From Cell Counts to a Joint Normal Limit
In a multinomial experiment, each observation falls into exactly one of a fixed number of cells. The resulting counts therefore fluctuate together: if one cell receives an extra observation, fewer observations remain for the others. A separate normal approximation for each count can miss this dependence. The joint normal limit captures both the individual fluctuations and their covariance.
Suppose there are \(k\) cells, with fixed probabilities \(p_1,\ldots,p_k>0\) satisfying \(\sum_{i=1}^k p_i=1\). In \(n\) independent trials, let \(N_i\) be the count in cell \(i\), and write \(N=(N_1,\ldots,N_k)^\mathsf{T}\) and \(p=(p_1,\ldots,p_k)^\mathsf{T}\). Thus \(N\) has a multinomial distribution with sample size \(n\) and cell probabilities \(p\).
A multivariate normal distribution is allowed to have a singular covariance matrix. That detail matters here: the total count is always \(n\), so the centered counts always sum to zero and cannot vary freely in all \(k\) directions.
Exact Covariances and the Joint Limit
For trial \(r\), let \(Z_r\) be the \(k\)-vector whose \(i\)th entry is 1 if trial \(r\) lands in cell \(i\), and 0 otherwise. Then \(N=\sum_{r=1}^n Z_r\). For each \(i\), \(E[(Z_r)_i]=p_i\) and \(\operatorname{Var}((Z_r)_i)=p_i(1-p_i)\). For distinct cells \(i\) and \(j\), the indicators cannot both equal 1, so \(\operatorname{Cov}((Z_r)_i,(Z_r)_j)=0-p_i p_j=-p_i p_j\). Independence across trials now gives the exact covariance matrix of the counts.
The diagonal entries of \(\Sigma\) are \(p_i(1-p_i)\); its off-diagonal entries are \(-p_i p_j\). The negative covariances express competition among cells for a fixed total number of observations.
Proof. The vectors \(Z_1,\ldots,Z_n\) are independent and identically distributed, have mean \(p\), and have covariance matrix \(\Sigma\), as calculated above. Their coordinates are bounded, so they have finite second moments. The multivariate central limit theorem for independent, identically distributed vectors therefore gives \[ \frac{\sum_{r=1}^n(Z_r-p)}{\sqrt n}\xrightarrow{d}N_k(0,\Sigma). \] Since \(\sum_{r=1}^n Z_r=N\), the expression on the left is \((N-np)/\sqrt n\), proving the result. \(\square\)
The limiting covariance matrix is singular for a structural reason, not because the approximation has failed. For any vector \(x\in\mathbb R^k\), \[ x^\mathsf{T}\Sigma x=\sum_{i=1}^k p_i x_i^2-\left(\sum_{i=1}^k p_i x_i\right)^2 =\sum_{i=1}^k p_i(x_i-\bar x_p)^2, \qquad \bar x_p=\sum_{i=1}^k p_i x_i. \] This quantity is zero when all the \(x_i\) are equal. Since every \(p_i>0\), it is positive for any vector that is not constant across cells. Thus the all-ones vector is a null direction and, for \(k\) positive cell probabilities, \(\Sigma\) has rank \(k-1\). Consistently, \(\sum_i(N_i-np_i)=0\) exactly.
Worked Example: Computing the Count Covariance Matrix
Suppose each of \(n=400\) observations falls into one of three cells with probabilities \(p=(0.2,0.5,0.3)^\mathsf{T}\). Calculate the expected counts and their covariance matrix.
The expected counts are \(np=(80,200,120)^\mathsf{T}\). The one-trial covariance matrix has diagonal entries \(0.2(0.8)=0.16\), \(0.5(0.5)=0.25\), and \(0.3(0.7)=0.21\). Its off-diagonal entries are \(-0.2(0.5)=-0.10\), \(-0.2(0.3)=-0.06\), and \(-0.5(0.3)=-0.15\). Hence
Each row of the count covariance matrix sums to zero, as required by the fixed total count. For example, the first row sums to \(64-40-24=0\). The joint normal approximation has mean \((80,200,120)^\mathsf{T}\) and this covariance matrix, but is supported on the plane where the three counts sum to 400.
Linear Contrasts of the Counts
Many questions concern a single weighted combination of counts rather than the entire vector. For a fixed vector \(a=(a_1,\ldots,a_k)^\mathsf{T}\), define the contrast \(a^\mathsf{T}N=\sum_i a_iN_i\). A cell difference is one example: choosing \(a_i=1\), \(a_j=-1\), and all other entries zero gives \(N_i-N_j\). The contrast has an exact mean and variance, and its normal limit follows directly from the scalar central limit theorem.
Proof. In trial \(r\), define the scalar \(W_r=a^\mathsf{T}Z_r\). These variables are independent and identically distributed, bounded because \(k\) and \(a\) are fixed, and satisfy \(E[W_r]=\mu_a\) and \(\operatorname{Var}(W_r)=v_a\). Also, \(a^\mathsf{T}N=\sum_{r=1}^n W_r\). The scalar central limit theorem gives the stated standardized limit when \(v_a>0\). To justify the moving-threshold conclusion, write \(x_n=(c_n-n\mu_a)/\sqrt{nv_a}\), so \(x_n\to x\). For any \(\epsilon>0\), eventually \(x-\epsilon<x_n<x+\epsilon\), and therefore \[ P\left(\frac{a^\mathsf{T}N-n\mu_a}{\sqrt{nv_a}}\le x-\epsilon\right) \le P(a^\mathsf{T}N\le c_n) \le P\left(\frac{a^\mathsf{T}N-n\mu_a}{\sqrt{nv_a}}\le x+\epsilon\right). \] Taking limits and then letting \(\epsilon\) decrease to zero gives \(\Phi(x)\), since the standard normal distribution function is continuous. \(\square\)
The contrast variance can also be read directly from the covariance matrix: \[ \operatorname{Var}(a^\mathsf{T}N)=a^\mathsf{T}\operatorname{Cov}(N)a =n\,a^\mathsf{T}\Sigma a=nv_a. \] If all cell probabilities are positive, \(v_a=0\) precisely when all entries of \(a\) are equal. In that case the contrast is just a constant times the fixed total \(n\), so there is no random fluctuation to approximate.
Worked Example: A Difference Between Two Cell Counts
Let \(n=500\) and \(p=(0.2,0.5,0.3)^\mathsf{T}\). Find a normal approximation to \(P(N_1-N_2\le -120)\).
Use \(a=(1,-1,0)^\mathsf{T}\). The contrast mean per trial is \(\mu_a=0.2-0.5=-0.3\), so \(E[N_1-N_2]=500(-0.3)=-150\). Its variance per trial is \[ v_a=0.2(1)^2+0.5(-1)^2+0.3(0)^2-(-0.3)^2 =0.7-0.09=0.61. \] Thus the count difference has variance \(500(0.61)=305\) and standard deviation \(\sqrt{305}\approx17.464\). Standardizing the threshold gives \[ z=\frac{-120-(-150)}{\sqrt{305}} =\frac{30}{17.464}\approx1.718. \] The normal approximation is therefore \(P(N_1-N_2\le-120)\approx\Phi(1.718)\approx0.957\).
This is a marginal probability for a contrast, not a claim that \(N_1\) and \(N_2\) are independent. Their covariance is \(-n(0.2)(0.5)=-50\), and that dependence is included in the contrast variance.
Worked Example: A Weighted Contrast Across Four Cells
Suppose \(n=1000\) and \(p=(0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4)^\mathsf{T}\). Approximate the probability that \(2N_1-N_2\ge30\).
Take \(a=(2,-1,0,0)^\mathsf{T}\). The mean per observation is \(\mu_a=2(0.1)-0.2=0\), and the second moment is \(2^2(0.1)+(-1)^2(0.2)=0.6\). Thus \(v_a=0.6\), the contrast has mean zero and standard deviation \(\sqrt{1000(0.6)}=\sqrt{600}\approx24.495\). Using the normal approximation at the threshold 30 gives \[ P(2N_1-N_2\ge30)\approx 1-\Phi\left(\frac{30}{\sqrt{600}}\right) =1-\Phi(1.225)\approx0.110. \] The contrast takes integer values, so a continuity correction can instead use 29.5 as the boundary for this upper-tail event. That gives \(1-\Phi(29.5/\sqrt{600})\approx0.114\). Both calculations use the same contrast variance; the corrected version adjusts for the integer spacing.
Using the Approximation Carefully
The joint limit is useful when cell counts are large enough for their centered fluctuations to be reasonably represented by a Gaussian vector. It gives a coherent covariance structure for simultaneous fluctuations and, through linear contrasts, approximations to many questions of practical interest: differences between groups, weighted scores, or totals over selected cells. The scale is important: counts fluctuate on the order of \(\sqrt n\), while proportions fluctuate on the order of \(1/\sqrt n\).
A frequent mistake is to approximate the cell counts by independent normal variables with variances \(np_i(1-p_i)\). Those are the correct marginal variances, but independence is wrong. For \(i\ne j\), the exact covariance is \(-np_ip_j\), and the count total is fixed. Ignoring the negative covariances gives the wrong variance for contrasts and may assign probability to count vectors whose entries do not sum to \(n\). Instead, use \(n\Sigma\) for the joint count covariance or calculate \(a^\mathsf{T}\Sigma a\) for the particular contrast.
A second caution concerns a contrast with zero variance. In that case standardization is undefined, but the contrast itself is deterministic; there is no nondegenerate normal approximation to make. Finally, a limiting distribution describes behavior as \(n\) grows. At a particular finite sample size, especially for a rare cell or a far-tail event, it is an approximation rather than an exact probability.
Check Your Understanding
Use the definitions and results above to answer these questions.
- For three cells with probabilities \((0.1,0.6,0.3)\), what is the covariance between the first and second counts in a sample of size \(n\)?
- Why is the covariance matrix of multinomial counts singular, and what exact constraint on the counts explains this?
- For a contrast \(a^\mathsf{T}N\), state its mean and variance in terms of \(a\), \(p\), and \(n\).
- With probabilities \((0.25,0.25,0.5)\), does the contrast \(N_1-N_2\) have positive variance? Calculate the variance per observation and explain.
- Explain why separate normal approximations for each count do not justify treating the counts as independent.