New paper on arXiv: Concentration on the Boolean hypercube via pathwise stochastic analysis

I’m happy to say that my advisor Ronen Eldan and I somewhat recently uploaded a paper to the arXiv under the title “Concentration on the Boolean hypercube via pathwise stochastic analysis” (https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12067), wherein we prove inequalities on the Boolean hypercube using a cool continuous-time random process.

In the previous post, I pretended that I had the proper qualifications and gave a brief (if not brave) introduction to classical Boolean analysis. This post will be a lot more stochastic, and will explain the main ideas behind our paper.

For your stochastic convenience, here is a small table of contents.
  1. Building randomness
  2. Jumping in the cube
  3. Wielding the process
  4. Let’s prove something!
  5. And many more

Building randomness

Probability distributions on the hypercube \{-1,1\}^n play an important role in Boolean analysis: Many of the properties of Boolean functions are expressed using probabilities and expectations. For example, the influence of coordinate i of a function f:\{-1,1\}^n \to \mathbb{R} , which is a measure of how important the i -th bit x_i is in determining the value of f , is defined by

\mathrm{Inf}_i (f) = \mathbb{P}\left[f(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_i,\ldots,x_n) \neq f(x_1,x_2,\ldots,-x_i,\ldots,x_n)\right],

where x is uniformly random point on the hypercube. Similarly, the variance of a function f is given by

\mathrm{Var}(f) = \mathbb{E}\left(f - \mathbb{E}(f)\right)^2,

where the \mathbb{E} symbol indicates expectation over a uniformly random x . A lot of theorems can then be thought of probabilistically: The KKL inequality, for example, which says that

\mathrm{Var}(f) \leq \frac{C}{\log (1/\max_i\{\mathrm{Inf}_i(f)\})} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathrm{Inf}_i(f),

certainly has its fair share of uniformly random vectors running around.

When analyzing these types of inequalities, you can approach this use of randomness from several directions. The first, and simplest, is to just bluntly say “Ok, I have a uniformly random vector x \in \{-1,1\}^n , and that’s that!” and see what you can learn. After all, generating a uniformly random vector on the hypercube is easy: Just flip n independent coins. But as it turns out, sometimes you can learn a lot about the expectations and random quantities you seek to bound, by thinking of randomness as a process which evolves over time, with the uniform measure as the final goal.

For example, instead of flipping all n coins at once, you can think of a discrete process where you flip one coin at a time, effectively “revealing” the bits of the uniform vector x one by one. At time i , you reveal bit x_i , and see what you can learn just from revealing this particular bit. Perhaps you can prove that some quantity can only increase when you reveal a new bit, or that in expectation it increases. Perhaps you can learn something about the individual influences, since now you are in a better position to talk about the effect of individual bits. After n steps of doing this, you’ll have the complete, uniformly random vector x \in \{-1,1\}^n in your hand, and so you’ll be back to the case described in the previous paragraph, but perhaps you’ll be a little smarter.

This kind of approach is already quite old, and has put much bread on mathematicians’ tables, including my advisor’s table (and also, evidently, mine). Our new paper uses the same basic idea – to generate “more and more randomness” until reaching the final distribution – to learn something about Boolean functions. However, the way we generate this randomness is a bit more sophisticated than simply revealing one coin flip at a time. Whereas the “revealing” process is discrete – it always takes n steps to finish – our method uses a continuous time stochastic process, one that depends on a real-valued time parameter t \in [0,1] , to create the randomness. This random process, which we denote B_t from here till the end of time, is in general a vector in the continuous hypercube [-1,1]^n . At time t = 0 , it will always be equal to (0,0,\ldots,0) , and at time t=1 , it will always be uniformly distributed on the corners, i.e on the discrete hypercube \{-1,1\}^n . And at times in the middle? Well, at those times it will do all sorts of wacky, but analyzable, things. The main idea is that by inspecting the individual paths that the process takes, we will be able to say, “hey! With high probability, somewhere in the middle, the influences are larger than the variance!”, or similar statements about other quantities which relate to f . Knowing that something happens at an intermediate time t < 1 will let us say something meaningful about the same quantities at the end, when t = 1 and when the process just distributes uniformly; but those are precisely the quantities that theorems like KKL like to bound.

Jumping in the cube

So how do you create a process that’s always contained in the continuous hypercube [-1,1]^n , at time t=0 it is 0 , and at time t=1 it is uniformly distributed on the discrete hypercube \{-1,1\}^n ? First, to make life easier, we’ll search for one where the individual coordinates are independent and identically distributed; in other words we’ll set B_t = \left(B^{(1)}_t, B^{(2)}_t, \ldots, B^{(n)}_t\right) , where the B^{(i)}_t s are each independent copies of some one dimensional process X_t . In this case, the problem reduces to finding a such an X_t , so that X_0 = 0 , and at time t=1 , X_1 is just a coin flip:

\mathbb{P}[X_1 = 1] = \mathbb{P}[X_1 = -1] = 1/2.

But again, what happens in between? Generally, we’re allowed to do anything we want in between: We could make X_t just sit there at 0 doing nothing until time 1 , and then spontaneously jump to \pm 1 ; we could make it move about chaotically all over the interval [-1,1] , eventually stitching it so that it reaches its final destination in time. But none of these options are any good for us, if we wish to analyze the behavior of X_t at intermediate times: In the first case, there is nothing at all to learn since the process does nothing, while in the latter case, there is nothing at all to learn since the process does too much. As in all things in life, we must balance randomness and order.

The first process is too benign; the second is too random.

Here is a good way to do this. First, we prevent X_t from whizzing about the interval, by forcing its magnitude to increase; specifically, we demand that |X_t| = t for all t . This means that X_t “chooses a direction”, either 1 or -1 , and then walks a short bout in that direction. However, it does not mean that it is deterministic: At any given time, X_t could decide to change its mind, and reverse its position, i.e jump from t to -t , or from -t to t . In this way, we remove all randomness from the magnitude |X_t| ; all the randomness of X_t is then only found in its sign, and when it decides to flip it. There are still infinitely many ways to choose this randomness, of course, but there is one particular way which really, really helps analysis: Forcing X_t to be a martingale.

In general, a martingale is a random process which, on average, doesn’t move. Very informally: If you know exactly where X_s is at some time s , then the expected position X_t at all times t>s is still X_s . A bit more formally, we write this as

\mathbb{E}[X_t \mid X_s] = X_s.

The theory of martingales is a wide, strong pillar of probability theory, and many problems in life can be solved by “finding the right martingale”. This is because there are many theorems which describe how wildly martingales can fluctuate. If we can manage for X_t to be a martingale, we’d be in a very good position for proving things about it later on.

Of course, I wouldn’t be telling you this if it weren’t possible. It turns out that you can indeed make X_t into a martingale, and in fact, since we demand that |X_t| = t , there is only one way to do this!

Theorem: There is a unique stochastic process X_t such that

  1. |X_t| = t for all t \in [0,1] .
  2. X_t is a martingale.

The process is unique, because these two conditions tell us exactly what the probability is to jump at any given time. Suppose that X_t is positive at some particular time t ; the first item then tells us that X_t = t . At time t+\varepsilon , either X_t keeps the same sign, so that X_{t+\varepsilon} = t+\varepsilon , or it flips its sign, so that X_{t+\varepsilon} = -t-\varepsilon . If p is the probability that the sign changes, then the expected value at time t+\varepsilon given that we know that X_t = t , is

\mathbb{E}[X_{t+\varepsilon} \mid X_t = t] = (1-p)(t+\varepsilon) + p(-t - \varepsilon).

But X_t is a martingale, so \mathbb{E}[X_{t+\varepsilon}\mid X_t = t] = t , which gives

t = (1-p)(t+\varepsilon) + p(-t - \varepsilon).

Solving for p , the probability of a jump is

\mathbb{P}\left[\mathrm{sign}(X_t) \neq \mathrm{sign}(X_{t+\varepsilon})\right] = \frac{\varepsilon}{2(t+\varepsilon)}.

So the probability of jumping in a small interval of size \varepsilon is pretty much \varepsilon / 2t , and, informally, if we send \varepsilon \to 0 , we may think that the “rate of jumps” at time t is 1/2t , or better yet, the “density” of jumps is 1/2t : The probability of jumping at any single particular point is 0, but for every finite interval we have some probability of having a jump. This is very much like what happens for continuous random variables: For example, if Z is a uniform random variable in [0,1] , then the probability that Z = \alpha is 0 for any given \alpha , but Z has a density, and certainly has a positive probability to appear in any subinterval of [0,1] . Also, do not be alarmed by the fact that this rate goes to \infty as t \to 0 ; all it means is that in intervals of the form [0,t_0] , the process X_t jumps infinitely many times. This is perfectly fine, thank you very much, and X_t is happy to do so. In any case, if you look at intervals of the form [t_0, 1] , in those intervals the process X_t jumps only finitely many times.

Here are some examples of how the different realizations of X_t might look like. Of course X_t is a random process, and jumps at random times, so I had to use a random-number generator to draw them.

And, just to showcase some pretty colors, here are some examples of the n -dimensional process B_t , for n=3 : Each color represents a different sample path, and each path is just a collection of three independent copies of X_t .

For the connoisseur: If you know anything about fish, then you might smell a Poisson point process in the above construction. And you’d be on the nose! The process X_t is essentially a Poisson process with jump rate \lambda = 1/2t .

You can see that this method of constructing randomness is quite different than revealing coin flips one at a time. If we look at B_t at time t < 1 , we never see a complete “uniform point on the discrete hypercube”. Rather, we get some point which “hasn’t quite decided” what it’s going to be when it grows up. If a coordinate B^{(i)}_t is equal to t , then it is currently “in favor” of eventually evolving to the value 1 . However, there is always a chance that it will flip its value to -t , in which case it will be in favor of eventually evolving to the value -1 . The larger the value t , the more certain each bit is in what its going to be: If we peek at time t=0 , there is equal probability that B^{(i)}_1 = 1 and that B^{(i)}_1 = -1 . However, if we know that at time 0.999 , B^{(i)}_{0.999} is positive, then with high probability it won’t jump in the remaining 0.001 seconds, and will continue in its current course until B^{(i)}_1 = 1 . The analysis we perform in our paper utilizes this fact by looking at the value of f on these “haven’t quite decided yet” points and saying something about how f behaves when the points reach their final destination. (“Ah!” you say, “but f is a Boolean function and expects points on the discrete hypercube, not some hesitant scoundrels”. Read on to see how to get around this!)

Wielding the process

Now that we have a randomness-generating process B_t , the first thing we have to do is connect it somehow to the properties of f that we want to bound. To do that, we refer to the ancient mathematics proverb, “Have you tried using Fourier yet?”. Every function f:\{-1,1\}^n \to \mathbb{R} can be decomposed into a sum of monomials, known as the Fourier representation:

f(x) = \sum_{S\subseteq [n]} \widehat{f}(S) \prod_{i\in S} x_i.

The basic magic of this formula says that for functions mapping to \pm 1 , even though the Fourier coefficients \widehat{f}(S) are generally fractions, whenever you plug in a point x\in \{-1,1\}^n , you will always get either +1 or -1 . But this formula is also a great way to interpolate the value of f for points x \in [-1,1]^n in the continuous hypercube: You just plug in the values of x into the monomials as usual, and that’s it. In this way, we can compose f with the random jumping process described above, giving us a new, random jumping process, which we denote f_t :

f_t := f(B_t).

Here are some examples of how this behaves for the majority function; each color is a different sample path:
Just as B_t can be seen as process which “increases the amount of randomness” as the time t goes from 0 to 1 , so can f_t be seen as a process which is “unsure” of which value of f to take, until finally, as we add more and more randomness and home in on the coordinate that B_t reaches, f decides which value to take.

Since B_0 = 0 , we always have

f_0 = f(0) = \widehat{f}(\emptyset) = \mathbb{E}f,

whereas at time t=1 , we always have f_1 = \pm 1 . Of course, since B_1 is uniform on the discrete hypercube, we can also extract the expectation of f by

\mathbb{E}f = \mathbb{E}f_1,

and similarly for the variance:

\mathrm{Var}(f) = \mathrm{Var}(f_1).

It is important to distinguish between two different types of expectations here. In Boolean analysis, when we write \mathbb{E}f , we usually mean “sum over all points in the discrete hypercube and divide by 2^n “. This is just an expectation over the uniform distribution on the hypercube. But whenever we involve B_t , we actually use an infinite amount of randomness under the hood: There are infinitely many possible paths that B_t can take, and there are always paths with as many jumps as we could possibly want. So expectations of the type \mathbb{E}f_1 actually go over all the infinitely many paths and scattered jumps that B_t can go through, and average those. Luckily for us, we just happened to choose B_t so that B_1 is uniform anyway, so all the complexities in the paths are smoothed out when we take ordinary expectations. The real fun will start once we actually look at specific properties of specific paths.

One cool thing about the process f_t is that it can be seen as a sort of “fine grained” noise. Recall that for 0 \leq \rho \leq 1 , the noise operator T_\rho f is defined by

T_\rho f (x) = \mathbb{E}[f(y)],

where y is \rho -correlated with x . We saw in the previous post (or, perhaps, you saw in kindergarten) that the Fourier coefficients of T_\rho f are related to those of f by a power of \rho :

T_\rho f(x) = \sum_{S \subseteq [n]} \widehat{f}(S) \cdot \rho^{|S|} \prod_{\i\in S} x_i.

If we consider B_t as a “not-quite-sure-where-I’m-gonna-be” point on the hypercube, it too leads to a noising effect: For if we stop to look at B_t at some intermediate time t<1 , then B_1 is correlated with the signs of B_t at time t . In other words, if we know that B^{(i)}_t = t , then it has a higher probability of reaching +1 than -1 , so B^{(i)}_1 is correlated with 1 . The opposite is true if we know that B^{(i)}_t = -t , so taking expectations of the form

\mathbb{E}[f_1 \mid B_t = (a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_n)], ~~~~ |a_i| = t

gives us exactly the definition of T_\rho f(x) , where x_i = \mathrm{sign}(a_i) , and \rho = t ! (ok, showing that \rho = t requires a short calculation, but one that even the faint-of-heart will like). Each path of B_t is like choosing a specific y which is \rho -correlated to some x , and taking expectations is akin to looking at all \rho -correlated vectors of all possible points x , i.e the expectations over the noise operator. So using B_t , we can “simulate” \rho -correlation, and thus replicate hypercontractivity results – just look at the norm \|f_t\|^2_2 and compare it to \|T_\rho f\|^2_2 . I guess some of us would consider it very reassuring that, after 5 pages of definitions and calculations, we finally see that in using B_t we haven’t lost any power over the conventional, hypercontractivity methods. Very reassuring.

But in fact, B_t can help us for more than just noise-operating. Recall that B_t is a martingale, i.e for all s\leq t ,

\mathbb{E}[B_t \mid B_s] = B_s.

Since its entries are independent, and since f_t is just a sum of monomials of B_t , it turns out that f_t is also a martingale:

\mathbb{E}[f_t \mid f_s] = f_s.

This is a Good Thing, since for all their randomness, martingales are relatively well behaved creatures. For example, for every path of f_t , we can define something called the quadratic variation, denoted [f]_t , which in our case is the sum of squares of jumps of f until time t :

[f]_t = \sum_{s \in \{\text{jumps of } B \text{ until time }t\}} (\Delta f_s)^2.

This too is a random process, which also increases in jumps – it increases whenever f_t makes a jump. If the sample path of f_t is extremely benign, and has almost no jumps at all, then the quadratic variation will always be small. But if f_t is a wild beast and leaps all over the place, then [f]_t will eventually reach great heights. But the shtick is that for martingales, the variance of f_t is always equal to the expected value of the quadratic variation at time t :

\mathrm{Var}(f_t) = \mathbb{E}[[f]_t].

This is a wonderful theorem. Since the Boolean-function-wise variance \mathrm{Var}(f) is just equal to the stochastic-process-wise variance \mathrm{Var}(f_1) , this gives us an alternate description of the variance:

\mathrm{Var}(f) = \mathbb{E}\sum_{s \in \{\text{jumps of } B \text{ until time }1\}} (\Delta f_s)^2.

But what are the jumps of f_t ? The process f_t can only jump if B_t jumps, and B_t only jumps in one coordinate at a time (I mean, come on – what are the odds that two coordinates jump at exactly simultaneously?). And when coordinate i jumps, the value of B^{(i)}_t changes by 2t (it goes from \pm t to \mp t ). All the other values stay the same, and so the size of the jump is

\Delta f_t = 2t\partial_i f(B_t).

Plugging this in, the variance of f is bounded by

\mathrm{Var}(f) = \mathbb{E}\sum_{s \in \{\text{jumps of } B \text{ until time }1\}} (2t\partial_i f(B_s))^2.

This should smell oddly familiar to all of us (you included) – the field of Boolean analysis is littered with equations comparing the variance to the influences (after all, this is the essence of inequalities like Poincaré and KKL), and the influences are in general given by \mathbb{E}[(\partial_i f)^2] . So all the components we know and love are here, but in a more continuous form, and involving this weird summation over “jump times” thing.

Luckily, we can get rid of this awkward jump set. The expectation in the expression \mathbb{E}(2t\partial_i f(B_s))^2 means that we go over all possible sample-paths of B_t , ask “Please tell me all the points where this particular path jumped”, and then take the squares of the jumps. But we could perform this sum another way: Instead of going over sample paths, we could go over all points t \in [0,1] , and ask “Please give me all sample-paths which jumped at this point”, and then sum up those jumps. This can be done since we know the density of jumps at a given point t – it’s just 1/2t ! – and we can integrate over this rate. Eventually we get

\mathrm{Var}(f) = \mathbb{E} \int_0^1 2t(\partial_i f(B_s))^2 ds.

If you’re an integral-type person, this already must be much nicer for you than that awful sum over jumps. But even if you are not prejudiced towards the continuous, this form certainly has its merits – now we can use all sorts of real-valued analytic tools to bound the right hand side.

Let’s prove something!

The fiery-hearted among you must already be wriggling in their chairs, demanding to see what all this is good for. Let’s prove something!

Boolean analysts are humble; all a Booleanist wants to do in life is to prove inequalities between different properties of Boolean functions. Perhaps the most famous inequality is the KKL inequality, proven by Kahn, Kalai and Linial in 1988:

Theorem (KKL): Let f: \{-1,1\}^n \to \{-1,1\} be a Boolean function. Then

\mathrm{Var}(f) \leq \frac{C}{\log (1/\max_i\{\mathrm{Inf}_i(f)\})} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathrm{Inf}_i(f).

Here C is some fixed constant, and we don’t really care about its value; in fact, throughout the rest of this post, C will represent some universal constant whose value can change from line to line (and even in the same line!), which will always be large enough or small enough to suit whatever needs we have at the moment. They sure don’t make constants like they used to.

The KKL inequality is tight for a function called “Tribes”: This is a balanced function (so \mathrm{Var}(f) = 1 ) where every influence is of order (\log n) / n . The right hand side of KKL is then

\frac{1}{\log (1/\delta)} \sum_{i=1}^{n}\mathrm{Inf}_i(f) \approx \frac{\log n} {\log(n/\log n)} \approx C,

which is indeed C times the variance. However, there are other functions for which the two sides of the KKL are very far apart. For example, the majority function, where the influences are all of order 1/\sqrt{n} . In that case, the right hand side is of order \sqrt{n}/\log n , while the left hand side is still 1 !

Luckily, there are other inequalities in the world, and as every analyst soon enough learns, many of them were discovered by mathematician Michel Talagrand. In a paper from 1993, he showed the following.

For a point x \in \{-1,1\}^n , let h_f(x) be the number of neighbors of x in the hypercube on which f takes a different value (in other words, h_f(x) = \#\{i \in [n] \mid f(x) \neq f(x^{\oplus i})\} , where x^{\oplus i} is the same as x but with the i -th bit flipped).

Theorem: For every f:\{-1,1\}^n ,

\mathbb{E}\sqrt{h_f} \geq C \cdot \mathrm{Var}(f).

I won’t get into the “why did Talagrand even look at \sqrt{h_f} ” here. Talagrand’s inequality is incomparable with the KKL inequality: It’s not tight for the Tribes function, but it is tight for majority (this is an exercise for the enthusiastic reader). I’m not getting into the details of all this because what’s important to us is that Talagrand conjectured that an even stronger (and even more weird-looking) version of it holds, one that implies the KKL inequality when the variance is constant:

Conjecture: For every f:\{-1,1\}^n ,

\mathbb{E}\sqrt{h_f} \geq C \cdot \mathrm{Var}(f) \sqrt{\log \frac{1}{\sum_i \mathrm{Inf}_i(f)^2}}.

This conjecture is stronger than the original theorem whenever the sum of the squared influences goes to 0; in this case, the \log can become quite large, and so it’s more marvelous that \mathbb{E} \sqrt{h_f} still manages to be larger than the right-hand side.

As luck would have it, by inspecting the behavior of the process f_t for times t<1 , my advisor and I were able to show that Talagrand’s conjecture holds true. Let’s see how (in general strokes).

Michel Talagrand. Saying “Talagrand’s inequality” is like saying “Euler’s theorem”.

The first thing to do when presented with a new inequality is to see how the various quantities can expressed using the process f_t . In this case the interesting suspect is \sqrt{h_f} , whose definition is

h_f(x) = \#\{i \in [n] \mid f(x) \neq f(x^{\oplus i})\}.

For any given x , we get a contribution from coordinate i only if \partial_i f(x) \neq 0 ; and since \partial_i f(x) = \pm 1 in this case, we can write

\sqrt{h_f(x)} = \sqrt{\sum_i \left(\partial_i(f)\right)^2} = \| \nabla f(x)\|_2.

Note that the norm here \| \nabla f(x)\|_2 is just the Euclidean 2 -norm of the n -dimensional vector \nabla f(x) . We actually want to bound the expectation of \sqrt{h_f} , though:

\mathbb{E}\sqrt{h_f} = \mathbb{E}\|\nabla f\|_2.

We already know how to relate expectations of quantities to B_t , and so we define a new process, which we call \Psi_t :

\Psi_t := \| \nabla f (B_t) \|_2.

Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to bound \mathbb{E}\Psi_1 from below!

To do this, we use the fact that \Psi_t is a submartingale. Perhaps a bit confusingly, a submartingale is a process such that for all s \leq t ,

\mathbb{E}[\Psi_t \mid \Psi_s] \geq \Psi_s.

(You’d think that the “sub” in the “submartingale” means that it’s always smaller than a martingale, but it’s the other way around. Then, when you’re lecturing and want to define it, you get confused if it’s the other way around from the other way around, or if it’s the other way around from the original way around, generally resulting in all-around confusion. But it always clears out, in the end).

To show that \Psi_t is a submartingale, we use use fact that \nabla f(B_t) is a martingale (and this is no different from showing that f_t is a martingale, so if you were alright with that, you’ll be alright with this). Then we notice that \| \cdot \|_2 is a convex function, and so we can apply Jensen’s inequality.

The submartingale property is very useful: If we ever find an explicit time so that \Psi_t is large, then we know that in conditional expectation, \Psi_1 will also be large! And if it so happens that with high probability there exists an explicit time so that \Psi_t is large, then we can condition on this event, and show that the overall expectation will be large. More formally, we define a random stopping time:

\tau = \inf \biggl\{0\leq t \leq 1 \mid  \Psi_t \geq C \sqrt{\log \frac{1}{\sum_i \mathrm{Inf}_i(f)^2}} \biggr\} \land 1.

In words, for every sample path of \Psi_t , we let \tau be the first time that \Psi_t was larger than a constant times the horrendous square root. If for that particular sample path there was no such time, then we just set \tau to be 1 . This is a random quantity: For every sample path it will be different. So if we can show that with probability at least C \mathrm{Var}(f) the event \{ \tau < 1\} occurs, i.e there was a time such that \Psi_\tau is large, we’d totally win: For then,

\mathbb{E}[\Psi_1] \geq ~\mathbb{E}[\Psi_\tau \mid \tau < 1] \mathbb{P}[\tau < 1]~ \geq C  \mathrm{Var}(f) \sqrt{\log \frac{1}{\sum_i \mathrm{Inf}_i(f)^2}},

and we’d be done!

Note that this technique makes use of the trick that I’ve alluded to throughout this entire post – that using B_t , you can analyze processes like f_t or \Psi_t for times t < 1 , and in fact look at properties of individual paths in order to say something meaningful about what happens at time t = 1 . Using the relation of B_t to \rho -correlation, noising and hypercontractivity, one way of looking at this technique is as “different-time noising”. That is, we do not pick just one single \rho and apply it to f , but rather, we pick a distribution of \rho ‘s, one for each sample path of B_t , which comes from \tau . The fact that \tau is random effectively means that for every path we apply a different quantity of noise.

I won’t go into too much detail about how to prove the statement that \mathbb{P}[\tau < 1] \geq  C \mathrm{Var}(f) , since the technical details take several pages in the paper, and this post is long enough as it is. Suffice it to say, that the proof also uses path-wise analysis, inspecting how individual paths behave. Very briefly, the argument goes as follows:

  1. Recall that using the quadratic variation, we showed that

    \mathrm{Var}(f) = \mathbb{E} \int_0^1 2t(\partial_i f(B_s))^2 ds.

    Using similar methods, it’s possible to show that the expected value of the quadratic variation of only those paths which always have small gradient \|\nabla f(B_t)\| is also equal to a similar integral. This integral is then bounded using various analytic techniques. Eventually, this gives:

    \mathbb{E}[\text{Quadratic variation of paths with small gradient}] \leq C \mathrm{Var}(f).

  2. On the other hand, by inspecting how likely large jumps in individual paths are, we show that the quadratic variation has a high probability of being large, regardless of whether or not the gradient was small all the time:

    \mathbb{P}[[f]_t > 1/8] > C.

Combining these two facts shows that there cannot be too large a probability for getting paths where the gradient is always small; there is always a non-negligible probability of getting a sample path with a large gradient hiding somewhere. This effectively says that \tau < 1 with large probability (here “large probability” is “C \mathrm{Var}(f) “).

And many more

Even as we speak, hundreds (if not thousands) of forced-labour researchers are hard at work, proving additional theorems using the process B_t and its associates. In fact, our own paper has two other results which use it, strengthening another already-known inequality by Talagrand. I hope that you, in your research (whether it be on hypercontractivity, functional analysis, or dancing-patterns of honeybees), will be able to use such processes for both fun and profit.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s