Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Improved Bounds on the Probability of a Union and on the Number of Events that Occur

Ilan Adler, Richard M. Karp, Sheldon M. Ross

TL;DR

The paper addresses bounds on $P(X \ge r)$ where $X$ counts how many of the $n$ events $A_1,\dots,A_n$ occur, given the probabilities of all $s$-fold intersections up to size $k+1$. It develops a combinatorial–algebraic framework that yields representations of the distribution in terms of the sums $S_j$ and higher-order moments $E[{X-i \choose k-i+1}]$, enabling stronger, more information-rich bounds than classical Bonferroni-type inequalities. A key contribution is a parity-based family of bounds in terms of $S_j$ (and $S_{k+1}$) plus correction terms, plus a refinement that expresses these corrections via actual $s$-fold intersection probabilities. An especially notable result is an improved bound for $P(X \ge 1)$ obtained via a random-permutation argument, introducing a max-term construction over subsets to tighten the bound. These results sharpen traditional inequalities and provide practical, computable bounds when higher-order intersection data is available, with potential impact in risk assessment and reliability analyses of dependent events.

Abstract

Let $A_1, A_2, \ldots, A_n$ be events in a sample space. Given the probability of the intersection of each collection of up to $k+1$ of these events, what can we say about the probability that at least $r$ of the events occur? This question dates back to Boole in the 19th century, and it is well known that the odd partial sums of the Inclusion- Exclusion formula provide upper bounds, while the even partial sums provide lower bounds. We give a combinatorial characterization of the error in these bounds and use it to derive a very simple proof of the strongest possible bounds of a certain form, as well as a couple of improved bounds. The new bounds use more information than the classical Bonferroni-type inequalities, and are often sharper.

Improved Bounds on the Probability of a Union and on the Number of Events that Occur

TL;DR

The paper addresses bounds on where counts how many of the events occur, given the probabilities of all -fold intersections up to size . It develops a combinatorial–algebraic framework that yields representations of the distribution in terms of the sums and higher-order moments , enabling stronger, more information-rich bounds than classical Bonferroni-type inequalities. A key contribution is a parity-based family of bounds in terms of (and ) plus correction terms, plus a refinement that expresses these corrections via actual -fold intersection probabilities. An especially notable result is an improved bound for obtained via a random-permutation argument, introducing a max-term construction over subsets to tighten the bound. These results sharpen traditional inequalities and provide practical, computable bounds when higher-order intersection data is available, with potential impact in risk assessment and reliability analyses of dependent events.

Abstract

Let be events in a sample space. Given the probability of the intersection of each collection of up to of these events, what can we say about the probability that at least of the events occur? This question dates back to Boole in the 19th century, and it is well known that the odd partial sums of the Inclusion- Exclusion formula provide upper bounds, while the even partial sums provide lower bounds. We give a combinatorial characterization of the error in these bounds and use it to derive a very simple proof of the strongest possible bounds of a certain form, as well as a couple of improved bounds. The new bounds use more information than the classical Bonferroni-type inequalities, and are often sharper.
Paper Structure (4 sections, 10 theorems, 25 equations)

This paper contains 4 sections, 10 theorems, 25 equations.

Key Result

Lemma 1

For all integers $r > 0, m \geq 0$

Theorems & Definitions (10)

  • Lemma 1
  • Theorem 1
  • Lemma 2
  • Theorem 2
  • Lemma 3
  • Theorem 3
  • Theorem 4
  • Lemma 4
  • Lemma 5
  • Theorem 5