability of this characterization property with respect to the Lévy distance, which is formulated as follows Given > 0 and distribution functions F, G, LF G,Φ) < LF,Φ a,σ ) < δ, LG,Φ a2,σ 2 ) < δ, for some a,a 2 R and σ,σ 2 > 0, where δ only depends on, and in a such way that δ 0 as 0 Here Φ a,σ stands for the distribution function of the normal law Na,σ 2 ) with mean a and standard deviation σ, ie, with density ϕ a,σ x) = σ /2σ2 e x a)2, x R, 2π and we omit indices in the standard case a = 0, σ = As usual, F G denotes the convolution of the corresponding distributions The problem of quantitative versions of this stability property of the normal law has been intensively studied in many papers, starting with results by Sapogov [S-3] and ending with results by Chistyakov and Golinskii [C-G], who found the correct asymptotic of the best possible error function δ for the Lévy distance See also [Z], [M], [L-O], [C], [Se] [Sh-2] As for stronger metrics, not much is known up to now According to McKean [MC], cf also [C-S] for some related aspects of the problem), it was Kac who raised the question about the stability in Cramer s theorem with respect to the entropic distance to normality Let us recall that, if a random variable X with finite second moment has a density px), its entropy hx) = px)logpx)dx 99 Mathematics Subject Classification Primary 60E Key words and phrases Cramer s theorem, normal characterization, stability problems ) School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, USA; bobkov@mathumnedu 2) Faculty of Mathematics, University of Bielefeld, Germany; chistyak@mathuni-bielefeldde 3) Faculty of Mathematics, University of Bielefeld, Germany; goetze@mathuni-bielefeldde 4) Research partially supported by NSF grant DMS and SFB 70

2 2 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze is well-defined and is bounded from above by the entropy of the normal random variable Z, having the same variance σ 2 = VarZ) = VarX) The entropic distance to the normal is given by the formula DX) = hz) hx) = px)log px) ϕ a,σ x) dx, where in the last formula it is assumed that a = EZ = EX It represents the Kullback-Leibler distance from the distribution F of X to the family of all normal laws on the line In general, 0 DX), and an infinite value is possible This quantity does not depend on the variance of X and is stronger than the total variation distance F Φ a,σ TV, as may be seen from the Pinsker Pinsker-Csiszár-Kullback) inequality DX) 2 F Φ a,σ 2 TV Thus, Kac s question is whether one can bound the entropic distance DX+Y) from below in terms of DX) and DY) for independent random variables, ie, to have an inequality DX +Y) αdx),dy)) with some non-negative function α, such that αt,s) > 0 for t,s > 0 If so, Cramer s theorem would be an immediate consequence of this Note that the reverse inequality does exist, and in case VarX +Y) = we have DX +Y) VarX)DX)+VarY)DY), which is due to the general entropy power inequality, cf [D-C-T] It turned out that Kac s question has a negative solution More precisely, for any > 0, one can construct independent random variables X and Y with absolutely continuous symmetric distributions F, G, and with VarX) = VarY) =, such that a) DX +Y) < ; b) F Φ a,σ TV > c and G Φ a,σ TV > c, for all a R and σ > 0, where c > 0 is an absolute constant, see [B-C-G] In particular, DX) and DY) are bounded away from zero Moreover, refined analytic tools show that the random variables may be chosen to be identically distributed, ie, a) b) hold with F = G, see [B-C-G2] Nevertheless, Kac s problem remains to be of interest for subclasses of probability measures obtained by convolution with a smooth distribution The main purpose of this note is to give an affirmative solution to the problem in the rather typical) situation, when independent Gaussian noise is added to the given random variables That is, for a small parameter σ > 0, we consider the regularized random variables X σ = X +σz, Y σ = Y +σz, where Z denotes a standard normal random variable, independent of X,Y As a main result, we prove: Theorem Let X,Y be independent random variables with VarX + Y) = Given 0 < σ, the regularized random variables X σ and Y σ satisfy { DX σ +Y σ ) exp c log7 2+/D) } D 2, where c > 0 is an absolute constant, and D = σ 2 VarX σ )DX σ )+VarY σ )DY σ ) )

3 Stability in Cramer s theorem 3 Thus, if DX σ +Y σ ) is small, the entropic distances DX σ ) and DY σ ) have to be small, as well In particular, Cramer s theorem is a consequence of this statement However, it is not clear whether the above lower bound is optimal with respect to the couple DX σ ),DY σ )), and perhaps the logarithmic term in the exponent may be removed As we will see, a certain improvement of the bound can be achieved, when X and Y have equal variances Beyond the realm of results around P Lévy s theorem, recently there has been renewed the interest in other related stability problems in different areas of Analysis and Geometry One can mention, for example, the problems of sharpness of the Brunn-Minkowski and Sobolev-type inequalities cf [F-M-P-2], [Seg], [B-G-R-S]) We start with the description and refinement of Sapogov-type theorems about the normal approximation in Kolmogorov distance Sections 2-3) and then turn to analogous results for the Lévy distancesection 4) A version of Theorem for the total variation distance is given in Section 5 Sections 6-7 deal with the problem of bounding the tail function EX 2 { X T} in terms of the entropic distances DX) and DX+Y), which is an essential part of Kac s problem A first application, namely, to a variant of Chistyakov-Golinskii s theorem, is discussed in Section 8 In Section 9, we develop several estimates connecting the entropic distance DX) and the uniform deviation of the density p from the corresponding normal density In Section 0 an improved variant of Theorem is derived in the case, where X and Y have equal variances The general case is treated in Section Finally, some relations between different distances in the space of probability distributions on the line are postponed to appendix 2 Sapogov-type theorems for Kolmogorov distance Throughout the paper we consider the following classical metrics in the space of probability distributions on the real line: ) The Kolmogorov or L -distance F G = sup x Fx) Gx) ; 2) The Lévy distance LF,G) = min { h 0 : Gx h) h Fx) Gx+h)+h, x R } ; 3) The Kantorovich or L -distance 4) The total variation distance W F,G) = Fx) Gx) dx; F G TV = sup Fx k ) Gx k )) Fy k ) Gy k )), where the sup is taken over all finite collections of points y < x < < y n < x n In these relations, F and G are arbitrary distribution functions Note that the quantity W F,G) is finite, as long as both F and G have a finite first absolute moment In the sequel, Φ a,v or Na,v 2 ) denote the normal distribution function) with parameters a,v 2 ), a R v > 0 If a = 0, we write Φ v, and write Φ in the standard case a = 0, v = Now, let X and Y be independent random variables with distribution functions F and G Then the convolution F G represents the distribution of the sum X + Y If both random variables have mean zero and unit variances, Sapogov s main stability result reads as follows: Theorem 2 Suppose that EX = EY = 0 and VarX) = VarY) = If F G Φ Φ <,

4 4 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze then with some absolute constant C F Φ C log and G Φ C log In the general case that is, when there are no finite moments), the conclusion is somewhat weaker Namely, with 0,), we associate a = N N xdfx), σ 2 = N N x 2 dfx) a 2 σ 0), and similarly a 2,σ2 2) for the distribution function G, where N = N) = + 2log/) In the sequel, we also use the function { mσ,) = min σ,loglog ee }, σ > 0, 0 < Theorem 22 Assume F G Φ < If F has median zero, and σ,σ 2 > 0, then with some absolute constant C C F Φ a,σ mσ,), σ log and similarly for G Originally, Sapogov derived a weaker bound in [Sa-2] with worse behaviour with respect to both σ and In [Sa3] he gave an improvement, C F Φ a,σ σ 3 log with a correct asymptotic of the right-hand side with respect to, cf also [L-O] The correctness of the asymptotic with respect to was studied in [M], cf also [C] In 976 Senatov [Se], using the ridge property of characteristic functions, improved the factor σ 3 to σ3/2, ie, F Φ a,σ σ 3/2 C log 2) He also emphasized that the presence of σ in the bound is essential A further improvement of the power of σ is due to Shiganov [Sh-2] Moreover, at the expense of an additional -dependent factor, one can replace σ 3/2 with σ As shown in [C-G], see Remark on p286, F Φ a,σ Cloglog ee σ log 22) Therefore, Theorem 22 is just the combination of the two results, 2) and 22) Let us emphasize that all proofs of these theorems use the methods of the Complex Analysis Moreover, up to now there is no Real Analysis proof of the Cramér theorem and of its extensions in the form of Sapogov-type results This, however, does not concern the case of identically distributed summands, cf [B-C-G2] We will discuss the bounds in the Lévy distance in the next sections The assumption about the median in Theorem 22 may be weakened to the condition that the medians of X and Y, mx) and my), are bounded in absolute value by a constant For

5 Stability in Cramer s theorem 5 example, if EX = EY = 0 and VarX +Y) =, and if, for definiteness, VarX) /2, then, by Chebyshev s inequality, mx), while my) will be bounded by an absolute constant, when is small enough, due to the main hypothesis F G Φ Moreover, if the variances of X and Y are bounded away from zero, the statement of Theorem 22 holds with a = 0, and the factor σ can be replaced with the standard deviation of X In the next section, we recall some standard arguments in order to justify this conclusion and give a more general version of Theorem 22 involving variances: Theorem 23 Let EX = EY = 0, VarX +Y) = If F G Φ <, then with some absolute constant C F Φ v Cmv,) and G Φ v2 v log Cmv 2,), v 2 log where v 2 = VarX), v2 2 = VarY) v,v 2 > 0) Under the stated assumptions, Theorem 23 is stronger than Theorem 22, since v σ Another advantage of this formulation is that v does not depend on, while σ does 3 Proof of Theorem 23 Let X and Y be independent random variables with distribution functions F and G, respectively, with EX = EY = 0 and VarX +Y) = We assume that F G Φ <, and keep the same notations as in Section 2 Recall that N = N) = + 2log/) The proof of Theorem 23 is entirely based on Theorem 22 We will need: Lemma 3 With some absolute constant C we have 0 σ 2 +σ 2 2) CN 2 A similar assertion, σ 2 + σ2 2 CN2, is known under the assumption that F has a median at zero without moment assumptions) For the proof of Lemma 3, we use arguments from [Sa] and [Se], cf Lemma It will be convenient to divide the proof into several steps Lemma 32 Let 0 = 4 Φ ) = 0093 Then mx) 2 and my) 2 Indeed, let VarX) /2 Then mx), by Chebyshev s inequality Hence, P{X, Y my)} P{X +Y my)+} ΦmY)+)+, 4 which for 4 implies that my) + Φ 4 ) In particular, my) 2, if 0 Similarly, my) 2 To continue, introduce truncated random variables at level N Put X = X in case X N, X = 0 in case X > N, and similarly Y for Y Note that EX = a, VarX ) = σ 2, and EY = a 2, VarY ) = σ 2 2 By the construction, σ v and σ 2 v 2 In particular, σ 2 +σ2 2 v2 +v2 2 = Let F,G denote the distribution functions of X,Y, respectively

6 6 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze Lemma 33 With some absolute constant C we have F F C, G G C, F G Φ C Proof One may assume that N = N) is a point of continuity of both F and G Since the Kolmogorov distance is bounded by, one may also assume that is sufficiently small, eg, < min{ 0, }, where = exp{ /3 2 2)} In this case N 2) 2 > N ) 2 /2, so Φ N 2)) = ΦN 2) /2 2 e N 2)2 /4 2 e N )2 = 2 By Lemma 32 and the basic assumption on the convolution F G, P{Y N} P{X 2, Y N} 2 P{X +Y N 2)} = F G) N 2)) Φ N 2))+ So, G N) 2Φ N 2))+2 3 Analogously, GN) 3 Thus, dgx) 6 as well as dfx) 6 { x N} { x N} In particular, for x < N, we have F x) Fx) = Fx) 6, and similarly for x > N If N < x < 0, then F x) = Fx) F N), and if 0 < x < N, we have F x) = Fx)+ FN)) In both cases, F x) Fx) 6 Therefore, F F 6 Similarly, G G 6 From this, by the triangle inequality, Finally, F G F G F G F G + F G F G F F + G G 2 F G Φ F G F G + F G Φ Proof of Lemma 3 Since X +Y 2N anda +a 2 = EX +Y ) = xdf G x), we have, integrating by parts, a +a 2 = 2N 2N xdf G )x) Φx)) = xf G )x) Φx)) x=2n x= 2N 2N F G )x) Φx))dx 2N Hence, a +a 2 8N F G Φ, which, by Lemma 33, is bounded by CN Similarly, 2N EX +Y ) 2 = x 2 df G )x) Φx)) x 2 dφx) 2N { x >2N} = x 2 F G x=2n )x) Φx)) x= 2N 2N 2 xf G )x) Φx))dx 2N { x >2N} x 2 dφx)

7 Hence, Stability in Cramer s theorem 7 EX +Y ) 2 24N 2 F G Φ +2 2N x 2 dφx) The last integral asymptotically behaves like 2Nϕ2N) < Ne 2N )2 = N 4 Therefore, EX +Y ) 2 is boundedbycn 2 Finally, writingσ 2+σ2 2 = EX +Y ) 2 a +a 2 ) 2, we get that σ 2 +σ2 2 EX +Y ) 2 +a +a 2 ) 2 CN 2 with some absolute constant C Lemma 3 follows Proof of Theorem 23 First note that, given a > 0, σ > 0, and x R, the function ψx) = Φ 0,σ x) Φ a,σ x) = Φ x) x a) Φ σ σ isvanishingatinfinity, hasauniqueextremepointx 0 = a 2, andψx 0) = a/2σ a/2σ ϕy)dy a σ 2π Hence, including the case a 0, as well, we get Φ a,σ Φ 0,σ a σ 2π We apply this estimate for a = a and σ = σ Since EX = 0 and VarX + Y) =, by Cauchy s and Chebyshev s inequalities, Hence, a = EX{ X N} P{ X N} /2 N < log e Φ a,σ Φ 0,σ a σ 2π C σ log A similar inequality also holds for the parameters a 2,σ 2 ) Now, define the non-negative numbers u = v σ, u 2 = v 2 σ 2 By Lemma 3, Hence, CN 2 σ 2 +σ 2 2) = v u ) 2 +v 2 u 2 ) 2) u CN2 v = u 2v u )+u 2 2v 2 u 2 ) u v +u 2 v 2 and u 2 CN2 v 2 These relations can be used to estimate the Kolmogorov distance = Φ 0,v Φ 0,σ Given two parameters α > β > 0, consider the function of the form ψx) = Φαx) Φβx) In case x > 0, by the mean value theorem, for some x 0 βx,αx), ψx) = α β)xϕx 0 ) < α β)xϕβx) Here, the right-hand side is maximized for x = β, which gives ψx) < α β 2πe β A similar bound also holds for x < 0 Using this bound with α = /σ σ > 0), β = /v, we obtain 2πe v σ v ) = 2πe u σ CN2 σ v CN2 σ 2

8 8 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze Thus, applying Theorem 22, we get with some universal constant C > that F Φ 0,v F Φ a,σ + Φ a,σ Φ 0,σ + Φ 0,σ Φ 0,v C C mσ,)+ σ log σ log 2C σ log + CN2 σ 2 mσ,)+ CN2 σ 2 3) The obtained estimate remains valid when σ = 0, as well On the other hand, σ = v u v CN2 v 2 v where the last inequality is fulfilled for the range v v) = CN 4) /4 Hence, from 3) and using mσ,) 2mv,), for this range F Φ 0,v 8Cmv,) v log + 4CN2 v 2 Here, since mv,), the first term on the right-hand side majorizes the second one, if v ṽ) = N 2 log Therefore, when v w) = max{v),ṽ)}, with some absolute constant C we have F Φ 0,v C mv,) v log Thus, we arrive at the desired inequality for the range v w) But the function w behaves almost polynomially near zero and admits, for example, a bound of the form w) C /6, 0 < < 0, with some universal 0 0,), C > So, when v w), 0 < < 0, we have v log w) log /6 C log Here, the last expression is greated than, as long as is sufficiently small, say, for all 0 < <, where is determined by C, 0 ) Hence, for all such, we have a better bound F Φ 0,v C v log It remains to increase the constant C in order to involve the remaining values of A similar conclusion is true for the distribution G Theorem 23 is thus proved completely 4 Stability in Cramer s theorem for the Lévy distance Let X and Y be independent random variables with distribution functions F and G It turns out that in the bound of Theorem 22, the parameter σ can be completely removed, if we consider the stability problem for the Lévy distance More precisely, the following theorem was established in [C-G]

9 Stability in Cramer s theorem 9 Theorem 4 Assume that F G Φ < If F has median zero, then with some absolute constant C LF,Φ a,σ ) C loglog 4 )2 log Recall that a = N N xdfx), σ 2 = N N x 2 dfx) a 2 σ 0), and similarly a 2,σ 2 2 ) for the distribution function G, where N = + 2log/) As we have already discussed, the assumption about the median may be relaxed to the condition that the median is bounded by a universal constant) The first quantitative stability result for the Lévy distance, namely, LF,Φ a,σ ) C log /8 /), was obtained in 968 by Zolotarev [Z], who applied his famous Berry-Esseen-type bound The power /8 was later improved to /4 by Senatov [Se] and even more by Shiganov [Sh-2] The stated asymptotic in Theorem 4 is unimprovable, which was also shown in [C-G] Note that in the assumption of Theorem 4, the Kolmogorov distance can be replaced with the Lévy distance LF,Φ) in view of the general relations LF,Φ) F G Φ +M)LF,Φ), M = Φ Lip = 2π However, in the conclusion such replacement cannot be done at the expense of a universal constant, since we only have F Φ a,σ +M)LF,Φ a,σ ), M = Φ a,σ Lip = σ 2π Now, our aim is to replace in Theorem 4 the parameters a,σ ), which depend on, with 0,v ) like in Theorem 23 That is, we have the following: Question Assume that EX = EY = 0, VarX +Y) =, and LF G,Φ) < Is it true that LF,Φ v ) C loglog 4 )2 log with some absolute constant C, where v 2 = VarX)? In a sense, it is the question on the closeness of σ to v in the situation, where σ is small Indeed, using the triangle inequality, one can write LF,Φ v ) LF,Φ a,σ )+LΦ a,σ,φ 0,σ )+LΦ σ,φ v ) Here, the first term may be estimated according to Theorem 4 For the second one, we have a trivial uniform bound over all σ ), LΦ a,σ,φ 0,σ ) a, which follows from the definition of the Lévy metric In turn, the parameter a admits the bound, which was already used in the proof of Theorem 23, namely, a < This bound behaves better than the one in Theorem 4, so we obtain: log e

10 0 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze Lemma 42 If EX = EY = 0, VarX +Y) =, and LF G,Φ) <, then LF,Φ v ) C loglog 4 )2 log +LΦ σ,φ v ) Thus, we are reduced to estimating the distance LΦ σ,φ v ), which in fact should be done in terms of v 2 σ2 Lemma 43 Given v σ 0, such that v 2 σ 2, we have LΦ σ,φ v ) 2 v 2 σ 2 2 ) log v 2 σ 2 Proof It will be clear that the asymptotic in terms of α = v 2 σ 2 is correct Since the normal distributions with mean zero are symmetric about the origin, the Lévy distance LΦ σ,φ v ) represents an optimal value h 0, such that the inequality Φ σ x) Φ v x+h)+h 4) holds true for all x The other inequality, Φ v x) Φ σ x + h) + h, is equivalent to 4)) Moreover, for x 0, we have Φ σ x) Φ v x), so only x > 0 should be taken into consideration We may assume v > σ, ie, α > 0 Changing the variable x = σy, y > 0, 4) becomes ) σy +h Φy) Φ +h 42) v Here h needs to serve for all σ > 0, while α is fixed So, we need to minimize the function ψσ) = σy+h v = σy+h σ 2 +α2 By the direct differentiation, we find that ψ σ) = yα2 σh σ 2 +α 2 ) 3/2 = 0 σ = σ 0 yα2 h, ψσ 0) = y 2 +h/α) 2 y Since ψ 0) > 0, we may conclude that ψ is increasing for σ σ 0 and is decreasing for σ σ 0 Hence, the inequality 42) will only be strengthened, if we replace it with { h } Φy) inf Φψσ))+h = min{φψ0)),φψ ))} +h = min Φ,Φy) +h σ 0 α) That is, Φy) Φ h α ) +h, and since y > 0 is arbitrary, it is equivalent to Φh α ) +h In other words, LΦ σ,φ v ) LΦ 0,Φ α ), where Φ 0 denotes the unit mass at the origin Thus, we are reduced to the case σ = 0 But then the Lévy distance h 0 = LΦ 0,Φ α ) represents the unique) solution to the equation = Φ h α) +h To estimate it, wemay use thebound Φ h α ) 2 e h2 /2α 2 which gives 2h 0 e h2 0 /2α2 After the change h 0 = α 2logc 0 /α), and using α, we obtain 2c 0 2log c 0 α 2c 0 2logc0, so, 4c 2 0 logc2 0 It follows that c2 0 < 2 and h 0 α log2/α 2 ), as was claimed Remark Attempts to derive boundson the Lévy distance LΦ σ,φ v ) by virtue of standard general relations, such as Zolotarev s Berry-Esseen-type estimate [Z2], lead to worse dependences of α 2 = v 2 σ 2 For example, using a general relation LF,G) 2 W F,G), cf

11 Stability in Cramer s theorem Proposition A, together with the Kantorovich-Rubinshtein theorem, we get that LΦ σ,φ v ) 2 W Φ σ,φ v ) E σz vz v σ = v2 σ 2 v +σ, where Z N0,) and where we did not loose much when bounding W This estimate has a disadvantage in comparison with Lemma 43 because of a possible small denominator In view of Lemmas 42-43, in order to proceed, one needs to bound v 2 σ2 in terms of However, this does not seem to be possible in general without stronger hypotheses Note that v 2 σ2 = x 2 dfx)+a 2 { x >N} Hence, we need to deal with the quadratic tail function δ X T) = x 2 dfx), T 0, { x >T} whose behavior at infinity will play an important role in the sequel Now, combining Lemmas 42 and 43, we obtain LF,Φ v ) C loglog 4 )2 log +R δ X N)+a 2 ), where Rt) = tlog2/t) This function is non-negative and concave in the interval 0 t 2, with R0) = 0 Hence, it is subadditive in the sense that Rξ + η) Rξ) + Rη), for all ξ,η 0, ξ +η 2 Hence, R δ X N)+a 2 ) RδX N))+Ra 2 ) ) /2 = δ X N)log + log e As we have already noticed, a A = t tloge/t) is increasing in 0 t, 2 δ X N) a 2 log 2 a 2 In particular, a Since the function a 2 log 2 a 2 a 2 log e a 2 A 2 log e A 2 = log e +loglog e ) Taking the square root of the right-hand side, we obtain a function which can be majorized and absorbed by the bound given in Theorem 4 As a result, we have arrived at the following consequence of this theorem Theorem 44 Assume independent random variables X and Y have distribution functions F and G with mean zero and with VarX +Y) = If LF G,Φ) <, then with some absolute constant C LF,Φ v ) C loglog 4 )2 log + δ X N) log2/δ X N)), where v = VarX), N = + 2log/), and δ X N) = { x >N} x2 dfx) It seems that in general it is not enough to know that VarX) and LF G,Φ) <, in orderto judgethedecay of thequadratictail function δ X T) as T So, someadditional

12 2 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze properties should be involved As we will see, the entropic distance perfectly suits this idea, so that one can start with the entropic assumption DX +Y) 5 Application of Sapogov-type results to Gaussian regularization In this section we consider the stability problem in Cramer s theorem for the regularized distributions with respect to the total variation norm As a basic tool, we use Theorem 23 Thus, let X and Y be independent random variables with distribution functions F and G, and with variances VarX) = v 2, VarY) = v2 2 v,v 2 > 0, v 2 +v2 2 = ), so that X + Y has variance What is not important and is assumed for simplicity of notations, only), let both X and Y have mean zero As we know from Theorem 23, the main stability result asserts that if F G Φ <, then F Φ v Cmv,), G Φ v2 v log Cmv 2,) v 2 log for some absolute constant C Here, as before { mv,) = min v,loglog ee }, v > 0, 0 < On the other hand, such a statement even in the case of equal variances is no longer true for the total variation norm So, it is natural to use the Gaussian regularizations X σ = X +σz, Y σ = Y +σz, where Z N0,) is independent of X and Y, and where σ is a small) positive parameter For definiteness, we assume that 0 < σ Note that VarX σ ) = v 2 +σ2, VarY σ ) = v 2 2 +σ2 and VarX σ +Y σ ) = +2σ 2 Denote by F σ and G σ the distributions of X σ and Y σ, respectively Assume X σ +Y σ is almost normal in the sense of the total variation norm and hence in the Kolmogorov distance, namely, F σ G σ N0,+2σ 2 ) 2 F σ G σ N0,+2σ 2 ) TV Note that X σ + Y σ = X + Y) + σ 2Z represents the Gaussian regularization of the sum X+Y with parameter σ 2 One may also write X σ +Y σ = X+Y +σ 2Z), or equivalently, X σ +Y σ +2σ 2 = X +Y, where X = X, Y = Y +σ 2Z +2σ 2 +2σ 2 Thus, we are in position to apply Theorem 23 to the distributions of the random variables X and Y with variances v 2 = v2 +2σ 2 and v 2 2 = v2 2 +2σ2 +2σ 2 Using +2σ 2 3, it gives F Φ v Cmv,) v log 3Cmv,) v log Now, we apply Proposition A22 b) to the distributions F and G = Φ v with B = v and get Fσ N0,v 2 +σ 2 ) TV 4v σ F Φ v /2 4v 3Cmv,) σ v /2 log )/4

13 Stability in Cramer s theorem 3 One may simplify this bound by using v mv,) v, and then we may conclude: Theorem 5 Let F and G be distribution functions with mean zero and variances v 2,v2 2, respectively, such that v 2 +v2 2 = Let 0 < σ If the regularized distributions satisfy Fσ G σ N0,+2σ 2 ) 2 TV, then with some absolute constant C Fσ N0,v 2 +σ 2 ) TV C ) /4 σ log, Gσ N0,v2 2 +σ 2 ) TV C ) /4 σ log 6 Control of tails and entropic Chebyshev-type inequality One of our further aims is to find an entropic version of the Sapogov stability theorem for regularized distributions As part of the problem, we need to bound the quadratic tail function δ X T) = EX 2 { X T} quantitatively in terms of the entropic distance DX) Thus, assume a random variable X has mean zero and variance VarX) =, with a finite distance to the standard normal law DX) = hz) hx) = px) log px) ϕx) dx, where p is density of X and ϕ is the density of N0,) One can also write another representation, DX) = Ent γ f), where f = p ϕ, with respect to the standard Gaussian measure γ on the real line Let us recall that the entropy functional Ent µ f) = E µ f logf E µ f loge µ f is well-defined for any measurable function f 0 on an abstract probability space Ω,µ), where E µ stands for the expectation integral) with respect to µ We are going to involve a variational formula for this functional cf eg [Le]): For all measurable functions f 0 and g on Ω, such that Ent µ f) and E µ e g are finite, E µ fg Ent µ f)+e µ f loge µ e g Applying it on Ω = R with µ = γ and f = p ϕ, we notice that E µf = and get that px)gx)dx DX)+log Take gx) = α 2 x2 { x T} with a parameter α 0,) Then, e gx) ϕx)dx = γ[ T,T]+ e α 2 x2 ϕx)dx T { x T} e gx) ϕx)dx = γ[ T,T]+ 2 e α)x2 /2 2 )) dx = γ[ T,T]+ Φ T α 2π α Using γ[ T,T] < and the inequality log+t) t, we obtain that Therefore, log e gx) ϕx)dx 2 α Φ T α )) 2 δ XT) α DX)+ 2 α )) Φ T α α

14 4 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze Now, we need to optimize the right-hand side over all α 0,) First, the standard bound Φt) ϕt)/t gives Choosing just α = /2, we get 2 δ XT) α DX)+ 2 2π Tα α) e α)t2 /2 6) 2 δ XT) 2DX)+ 8 T /4 2π e T2 2DX)+2e T2 /4, where the last bounds is fulfilled for T 4/ 2π For the remaining T the obtained inequality is fulfilled automatically, since then 2e T2 /4 2e 4/2π >, while 2 δ XT) 2 EX2 = 2 Thus, we have proved the following: Proposition 6 If X is a random variable with EX = 0 and VarX) =, having density px), then for all T > 0, x 2 px)dx 4DX)+4e T2 /4 { x T} In particular, the above integral does not exceed 8DX) for T = 2 log + /DX)) The choice α = 2/T 2 in 6) would lead to a better asymptotic in T Indeed, if T 2, then Tα α) /T, so Hence, we also have: 2 δ XT) T2 2eT DX)+ e T2 /2 T2 2 2π 2 DX)+3T /2 e T2 Proposition 62 If X is a random variable with EX = 0 and VarX) =, having density px), then for all T 2, x 2 px)dx T 2 DX)+6T e T2 /2 { x T} In the Gaussian case X = Z this gives an asymptotically correct bound for T up to a factor) Note as well that in the non-gaussian case, from Proposition 6 we obtain an entropic Chebyshev-type inequality { P X 2 } log/dx)) 2DX) log/dx)) DX) < ) Finally, let us give a more flexible variant of Propositions 6 with an arbitrary variance B 2 = VarX) B > 0), but still with mean zero Applying the obtained statements to the random variable X/B and replacing the variable T with T/B, we then get that B 2 { x T} x 2 px)dx 4DX)+4e T2 /4B 2

15 Stability in Cramer s theorem 5 7 Entropic control of tails for sums of independent summands We apply Proposition 6 in the following situation Assume we have two independent random variables X and Y with mean zero, but perhaps with different variances VarX) and VarY) Assume they have densities The question is: Can we bound the tail functions δ X and δ Y in terms of DX +Y), rather than in terms of DX) and DY)? In case VarX +Y) =, by Proposition 6, applied to the sum X +Y, δ X+Y T) = EX +Y) 2 { X+Y T} 4DX +Y)+4e T2 /4 7) Hence, to answer the question, it would be sufficient to bound from below the tail functions δ X+Y in terms of δ X and δ Y Assume for a while that VarX +Y) = /2 In particular, VarY) /2, and according to the usual Chebyshev s inequality, P{Y } 2 Hence, for all T 0, EX +Y) 2 {X+Y T} EX +Y) 2 {X T+,Y } EX ) 2 {X T+,Y } 2 EX )2 {X T+} IfX T+ 4, thenclearlyx ) 2 2 X2,hence, EX ) 2 {X T+} 2 EX2 {X T+} With a similar bound for the range X T +), we get δ X+Y T) 4 δ XT +), T 3 72) Now, change T + with T assuming that T 4) and apply 7) to 2X +Y) Together with 72) it gives 4 δ 2X T) 4D 2X +Y) ) +4e T )2 /4 But the entropic distance to the normal is invariant under rescaling of coordinates, ie, D 2X+Y)) = DX+Y) Since also δ 2X T) = 2δ XT/ 2), we obtain that δ X T/ 2) 8DX +Y)+8e T )2 /4, provided that T 4 Simplifying by e T )2 /4 e T2 /8 valid for T 4), and then replacing T with T 2, we arrive at δ X T) 8DX +Y)+8e T2 /4, T 4/ 2 Finally, to involve the values 0 T 4/ 2, just use e 2 < 8, so that the above inequality holds automatically for this range: δ X T) VarX) < 8e T2 /4 Moreover, in order to allow an arbitrary variance VarX +Y) = B 2 B > 0), the above estimate should be applied to X/B 2 and Y/B 2 with T replaced by T/B 2 Then it takes the form We can summarize 2B 2 δ XT) 8DX +Y)+8e T2 /8B 2 Proposition 7 Let X and Y be independent random variables with mean zero and with VarX +Y) = B 2 B > 0) Assume X has a density p Then, for all T 0, B 2 x 2 px)dx 6DX +Y)+6e T2 /8B 2 { x T}

16 6 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze 8 Stability for Lévy distance under entropic hypothesis Now we can return to the variant of the Chistyakov-Golinski result, as in Theorem 44 Let the independent random variables X and Y have mean zero, with VarX +Y) =, and denote by F and G their distribution functions Also assume X has a density p In order to control the term δ X N) in Theorem 44, we are going to impose the stronger condition DX +Y) 2 Using Pinsker s inequality, this yields bounds for the total variation and Kolmogorov distances F G Φ 2 F G Φ TV 2 2DX +Y) = Hence, the assumption of Theorem 44 is fulfilled, whenever < As for the conclusion, first apply Proposition 7 with B =, which gives δ X T) = x 2 px)dx 6DX +Y)+6e T2 /8 6+6e T2 /8 { x T} In our situation, N = + 2log/ ) = + log/), so, δ X N) 6+6e N2 /8 C /8 Thus, we arrive at: Proposition 8 Let the independent random variables X and Y have mean zero, with VarX+Y) =, and assume that X has a density with distribution function F If DX+Y) 2 < 2, then LF,Φ v ) C loglog 4 )2, log where v = VarX) and C is an absolute constant In general, in the conclusion one cannot replace the Lévy distance LF,Φ v ) with the entropic destance DX) However, this is indeed possible for regularized distributions, as we will see in the next sections 9 Entropic distance and uniform deviation of densities Let X and Y be independent random variables with mean zero, finite variances, and assume X has a bounded density p Our next aim is to estimate the entropic distance to the normal, DX), in terms of DX +Y) and the uniform deviation of p above the normal density X) = esssup x px) ϕ v x)), where v 2 = VarX) and ϕ v stands for the density of the normal law N0,v 2 ) For a while, assume that VarX) = Proposition A32 gives the preliminary estimate [ DX) X) 2π +2T +2T log + X) )] 2πe T2 /2 + 2 δ XT), involving the quadratic tail function δ X T) In the general situation one cannot say anything definite about the decay of this function However, it can be bounded in terms of DX +Y) by virtue of Proposition 7: we know that, for all T 0, 2B 2 δ XT) 8DX +Y)+8e T2 /8B 2,

17 Stability in Cramer s theorem 7 where B 2 = VarX +Y) = +VarY) So, combining the two estimates yields DX) 8B 2 DX +Y)+8B 2 e T2 /8B 2 + [ 2π +2T +2T log + 2πe T 2 /2 )], where = X) First assume and apply the above with T 2 = 8B 2 log Then 8B2 e T2 /8B 2 = 8B 2, and putting β = 4B 2 3, we also have log + 2πe T2 /2 ) = log + β ) 2π = βlog + β ) /β 2π ) < βlog + 2π)/2β < βlog + 2 ) Collecting all the terms and using B, we are lead to the estimate of the form DX) 8B 2 DX +Y)+CB 3 log 3/2 2+ ), where C > 0 is an absolute constant It holds also in case > in view of the logarithmic bound of Proposition A3, DX) log + ) 2π + 2 Therefore, the obtained bound holds true without any restriction on Now, to relax the variance assumption, assume VarX) = v 2, VarY) = v2 2 v,v 2 > 0), and without loss of generality, let VarX +Y) = v 2 +v2 2 = Apply the above to X = X v, Y = Y v Then, B 2 = /v 2 and X ) = v X), so with some absolute constant c > 0, ) cv 2+ 2 DX) DX +Y)+ X)log3/2 v X) As a result, we arrive at: Proposition 9 Let X, Y be independent random variables with mean zero, VarX+Y) =, and such that X has a bounded density Then, with some absolute constant c > 0, cvarx)dx) DX +Y)+ X)log 3/2 2+ VarX) X) ) Replacing the role of X and Y, and adding the two inequalities, we also have as corollary: Proposition 92 Let X, Y be independent random variables with mean zero and positive variances v 2 = VarX), v2 2 = VarY), such that v2 +v2 2 =, and both with densities Then, with some absolute constant c > 0, ) cv 2 DX)+v DY)) )+ Y)log DX+Y)+ X)log3/2 3/2 2+ v X) v 2 Y) This inequality may be viewed as the inverse to the general property of the entropic distance, which we mentioned before, namely, v 2DX)+v2 2 DY) DX+Y), under the normalization assumption v 2 +v2 2 = Let us also state separately Proposition 9 in the particular case of equal unit variances, keeping the explicit constant 8B 2 = 6 in front of DX +Y)

18 8 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze Proposition 93 Let X, Y be independent random variables with mean zero and variances VarX) = VarY) =, and such that X has a density Then, with some absolute constant C DX) 6DX +Y)+C X)log 3/2 2+ ) X) One may simplify the right-hand side for small values of X) and get a slightly weaker inequality DX) 6DX + Y) + C α X) α, 0 < α <, where the constants C α depend on α, only For large values of X), the above inequality holds, as well, in view of the logarithmic bound of Proposition of A3 0 The case of equal variances We are prepared to derive an entropic variant of Sapogov-type stability theorem for regularized distributions That is, we are going to estimate DX σ ) and DY σ ) in terms of DX σ +Y σ ) for two independent random variables X and Y with distribution functions F and G, by involving a small smoothing parameter σ > 0 It will not be important whether or not they have densities Since it will not be important for the final statements, let X and Y have mean zero Recall that, given σ > 0, the regularized random variables are defined by X σ = X+σZ, Y σ = Y +σz, where Z is independent of X and Y, and has a standard normal density ϕ The distributions of X σ,y σ are denoted F σ,g σ, with densities p σ,q σ In this section, we consider the case of equal variances, say, VarX) = VarY) = Put σ = +σ 2, σ 2 = +2σ 2 Since VarX σ ) = VarY σ ) = σ 2, the corresponding entropic distances are given by DX σ ) = hσ Z) hx σ ) = p σ x) log p σx) ϕ σ x) dx, and similarly for Y σ, where, as before, ϕ v represents the density of N0,v 2 ) Assume that DX σ +Y σ ) is small in the sense that DX σ +Y σ ) 2 < 2 According to Pinsker s inequality, this yields bounds for the total variation and Kolmogorov distances F σ G σ Φ σ2 2 F σ G σ Φ σ2 TV < In the sequel, let 0 < σ This guarantees that the ratio of variances of the components in the convolution F σ G σ = F G Φ σ 2 ) is bounded away from zero by an absolute constant, so that we can apply Theorem 23 Namely, it gives that F Φ Clog /2 ), and similarly for G Note that raising to any positive power does not change the above estimate) Applying Proposition A2 a), when one of the distributions is normal, we get X σ ) = sup x p σ x) ϕ σ x)) σ F Φ C σ log We are in position to apply Proposition 93 to the random variables X σ /σ, Y σ /σ It gives DX σ ) 6DX σ +Y σ )+C X σ )log 3/2 ) C log3/2 2+σ log ), X σ ) σ log where C is an absolute constant In the last expression the second term dominates the first one, and at this point, the assumption on the means may be removed We arrive at:

19 Stability in Cramer s theorem 9 Proposition 0 Let X, Y be independent random variables with mean zero and variance one Given 0 < < and 0 < σ, the regularized random variables X σ, Y σ satisfy DX σ +Y σ ) 2 DX σ )+DY σ ) C log3/2 2+σ log ), 0) σ log where C is an absolute constant This statement may be formulated equivalently by solving the above inequality with respect to The function ux) = is increasing in x 0, and, for any a 0, ux) a x log 3/2 2+x) x 8alog 3/2 2+a) Hence, assuming DX σ +Y σ ), we obtain from 0) that σ log 8C D log3/2 2+C/D) C D log3/2 2+/D) with some absolute constant C, where D = DX σ )+DY σ ) As a result, { DX σ +Y σ ) exp C 2 log 3 2+/D) } σ 2 D 2 Note also that this inequality is fulfilled automatically, if DX σ +Y σ ) Thus, we get: Proposition 02 Let X,Y be independent random variables with VarX) = VarY) = Given 0 < σ, the regularized random variables X σ and Y σ satisfy { DX σ +Y σ ) exp C log3 2+/D) } σ 2 D 2, where D = DX σ )+DY σ ) and C > 0 is an absolute constant Proof of Theorem Now let us consider the case of arbitrary variances VarX) = v 2, VarY) = v2 2 v,v 2 0) For normalization reasons, let v 2 +v2 2 = Then VarX σ ) = v 2 +σ 2, VarY σ ) = v 2 2 +σ 2, VarX σ +Y σ ) = σ 2 2, where σ 2 = +2σ 2 As before, we assume that both X and Y have mean zero, although this will not be important for the final conclusion Again, we start with the hypothesis DX σ +Y σ ) 2 < 2 and apply Pinsker s inequality: F σ G σ Φ σ2 2 F σ G σ Φ σ2 TV < For 0 < σ, write F σ G σ = F G Φ σ 2 ) Now, the ratio of variances of the components v in the convolution, 2 +2σ, may not be bounded away from zero, since v 2 is allowed to be small Hence, the application of Theorem 23 will only give F Φ v Cmv,) and similarly for v log G The appearance of v on the right is however not desirable So, it is better to involve the Lévy distance, which is more appropriate in such a situation Consider the random variables X = X +2σ 2, Y = Y +σ 2Z +2σ 2,

20 20 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze so that VarX + Y ) =, and denote by F, G their distribution functions Since the Kolmogorov distance does not change after rescaling of the coordinates, we still have LF G,Φ) F G Φ = F σ G σ Φ σ2 < In this situation, we may apply Proposition 8 to the couple F,G ) It gives that LF,Φ v ) C loglog 4 ) 2 log ) /2 with some absolute constant C, where v = VarX v ) = +2σ Since 2 v v 3v, we have a similar conclusion about the original distribution functions, ie LF,Φ v ) Cloglog 4 )2 log ) /2 Now we use Proposition A23 applied when one of the distributions is normal), which for σ gives X σ ) 3 LF,Φ 2σ 2 v ), and similarly for Y Hence, X σ ) C loglog 4 )2, Y σ ) C σ log loglog 4 )2 ) 2 σ log 2 We are now in a position to apply Proposition 92 to the random variables X σ = X σ / +σ 2, Y σ = Y σ / +σ 2, which ensures that with some absolute constant c > 0 cv σ) 2 DX σ )+v 2 σ) 2 DY σ )) DX σ +Y σ ) + X σ )log 3/2 2+ v σ) X σ ) ) + Y σ )log 3/2 2+ ), v 2 σ) Y σ ) where v σ) 2 = VarX σ) = v2 +σ2 +σ and v 2 2 σ) 2 = VarY σ) = v2 2 +σ2 +σ v 2 σ),v 2 σ) 0) Note that v σ) σ/ 2 Applying the bounds in ), we obtain that cv σ) 2 DX σ )+v 2 σ) 2 DY σ )) DX σ +Y σ )+ loglog 4 )2 log σ log 3/2 2+ σ log ) 2 loglog 4 )2 with some other absolute constant c > 0 Here, DX σ +Y σ ) 2, which is dominated by the last expression, and we arrive at: Proposition Let X, Y be independent random variables with total variance one Given 0 < σ, if the regularized random variables X σ, Y σ satisfy DX σ + Y σ ) 2 < 2, then with some absolute constant C VarX σ )DX σ )+VarY σ )DY σ ) C loglog 4 )2 log σ log 3/2 2+ σ log ) 2 loglog 4 2) )2 Itremainstosolvethisinequality withrespectto DenotebyD theleft-handsideof2) and let D = σ 2 D Assuming that DX σ +Y σ ) < 2 and arguing as in the proof of Proposition σ log 8C loglog 4 )2 02, we get σd log 3/2 2+C/D ), hence C A loglog 4 )4 D log 3 2+/D) with 2 some absolute constant C The latter inequality implies with some absolute constants log C Alog 4 2+A) C D 2 log7 2+/D), and we arrive at the inequality of Theorem which holds automatically, if DX σ +Y σ ) ) log

21 Stability in Cramer s theorem 2 2 Appendix I: General bounds for distances between distribution functions Here we collect a few elementary and basically known relations for classical metrics, introduced at the beginning of Section 2 Let F and G be arbitrary distribution functions of some randomvariablesx andy Firstofall, thelévy, Kolmogorov, andthetotal variationdistances are connected by the chain of the inequalities 0 LF,G) F G 2 F G TV As for the Kantorovich-Rubinshtein distance, there is the following well-known bound Proposition A We have LF,G) W F,G) /2 Proposition A2 If x2 dfx) B 2 and x2 dgx) B 2 B 0), then a) W F,G) 2LF,G)+4BLF,G) /2 and b) W F,G) 4B F G /2 Proof It follows from the definition of the Lévy distance h = LF,G) that, for all x R, Fx) Gx) Fx+h) Fx))+Gx+h) Gx))+h Integrating this inequality over a finite interval a, b), a < b, and using a general relation Fx+y) Fx))dx = y y 0), we get b a Fx) Gx) dx h2+b a)) By Chebyshev s inequality, P{X x} B2 x and P{X x} B2 2 x x > 0), and similarly for 2 Y Hence, Fx) Gx) B2, and for any b > 0, x 2 { x >b} Fx) Gx) dx { x >b} B 2 2B2 dx = x2 b Using the previous estimate over the finite interval with a = b, we arrive at Fx) Gx) dx 2h+b)+ 2B2 b This bound can be optimized over all b > 0 by taking b = B/ h, and then we get the estimate in a) In case of the Kolmogorov distance, one can use similar arguments Indeed, b b Fx) Gx) dx 2hb with h = F G Hence, 2B2 Fx) Gx) dx 2hb+ b The optimal choice b = B/ h leads to the second bound of the proposition 3 Appendix II: Relations for distances between regularized distributions Now, let us turn to the regularized random variables X σ = X +σz, Y σ = Y +σz, where σ > 0 is a fixed parameter and Z N0,) is a standard normal random variable independent of X and Y They have distribution functions F σ x) = G σ x) = Fx y)dφ σ y) = Gx y)dφ σ y) = Φ σ x y)dfy), Φ σ x y)dgy),

22 22 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze and densities p σ x) = ϕ σ x y)dfy) = σ 2 Fx y)yϕ σ y)dy, q σ x) = So, in terms of the Kolmogorov distance, p σ x) q σ x) ϕ σ x y)dgy) = σ 2 Gx y)yϕ σ y)dy F G σ 2 y ϕ σ y)dy = 2 F G 2π σ Similarly, p σ x) q σ x) dx σ 2 Fx) Gx) dx y ϕ σ y)dy = 2 W F,G) 2π σ Simplifying with the help of 2 2π <, let us state these bounds once more Proposition A2 We have a) sup x p σ x) q σ x) σ F G b) F σ G σ TV σ W F,G) Thus, if F is close to G in a weak sense, then the regularized distributions will beclosed in a much stronger sense, at least when σ is not very small Now, applying the general Proposition A2, one may replace W F,G) in part b) with other metrics: Proposition A22 If x2 dfx) B 2 and x2 dgx) B 2 B 0), then a) F σ G σ TV 2 [ σ LF,G)+2BLF,G) /2 ] ; b) F σ G σ TV 4B σ F G /2 Combining Propositions A2 and A2, one may bound sup x p σ x) q σ x) in terms of the Lévy distance LF,G), as well However, in order to get rid of the unnecessary parameter B, one may argue as follows Recall that p σ x) q σ x) = σ 2 Gx y) Fx y))yϕ σ y)dy From the definition of h = LF,G), it follows that Gu) Fu) Gu+h) Gu h))+h, for all u R, which gives σ 2 p σ x) q σ x) max y ϕ σ y) y = Gx y +h) Gx y h))+h ) y ϕσ y)dy 2h +h 2σ 2πe 2π Gx y +h) Gx y h))dy +h y ϕ σ y)dy Here we used the property that the function y ϕ σ y) is maximized at y = ±σ Simplifying absolute factors, the right-hand side can be bounded by h 2 +σh We thus obtained:

23 Proposition A23 We have sup x Stability in Cramer s theorem 23 p σ x) q σ x) LF,G) σ + ) 2σ 4 Appendix III: Special bounds for entropic distance to the normal Let X be a random variable with mean zero and variance VarX) = v 2 v > 0) and with a bounded density p In this section we derive boundsfor the entropic distance DX) in terms of the quadratic tail function δ X T) = { x T} x2 px)dx and another quantity, which is directly responsible for the closeness to the normal law, X) = esssup x px) ϕ v x)) As before, ϕ v stands for the density of a normally distributed random variable Z N0,v 2 ), and we write ϕ in the standard case v = The functional = X) is homogeneous with respect to X with power of homogeneity in the sense that in general λx) = X)/λ λ > 0) Hence, the functional = VarX) X) is invariant under rescaling of the coordinates To relate the two quantites, DX) and = X), firstwrite px) ϕ v x)+ v +, 2π which gives px) v 2π + v 2π Hence, px) log px) ϕ v x) dx = Thus we have: px) log px)v 2π ) + x2 2v 2 ) dx log + v ) 2π + 2 Proposition A3 Let X be a random variable with mean zero and variance VarX) = v 2 v > 0), having a bounded density Then DX) log +v X) ) 2π + 2 This estimate might be good, when both DX) and X) are large, but it cannot be used to see that X is almost normal So, we need to considerably refine Proposition A3 for the case, where X) is small For definiteness, consider the standard case v = Take any T 0 Using once more the bound px) 2π + 2π, where = X), we may write { x T} px) log px) ϕx) dx = { x T} px) log px) 2π ) + x2 2 ) dx log + 2π ) + 2 δ XT) 2π + 2 δ XT) On the last step we used log+t) t to simplify the bound For x T, we use px) ϕx) + ϕx) px) log px) ϕx) ϕx)log ϕx)+ ) log + ) + log ϕx) px), so that log ϕx) log+ ϕx) ) ϕx) ) + ϕx) This gives + 2πe T2 /2 ) + log + 2πe T2 /2 ), and after integration over [ T,T] px) log px) ϕx) dx 2 T +2 T log + 2πe T2 /2 ) { x T} Collecting the two bounds, we arrive at:

24 24 S G Bobkov, G P Chistyakov and F Götze Proposition A32 Let X be a random variable with mean zero and variance VarX) =, having a bounded density For all T 0, DX) X)[ 2π +2T +2T log + X) 2πe T 2 /2 )] + 2 δ XT) Hence, if X) is small and T is large, but not much, the right-hand side can be made small When X) 2, one may take T = 2log/ X)) which leads to the estimate DX) C X) log/ X)) + 2 δ XT), where C is absolute constant If X satisfies the tail condition P{ X t} Ae t2 /2 t > 0), we have δ X T) ca +T 2 )e T2 /2, and then DX) C X)log X), where C depends on the parameter A, only References [B-C-G] Bobkov, S G, Chistyakov, G P, Götze, F Entropic instability of Cramer s characterization of the normal law Selected works of Willem van Zwet, , Sel Works Probab Stat, Springer, New York, 202 [B-C-G2] Bobkov, S G, Chistyakov, G P, Götze, F Stability problems in Cramer-type characterization in case of iid summands Theory Probab Appl ), no 4, [B-G-R-S] Bobkov, S G, Gozlan, N, Roberto, C, Samson, P-M Bounds on the deficit in the logarithmic Sobolev inequality J Funct Anal ), no, [C-S] Carlen, E A, Soffer, A Entropy production by block variable summation and central limit theorems Comm Math Phys 40 99), no 2, [C] Chistyakov, G P The sharpness of the estimates in theorems on the stability of decompositions of a normal distribution and a Poisson distribution Russian) Teor Funkcii Funkcional Anal i Prilozhen Vyp ), 9-28, iii [C-G] Chistyakov, G P, Golinskii, L B Order-sharp estimates for the stability of decompositions of the normal distribution in the Levy metric Russian) Translated in J Math Sci 72994), no, Stability problems for stochastic models Russian) Moscow, 99), 6 40, Vsesoyuz Nauchno-Issled Inst Sistem Issled, Moscow, 99 [Cr] Cramér, H Ueber eine Eigenschaft der Normalen Verteilungsfunktion Math Zeitschrift, Bd 4 936), [D-C-T] Dembo, A, Cover, T M, Thomas, J A Information-theoretic inequalities IEEE Trans Inform Theory, 37 99), no 6, [F-M-P] Figalli, A, Maggi, F, Pratelli, A A refined Brunn Minkowski inequality for convex sets Ann Inst H Poincaré Anal Non Linéaire ), no 6, [F-M-P2] Figalli, A, Maggi, F, Pratelli, A Sharp stability theorems for the anisotropic Sobolev and log-sobolev inequalities on functions of bounded variation Adv Math ), 80 0 [Le] Ledoux, M Concentration of measure and logarithmic Sobolev inequalities Seminaire de Probabilites, XXXIII, 20 26, Lecture Notes in Math, 709, Springer, Berlin, 999 [L] Linnik, Yu V A remark on Cramer s theorem on the decomposition of the normal law Russian) Teor Veroyatnost i Primenen 956),

25 Stability in Cramer s theorem 25 [L2] Linnik, Yu V General theorems on the factorization of infinitely divisible laws III Sufficient conditions countable bounded Poisson spectrum; unbounded spectrum; stability ) Theor Probability Appl 4 959), [L-O] Linnik, Yu V, Ostrovskii, I V Decompositions of random variables and random vectors Russian) Izd Nauka, Moscow, 972, 479 pp Translated from the Russian: Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol 48 American Math Society, Providence, R I, 977, ix+380 pp [M] Maloshevskii, S G Unimprovability of N A Sapogov s result in the stability problem of H Cramer s theorem Russian) Teor Verojatnost i Primenen, 3 968) [MK] McKean, H P, Jr Speed of approach to equilibrium for Kac s caricature of a Maxwellian gas Arch Rational Mech Anal 2 966), [S] Sapogov, N A The stability problem for a theorem of Cramér Russian) Izvestiya Akad Nauk SSSR Ser Mat 5 95), [S2] Sapogov, N A The stability problem for a theorem of Cramér Russian) Izvestiya Akad Nauk SSSR Ser Mat 5 95), [S3] Sapogov, N A The problem of stability for a theorem of Cramér Russian) Vestnik Leningrad Univ 0 955), no, 6 64 [Seg] Segal, A Remark on stability of Brunn Minkowski and isoperimetric inequalities for convex bodies, in Geometric Aspects of Functional Analysis, in: Lecture Notes in Mathematics, ), [Se] Senatov, V V Refinement of estimates of stability for a theorem of H Cramér Russian) Continuity and stability in problems of probability theory and mathematical statistics Zap Naucn Sem Leningrad Otdel Mat Inst Steklov LOMI) 6 976), [Sh] Shiganov, I S Some estimates connected with the stability of H Cramer s theorem Russian) Studies in mathematical statistics, 3 Zap Nauchn Sem Leningrad Otdel Mat Inst Steklov LOMI) ), [Sh2] Shiganov, I S On stability estimates of Cramer s theorem Stability problems for stochastic models Varna, 985), 78-8, Lecture Notes in Math, 233, Springer, Berlin, 987 [Z] Zolotarev, V M On the problem of the stability of the decomposition of the normal law into components Russian) Teor Verojatnost i Primenen, 3 968), [Z2] Zolotarev, V M Estimates of the difference between distributions in the Levy metric Russian) Collection of articles dedicated to Academician Ivan Matveevich Vinogradov on his eightieth birthday, I Trudy Mat Inst Steklov 2 97), , 388 Sergey G Bobkov School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota 27 Vincent Hall, 206 Church St SE, Minneapolis, MN USA address: bobkov@mathumnedu Gennadiy P Chistyakov Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Bielefeld Postfach 003, 3350 Bielefeld, Germany address: chistyak@mathuni-bielefeldde Friedrich Götze Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Bielefeld Postfach 003, 3350 Bielefeld, Germany address: goetze@mathematikuni-bielefeldde