7
$\begingroup$

Consider the function

$$f_{n}(x)=e^{-x^2}x^n.$$

and the function

$$h_p(x):=e^{-\vert x \vert^p}.$$

My goal is to analyze

$$ F_p(y):=\frac{(f_2*h_p)(y)}{(f_0*h_p)(y)}- \left(\frac{(f_1*h_p)(y) }{(f_0*h_p)(y)}\right)^2$$

Question: Can we show that $F_p$ has a global maximum at zero for $p>2$ and a global minimum at zero for $p<2$?

Here are graphs from Mathematica for

  • $F_1$, with a unique minimum

  • $F_4$, with a unique maximum

  • $F_{2+10^{-4}}$, i.e. with an exponent slightly above $2$

  • $F_{2-10^{-4}}$, i.e. with an exponent slightly below $2$

Further observations:

Iosif Pinelis showed that $F_2(y)$ is constant, see this earlier question of mine question I asked some days ago.

All functions $F_p$ are positive by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

The functions $F_p$ are not log-convex or log-concave in general.

Finally, I computed the first derivative for convolving with $e^{-\vert x \vert^p}$ at $p=2$ by numerically differentiating

If you have any other conjectures you would like to me to verify, I am happy to do so. Just leave a comment!

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ $x \mapsto e^{-x^2}$ isn't just some random medium-decaying function, though; it's an eigenfunction for the Fourier transform, and that's got to be significant. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ Have you tried exponents $p=2\pm\epsilon$ for small (maybe infinitesimally small) real $\epsilon$, instead of exponents $p\in\{1,4\}$ in $e^{-|x|^p}$? I'd think that a "phase transition" at $p=2$ would not be very surprising, since the resulting function is constant for $p=2$ and thus is on the border between the (log-)convexity and (log-)concavity. Also, what I see as a lack of a "global" "phase transition" is that the resulting function is $>0$ for $p=2$ but seems to be $<0$ for $p\in\{1,4\}$ -- whereas $1<2<4$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 22:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis Sorry, $2+10^{-5}$ was all I could do numerically but I gives the desired results. I also checked whether the functions are log-convex/log-concave in general. It seems they are not. So trying to verify some log-convexity/log-concavity here seems to be a misleading approach, at least as far as the numerics is concerned. The negativity was because I plotted logs. I clarified this now and plotted the actual function and one log. The actual functions are all positive by Cauchy-Schwarz (sorry for the confusion about what is plotted I hope it is much clearer now) $\endgroup$
    – Landauer
    Commented Jan 16, 2020 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis if you want me to test some other conjectures numerically, please let me know. Your help is greatly appreciated. $\endgroup$
    – Landauer
    Commented Jan 17, 2020 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Martinique : I don't understand what you got for $2+10^{-5}$. Did you mean for $p=2+10^{-5}$? Anyhow, what were the "desired results" you got? Did you try something like $p=2\pm10^{-3}$ or $p=2\pm10^{-2}$? (I mean both $+$ and $-$.) Did you try the derivative in $p$ at $p=2$? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 17, 2020 at 3:40

1 Answer 1

7
+200
$\begingroup$

Global minimum at $0$ for $p<2$ is trivial in the sense that you can see it without writing a single equation or inequality (i.e., a non-trivial formula with two sides and a sign in between comparing them).

Observation 1 $e^{-|x|^p}$ is some weighted average of $e^{-ax^2}$ with positive $a$.

Observation 2 The thingy you are interested in is just the variance of $x$ with respect to the probability measure $\mu_y$ whose density is proportional to $e^{-x^2}e^{-|x+y|^p}$. By observation 1, this measure is a mixture of the probability measures $\mu_{a,y}$ with densities proportional to $e^{-x^2}e^{-a(x+y)^2}$. The weight of $\mu_{a,y}$ in that mixture is proportional to something independent of $y$ times $e^{-\frac a{a+1}y^2}$, i.e., when we move $y$ away from the origin, the measures $\mu_{a,y}$ with lower $a$ gain more weight in the composition.

Observation 3. The variance of $x$ with respect to $\mu_{a,y}$ is independent of $y$ and decreases in $a$. To be exact, it is just inversely proportional to $1+a$.

Observation 4. The variance in the mixture is at least the mixture of the variances, which is minimized at $0$ by the independence of individual variances of $y$, observation 3, and the last sentence of observation 2. Also at $y=0$ we have equality because all means are at $0$ by symmetry.

The end.

I wish I could come up with an equally simple argument for $p>2$, but, alas, I don't have one at the moment.

Edit OK, I guess I finally figured it out. We'll prove the following statement. Let $\varphi$ be an even convex function such that $\varphi''$ increases on $[0,+\infty)$. Let $p_y(x)$ be the probability density proportional to $e^{yx}e^{-\varphi(x)}$. Then the variance of $x$ with respect to the corresponding probability measure is a non-increasing function of $y$ for $y>0$.

Indeed, let's differentiate in $y$. We have $p_{y+\delta y}(x)$ proportional to $p_y(x)(1+x\delta y)$ (the linearization of $e^{x\delta y}$), but if we leave it at that, the mass will change to $1+\delta y\int p_y(x)xdx=1+c\delta y$ where $c$ is the expectation of $x$ with respect to $p_y$, so we need to compensate by dividing by that factor, which will result in the linearization $$ p_{y+\delta y}(x)=(1+(x-c)\delta y)p_y(x) $$ Taking the linearization of the variance of $x-c$ now (which is the same as the variance of $x$ but easier to compute), we see that what we need to show is that $$ \int (x-c)^3p_y(x)dx\le 0. $$ We will show even that $\int_{x:|x-c|>a}(x-c)p_y(x)\le 0$ for all $a\ge 0$. The equality obviously holds for $a=0$ (the definition of $c$) and for $a=+\infty$. The derivative in $a$ is just $a(p_y(c-a)-p_y(c+a))$. I claim now that it can change sign only once for $a>0$ and that change is from $-$ to $+$. That is equivalent to saying that $\Phi(a)=\varphi_y(c-a)-\varphi_y(c+a)$, where $\varphi_y(x)=\varphi(x)-yx$, can change sign only once for $a>0$ and that change is from $+$ to $-$.

We clearly have $c>0$ for $y>0$. Therefore, the point $c-a$ is always closer to the origin than $c+a$ for $a>0$ whence, by the assumed property of the second derivative of $\varphi$ (the linear term coming from $yx$ can do nothing with the second derivative), $\Phi''<0$. Thus, if we start from $\Phi(0)=0$ in the positive direction, we change sign once from $+$ to $-$ as promised. If we had started in the negative direction, we would never be able to change sign at all and the integral we are interested in would be monotone all the way, which is ridiculous, because its values at $0$ and $+\infty$ are both $0$, so that case is impossible.

That takes care of $p>2$. If the second derivative of $\varphi$ were decreasing, then all inequalities would be reversed, so we can cover $p<2$ by this method as well and even get unimodality you see on the pictures, not just the global minimum at $0$.

I hope I haven't made any stupid mistake in the computations but, since it is nearly midnight here now, you'd better check them carefully :-)

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I still had to open the parenthesis in the quadratic polynomial and complete the square, I have to admit that :-) $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Jan 20, 2020 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Martinique OK, it looks like it is even simpler than I thought (provided I do not hallucinate after 11PM, of course) $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Jan 22, 2020 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ @Martinique "At least at first glance, it does not match the expression I wrote down in the question" Really? Your density is proportional to $e^{-|x|^p-(x-y)^2}=e^{-y^2}e^{-(|x|^p+x^2)}e^{2yx}$ (I prefer the shift in the convolution to be placed on the Gaussian this time). Nobody cares about $e^{-y^2}$ that is killed by the normalization and the rest is just of the kind I considered, isn't it? $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Jan 22, 2020 at 12:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Martinique The variance of $x$ is the same as of $x-y$. The individual terms are, indeed, not translation invariant, but the whole expression is. $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Jan 22, 2020 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ @Martinique You are welcome but now I'm perplexed a bit. If you have not known the probabilistic interpretation from the start, where did that monster come from? $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Jan 22, 2020 at 13:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .