6
$\begingroup$

Let $A \subset \{-1,1\}^{n}$ be a subset of the Hamming cube with cardinality $|A|=2^{n-1}$. Define $w_{A} : \{-1,1\}^{n} \to \mathbb{N}\cup \{0\}$ so that $w_{A}(x)$ to be number of boundary edges to $A$ containing $x$, i.e., $w_{A}(x)$ counts number of edges of $\{-1,1\}^{n}$ with endpoints in $A$ and in the complement of $A$ so that one of the endpoint is $x$. Clearly $w_{A}(x)=0$ if $x$ is in the "strict interior" of $A$, or in the "strict complement" of $A$, and it is nonzero if and only if $x$ is on the "boundary" of $A$. Notice that $w_{A}(x)$ can be nonzero for some $x \notin A$.

The classical edge–isoperimetric inequality on the Hamming cube of Harper implies that $$ \frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{x \in \{-1,1\}^{n}}w_{A}(x) \geq 1 $$ and the constant $1$ on the right hand side is sharp.

My question is what is known about the best possible $C(p)\geq 0$ such that $$ \frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{x \in \{-1,1\}^{n}}w_{A}^{p/2}(x) \geq C(p), \quad 1\leq p\leq 2 $$ for all sets $A \subset \{-1,1\}^{n}$ with cardinality $2^{n-1}$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just a remark: you can ask the same question for $0 < p \leq 2$. Then as $p$ tends to zero the problem degenerates into the vertex-isopermetric inequality, whose minimizers are Hamming balls instead of half-cubes. One can check that half-cubes become better than Hamming balls when $p>p_0(n)$ with $p_0(n)<1$ and $\lim p_0(n)=1$. It is possible that $C(p)=1$ for all $p \geq 1$ ? $\endgroup$ May 17, 2017 at 8:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AnthonyQuas Note that raising power is $p/2$ (and not $p$) $\endgroup$ May 17, 2017 at 14:12
  • $\begingroup$ @GuillaumeAubrun: thanks - I removed my comment $\endgroup$ May 17, 2017 at 14:55
  • $\begingroup$ @GuillaumeAubrun I am not sure about $C(p)=1$ for $p\geq 1$. For $1<p\leq 2$ I can show that $C(p)\geq Z_{p/(p-1)}^{p}$ where $Z_{q}$ is the smallest positive zero of the confluent hypergeometric function $M(-q/2, 1/2, x^{2}/2)$. $\endgroup$ May 17, 2017 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For certain values of $n$ and $p<1$ you can beat both the Hamming ball and the half-cube ; for example $n=5$, $p/2=0.43$, and $A$ the set of vertices with a majority of $1$ among the first 3 coordinates. It seems reasonable to conjecture that extremizers will always be obtained as the intersection of the discrete cube with a half-space in $\mathbb{R}^n$. $\endgroup$ May 19, 2017 at 8:45

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

The bound $C(1) \geq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}$ follows from "Bobkov's Inequality" [Bob97], which says that for any $f : \{-1,1\}^n \to [0,1]$ it holds that $\mathcal{U}(\mathbb{E}[f]) \leq \mathbb{E}\sqrt{\mathcal{U}(f)^2 + |\nabla f|^2}$, where $\nabla f$ is the discrete gradient $\nabla f(x) = \left(\frac{f(x_1, \dots, x_{i-1}, 1, x_{i+1}, \dots, x_n) - f(x_1, \dots, x_{i-1}, -1, x_{i+1}, \dots, x_n)}{2}\right)_{i=1\dots n}$ and $\mathcal{U}$ denotes the "Gaussian isoperimetric function" $\phi \circ \overline{\Phi}^{-1}$ (with $\phi$ the Gaussian pdf and $\overline{\Phi}$ the Gaussian complementary cdf). In particular, if $f$ is the $0$-$1$ indicator of a set $A \subseteq \{-1,1\}^n$, then this reduces to $\mathbb{E}_x[\sqrt{w_A(x)}] \geq \mathcal{U}(\text{vol}(A))$, where $\text{vol}(A) = |A|/2^{n}$. Thus in your case where $\text{vol}(A) = 1/2$ we get a lower bound of $\mathcal{U}(1/2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}$.

This is sharp up to a factor of $\sqrt{2}$ by virtue of the "Majority" function -- i.e., $A$ being a Hamming ball of radius $n/2$ -- which has $\mathbb{E}_x[\sqrt{w_A(x)}] \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}$. Bobkov remarks on this missing factor of $\sqrt{2}$; presumably $\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}$ is the correct answer but it's not known how to improve $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}$ as far as I'm aware.

Given this result, one can get $C(p) \geq \left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\right)^{p/2}$ for any $1 < p < 2$ by monotonicity of $\ell_p$-norms, which is a decent bound but is surely not optimal. Getting the optimal answer in this range is presumably harder than getting the optimal answer for $p = 1$.

By the way, it was Talagrand who first studied the $p = 1$ case; this notion of looking at the average square-root of the number of sensitive coordinates seems to be a pretty good notion of "discrete surface area". Talagrand's original paper [Tal93] proved Bobkov's Inequality (for sets $A$) up to a universal constant factor on the LHS; in particular, he established $C(1)$ is bounded away from $0$ by a univeral constant.

[Bob97] Bobkov, S.G., An isoperimetric inequality on the discrete cube and an elementary proof of the isoperimetric inequality in Gauss space, Ann. Probab. 25, No.1, 206-214 (1997). ZBL0883.60031.

[Tal93] Talagrand, M., Isoperimetry, logarithmic Sobolev inequalities on the discrete cube, and Margulis' graph connectivity theorem, Geom. Funct. Anal. 3, No.3, 295-314 (1993). ZBL0806.46035.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. By the way if $f$ is 0-1 indicator of a set $A \subseteq \{-1,1\}^{n}$ then $|\nabla \chi_{A}| = \frac{\sqrt{w_{A}(x)}}{2}$ and Bobkov's inequality gives $C(1)\geq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\approx 0.79$. But Hamming balls give $C(1)\leq \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}$ which is worse than $C(1)\leq 1$. So the optimizer cannot be Hamming ball in this particular case $\endgroup$ May 19, 2017 at 16:24
2
$\begingroup$

We just posted a preprint on arXiv with David Beltran and Jose Madrid, where in Corollary 1.7 it is proved that $$ C(p)=1 \quad \text{for all} \quad p \geq 1.06 $$ partially answering the question. Using the techniques from the paper one could push $1.06$ up to $p_{0} =1.0598....$ which is the smallest positive number such that the polynomial $$ P(y) = (11-\frac{70}{9}\cdot 2^{1/2})2^{7}y^{6}+(2^{1/2+7}-181)\frac{2^{6}}{3}y^{5}+(1453-\frac{3082}{2}\cdot 2^{1/2})\frac{2^{3}}{3}y^{4}-(\frac{331}{3}-78\cdot2^{1/2})2^{4}y^{3}+(563-\frac{1192}{3}\cdot 2^{1/2})\frac{2}{3}y^{2}-(47-2^{1/2+5})\frac{2}{3}y+2^{p/2}-1 $$ of degree 6 is nonnegative on $[0,1]$.

So it looks like (as Guillaume Aubrun pointed out in the comment) we should have $C(p)=1$ for all $p\geq 1$. The lower bound $C(1)\geq \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}=0.79...$ coming from Bobkov's inequality that Ryan mentioned turns out not to be sharp. There is another nice paper of Bobkov--Gotze which implies $C(1)\geq \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}=0.86...$. This bound is also not sharp, in the paper we show $C(1)\geq \sqrt{2^{3/2}-2}=0.91...$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.