Question
Let . Using a probabilistic method, find: .
Step-by-step solution
Let . Then Since , the expectation (for large ), so is very small. Standardization: Let The event is equivalent to Let , so implies .
Since , for large this value is negative with magnitude .
More precisely: Let . Then So it tends to like , where .
For the standard normal distribution, as , the Mills ratio inequality gives: More precisely: if , then Here , so Thus
Therefore
As , the exponential decay dominates the growth, so Therefore
Final answer
0
Marking scheme
The following is the grading rubric for this probability limit problem (maximum 7 points).
1. Key Checkpoints (max 7 pts total)
Group 1: Probabilistic Model Conversion [additive]
- Recognizing that the summation is the cumulative probability of a binomial distribution (or an equivalent random variable representation). (1 pt)
- *Note: If no random variable is introduced but subsequent calculations fully follow the normal approximation formula, credit may be awarded retroactively.*
Group 2: Core Analysis and Decay Estimate (Score exactly one chain)
*For different solution paths, select one of the following for grading; if a mixed approach is used, take the highest-scoring path.*
- Path A: Normal Approximation and Asymptotic Analysis (Official Solution)
- Standardization parameters: Writing or using the correct mean and variance , and attempting to standardize . (1 pt)
- Boundary asymptotic behavior: Analyzing the standardized upper bound and explicitly stating that its order of magnitude as is (i.e., tending to negative infinity proportionally to ). (2 pts)
- *If only the algebraic expression is written without simplification or without identifying the relationship, no credit for this item.*
- Tail probability estimate: Citing the Mills Ratio or the normal distribution tail asymptotic formula (), and explicitly obtaining that the probability term exhibits exponential decay (e.g., or ). (2 pts)
- Path B: Large Deviations / Concentration Inequalities (Hoeffding/Chernoff Bound)
- Inequality setup: Correctly setting the inequality parameters, identifying the deviation quantity (or noting that the distance between the expected mean and is linear ). (2 pts)
- Exponential upper bound establishment: Applying the inequality to obtain an exponential upper bound of the form . (3 pts)
Group 3: Limit Conclusion [additive]
- Resolving the indeterminate form: Combining the linear growth of the prefactor with the exponential decay of the probability term to conclude that the limit is 0. (1 pt)
- *Requirement: Must demonstrate the logic that "exponential decay dominates polynomial/linear growth." Concluding merely from the probability tending to 0 without comparing rates earns no credit for this item.*
Total (max 7) check: 1 + 5 + 1 = 7.
2. Zero-credit items
- Merely copying the problem or listing the binomial expansion formula without any specific computation.
- Only giving the answer "0" without any process.
- Incorrectly using Chebyshev's inequality to prove the limit is 0: Chebyshev's inequality can only give an upper bound, which when multiplied by yields a constant limit, and cannot prove the limit is 0. If this path claims to have proved the result, it is treated as a logical error and only the model conversion point (if any) is awarded.
- Assuming or other specific numerical values for the computation.
3. Deductions
- Logical gap cap (Cap at 2/7):
- If the student uses the CLT only to obtain without analyzing the rate of convergence (i.e., without explaining why the indeterminate form yields 0 rather than something else), the total score cannot exceed 2 points (only the model and parameter points).
- Computation/notation error (-1):
- Coefficient errors in the mean or variance computation (e.g., omitting ), provided they do not affect the core qualitative conclusion of "exponential decay."
- Inequality direction error (-1):
- In Path B, writing the inequality in the wrong direction (e.g., writing ), but the subsequent logic assumes the correct direction.
- Maximum deduction principle: Errors within the same logical chain are not penalized repeatedly; the total score after deductions cannot be less than 0.