1
$\begingroup$

Question

Given a random field $X(t)$ where the parameter space $T\subset\mathbb{R}_N$. Is there result regarding the concentration of the random field? For example

$\mathbb{P}\{\|X(t)-\mathbb{E}\{X(t)\}\|\geq t\}\leq \text{small}$ where $\|\cdot\|$ is certain norm, maybe $L_p$ norm.

Take the following random function as an example

$f(x):=f(x_1,x_2,x_3)=a_1\sin(x_1-x_2)+a_2\sin(x_2-x_3)$, where $a_1=1+w_1,a_2=1+w_2)$ and $w_1,w_2$ are independent standard Gaussian scalar. The coefficients $a_1,a_2$ are independent, and $x_1,x_2\in\mathbb{R}$.

The expectation of the random polynomial is $\mathbb{E}f(x)=\sin(x_1-x_2)+\sin(x_2-x_3)$, which is not random.

Then my question is the concentration of random function to its expectation $$\mathbb{P}\{\|a_1\sin(x_1-x_2)+a_2\sin(x_2-x_3)-\big(\sin(x_1-x_2)+\sin(x_2-x_3)\big)\|_{L_p}\geq t\}\leq \text{small}$$

What I tried

I read the book random fields and geometry - Robert J. Adler, Jonathan E. Taylor, and found it focus on (at least in the chapter 2) the exeedence probability

$$\mathbb{P}\{\sup_{t\in T}f(t)\geq u\}$$

I did not find concentration properties of random field in this book and other materials on random fields. I am not sure whether it is because I did not recognize them or there actually have no result regarding this type.

Anyone could help? Thanks!

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ In the Talagrand-Ledoux book "Probability in Banach spaces" link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20212-4 they go over general Orlicz norms and their concentration inequalities. If that is not helpful, please let us know. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "$a_1,a_2=1+w$ and $w$ is standard Gaussian scalar"? That "$a_1=a_2=1+w$ and $w$ is standard Gaussian scalar"? Or that "$a_1$ and $a_2$ are i.i.d. normal random variables each with mean $1$ and variance $1$"? Or something else? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 19:37
  • $\begingroup$ Also, what is known about $T$? Much can depend on that. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ @IosifPinelis $a_1$ and $a_2$ are i.i.d. normal random variables. I re-edited the post. $T$ is a set of dimension N, following the definition 2.1.1. of random field in the book (random fields and geometry). My question is a bit vague in the sense that I am wondering whether there exists this kind of concentration result.. $\endgroup$
    – tony
    Commented Apr 18, 2023 at 7:48
  • $\begingroup$ @ThomasKojar thank you very much. could you hint on which chapter I should look into? I am very new to this subject. $\endgroup$
    – tony
    Commented Apr 18, 2023 at 8:20

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\R{\mathbb R}$For real $x_1,x_2,x_3$, let
\begin{equation} g(x_1,x_2,x_3):=\sin(x_1-x_2),\quad h(x_1,x_2,x_3):=\sin(x_2-x_3). \end{equation} The request is to bound \begin{equation} P(Y\ge t) \end{equation} from above, where \begin{equation} Y:=\|w_1 g+w_2 h\|_{L^p} \end{equation} and $w_1,w_2$ are independent standard normal random variables.

If $\|\cdot\|_{L^p}$ is understood here as the standard norm on $L^p(\R^3)$, then $Y=\infty$ with probability $1$. This follows because, say, (i) $h(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ is nonzero, continuous, and periodic in $x_3$; (ii) the function $|\cdot|^p$ is continuous and has nonzero variation on any interval of nonzero length; and (iii) $P(w_2\ne0)=1$.

So, for the problem to make sense, assume that the norm $\|\cdot\|_{L^p}$ is the standard norm on $L^p(T)$, where $T$ is a measurable subset of $\R^3$ such that $G:=\|g\|_{L^p(T)}\in(0,\infty)$ and $H:=\|h\|_{L^p(T)}\in(0,\infty)$.

Then, by Minkowski's inequality, for $p\in[1,\infty]$, \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} P(Y\ge t)&\le P(G|w_1|+H|w_2|\ge t) \\ &\le P(G|w_1|\ge\tfrac G{G+H}\,t)+P(H|w_2|\ge\tfrac H{G+H}\,t) \\ &=2P(|w_1|\ge\tfrac t{G+H}) \\ &\le2\exp(-\tfrac{t^2}{2(G+H)^2}) \end{aligned} \end{equation} for real $t\ge0$.


It was assumed above that both $G$ and $H$ are $>0$. If exactly one of the norms $G$ and $H$ is $0$ (and still $G<\infty$ and $H<\infty$), then, similarly, $P(Y\ge t)\le\exp(-\tfrac{t^2}{2(G+H)^2})$ for real $t\ge0$. If $G=H=0$, then, clearly, $P(Y\ge t)=0$ for real $t>0$. So, when the condition that $G>0$ and $H>0$ does not hold, we have better upper bounds than $2\exp(-\tfrac{t^2}{2(G+H)^2})$.


Suppose now that \begin{equation} Y:=\|w_1 g_1+\cdots+w_n g_n\|_{L^p}, \end{equation} where $w_1,\dots,w_n$ are independent standard normal random variables and the $g_j$'s are deterministic functions in $L^p$ with $G:=\max_j\|g_j\|_{L^p}\in(0,\infty)$. Then for $p\in[2,\infty)$, by Theorem 3.3 (with $\Gamma=1$; see also typo correction) and Proposition 2.1, we have the following Bernstein-type bound: \begin{equation} P(Y\ge t)\le2\exp\Big(-\frac{t^2}{B^2+t+B\sqrt{B^2+2t}}\Big) \end{equation} for real $t\ge0$, where $B:=\sqrt{(p-1)G^2 n}$. In particular, if $t=O(\sqrt n)$ or, more generally, $t=o(n)$ as $n\to\infty$, then \begin{equation} P(Y\ge t)\le2\exp\Big(-\frac{t^2}{(2+o(1))B^2}\Big) =2\exp\Big(-\frac{t^2}{(2+o(1))(p-1)G^2 n}\Big), \end{equation} so that we have a normal-type upper bound on $P(Y\ge t)$ with an asymptotically correct constant factor $2+o(1)$ in the denominator of exponent (consider the special case when the $g_j$ is the constant $1$ on (say) the cube $[0,1]^d$, so that one may take here $p=2$).

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ thank you very much! I have question on the condition $G>0,H>0$, on which step this condition is used? Is it on the step $P(G|w_1|+H|w_2|\geq t)\leq P(G|w_1|\geq \frac{G}{G+H} t)+P(H|w_2|\geq \frac{H}{G+H}t)$? can the condition be relaxed a bit? $\endgroup$
    – tony
    Commented Apr 18, 2023 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ @M.K : The condition that $G>0$ and $H>0$ was used for the second line of the multiline display (to have $G+H>0$) and for the third line of that display (to divide by $G$ and $H$). I have now added details on the better bounds that we have when the condition that $G>0$ and $H>0$ does not hold. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 18, 2023 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ I have another question regarding the answer: to use Minkowski's inequality, we need $\sin(x_1-x_2)$ and $\sin(x_2-x_3)$ are linearly independent, but is it really the case that these two are linearly independent? what if $x_1-x_2=x_2-x_3$? Many thanks! $\endgroup$
    – tony
    Commented Apr 18, 2023 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! I tried the same analysis on the summation $f(x_1,\cdots,x_n)=\sum_{i,j}^n(1+w_{ij})\sin(x_i-x_j)$ where $w_{ij}$ are iid Gaussian. Let $T=[-\pi/2,\pi/2]^n$, I obtain $P\{\|\sum w_{ij}\sin(x_i-x_j)\|_{L^p(T)}\geq t\}\geq 2\exp(-\frac{t^2}{2m^2\pi^{2n/p}})$ where $m$ is the number of terms in $f(x)$. If $t$ is small, lets just assume it is 1 (not very small though), then when $n\rightarrow\infty$, the right hand-side goes to $1$, instead of $0$. But our objective is to proof for concentration. which means this bound should tend to one. Thus it seems this method is not sharp enough.. $\endgroup$
    – tony
    Commented Apr 18, 2023 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ @M.K : (i) No, Minkowski's inequality does not presume any linear independence. (ii) Regarding your latter comment, I will address it later. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 18, 2023 at 18:48

You must log in to answer this question.

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