Algebraic methods toward higher-order probability inequalities

Similar documents
Reimer s Inequality on a Finite Distributive Lattice

Log-Convexity Properties of Schur Functions and Generalized Hypergeometric Functions of Matrix Argument. Donald St. P. Richards.

Analysis-3 lecture schemes

Total positivity in Markov structures

1 Basic Combinatorics

RESEARCH ARTICLE. An extension of the polytope of doubly stochastic matrices

Course Notes. Part IV. Probabilistic Combinatorics. Algorithms

0 Sets and Induction. Sets

arxiv: v1 [math.co] 16 Feb 2018

Section Taylor and Maclaurin Series

Definitions & Theorems

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE CORRELATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL ISING DISTRIBUTIONS

Irredundant Families of Subcubes

A strongly rigid binary relation

Jónsson posets and unary Jónsson algebras

h-vectors OF SMALL MATROID COMPLEXES

Chapter 1 Preliminaries

Sequences and Series

A CHARACTERIZATION OF LOCALLY FINITE VARIETIES THAT SATISFY A NONTRIVIAL CONGRUENCE IDENTITY

8. Limit Laws. lim(f g)(x) = lim f(x) lim g(x), (x) = lim x a f(x) g lim x a g(x)

Day 6: 6.4 Solving Polynomial Equations Warm Up: Factor. 1. x 2-2x x 2-9x x 2 + 6x + 5

1 The Local-to-Global Lemma

CONSTRAINED PERCOLATION ON Z 2

ON POSITIVE, LINEAR AND QUADRATIC BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS

TEST CODE: PMB SYLLABUS

4.4 Noetherian Rings

D-MATH Algebra I HS18 Prof. Rahul Pandharipande. Solution 1. Arithmetic, Zorn s Lemma.

Reid 5.2. Describe the irreducible components of V (J) for J = (y 2 x 4, x 2 2x 3 x 2 y + 2xy + y 2 y) in k[x, y, z]. Here k is algebraically closed.

Katarzyna Mieczkowska

Review of Multi-Calculus (Study Guide for Spivak s CHAPTER ONE TO THREE)

A note on general sliding window processes

Isomorphisms between pattern classes

A short proof of Klyachko s theorem about rational algebraic tori

1 Submodular functions

3 Undirected Graphical Models

Partitions, rooks, and symmetric functions in noncommuting variables

Acyclic orientations of graphs

q xk y n k. , provided k < n. (This does not hold for k n.) Give a combinatorial proof of this recurrence by means of a bijective transformation.

Math 113 (Calculus 2) Exam 4

MULTIPLICITIES OF MONOMIAL IDEALS

Some Correlation Inequalities for Ising Antiferromagnets

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO BRT

55 Separable Extensions

Algebraic Cryptography Exam 2 Review

Ch 7 Summary - POLYNOMIAL FUNCTIONS

Immerse Metric Space Homework

Beyond Log-Supermodularity: Lower Bounds and the Bethe Partition Function

3 FUNCTIONS. 3.1 Definition and Basic Properties. c Dr Oksana Shatalov, Fall

Vector Spaces. Vector space, ν, over the field of complex numbers, C, is a set of elements a, b,..., satisfying the following axioms.

Differentiation. f(x + h) f(x) Lh = L.

LECTURE 5, FRIDAY

Better bounds for k-partitions of graphs

AP Calculus Testbank (Chapter 9) (Mr. Surowski)

MATH 409 Advanced Calculus I Lecture 10: Continuity. Properties of continuous functions.

Notes on uniform convergence

Non-trivial intersecting uniform sub-families of hereditary families

Algebra Homework, Edition 2 9 September 2010

Lecture Notes 1 Basic Concepts of Mathematics MATH 352

The general programming problem is the nonlinear programming problem where a given function is maximized subject to a set of inequality constraints.

Total positivity order and the normal distribution

MAT 570 REAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES. Contents. 1. Sets Functions Countability Axiom of choice Equivalence relations 9

CSE 291: Fourier analysis Chapter 2: Social choice theory

An Additive Characterization of Fibers of Characters on F p

Problems in Linear Algebra and Representation Theory

Counting independent sets up to the tree threshold

On the mean connected induced subgraph order of cographs

TRIANGLE CENTERS DEFINED BY QUADRATIC POLYNOMIALS

RINGS IN POST ALGEBRAS. 1. Introduction

Minimal basis for connected Markov chain over 3 3 K contingency tables with fixed two-dimensional marginals. Satoshi AOKI and Akimichi TAKEMURA

LOWER BOUNDARY HYPERPLANES OF THE CANONICAL LEFT CELLS IN THE AFFINE WEYL GROUP W a (Ãn 1) Jian-yi Shi

TEST CODE: MMA (Objective type) 2015 SYLLABUS

Notes for Math 290 using Introduction to Mathematical Proofs by Charles E. Roberts, Jr.

The chromatic symmetric function of almost complete graphs

JUST THE MATHS UNIT NUMBER DIFFERENTIATION APPLICATIONS 5 (Maclaurin s and Taylor s series) A.J.Hobson

arxiv:math/ v1 [math.pr] 10 Jun 2004

Acta Mathematica Academiae Paedagogicae Nyíregyháziensis 21 (2005), ISSN

Filters on posets and generalizations

On the Homological Dimension of Lattices

Natural Numbers: Also called the counting numbers The set of natural numbers is represented by the symbol,.

A Questionable Distance-Regular Graph

10. Smooth Varieties. 82 Andreas Gathmann

Partitions and Algebraic Structures

Newton, Fermat, and Exactly Realizable Sequences

A NOTE ON RETRACTS AND LATTICES (AFTER D. J. SALTMAN)

An Introduction to Transversal Matroids

MAS223 Statistical Inference and Modelling Exercises

The decomposability of simple orthogonal arrays on 3 symbols having t + 1 rows and strength t

General Notation. Exercises and Problems

Symmetric polynomials and symmetric mean inequalities

4. We accept without proofs that the following functions are differentiable: (e x ) = e x, sin x = cos x, cos x = sin x, log (x) = 1 sin x

Math 320: Real Analysis MWF 1pm, Campion Hall 302 Homework 8 Solutions Please write neatly, and in complete sentences when possible.

Homework #5 Solutions

Arithmetic Progressions with Constant Weight

Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley. GRADUATE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION, Part A Spring Semester 2019

Recursive definitions on surreal numbers

Caculus 221. Possible questions for Exam II. March 19, 2002

Quivers of Period 2. Mariya Sardarli Max Wimberley Heyi Zhu. November 26, 2014

1. Group Theory Permutations.

Notes on ordinals and cardinals

A GUIDE FOR MORTALS TO TAME CONGRUENCE THEORY

Transcription:

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 1/3 Algebraic methods toward higher-order probability inequalities Donald Richards Penn State University and SAMSI

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 2/3 Background L: A finite distributive lattice with partial order Least upper bound: Greatest lower bound: L is order-isomorphic to the lattice of subsets of a finite set There exists a finite set A such that L = 2 A, the set of all subsets of A 2 A is a finite distributive lattice Partial order: Least upper bound: Greatest lower bound:

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 3/3 µ: A probability measure on 2 A µ is multivariate totally positive of order 2 (MTP 2 ) if µ(a b)µ(a b) µ(a)µ(b) for all a,b A Other terminology: log-supermodular FKG measure

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 4/3 A function f : 2 A R is increasing if f(a) f(b), a b The expected value of f with respect to µ: E(f) := a Aµ(a)f(a) The FKG inequality (Fortuin, Kasteleyn, Ginibre, 1971): If f 1,f 2 : L R are increasing andµ is MTP 2 then Cov(f 1,f 2 ) := E(f 1 f 2 ) E(f 1 )E(f 2 ) 0

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 5/3 Applications Statistics: Multivariate statistical analysis, dependence properties of random variables, observational studies Probability theory: Diffusion equations, reliability theory, percolation Mathematical physics: Interacting particle systems, Ising models Total positivity, finite reflection groups, analysis on Lie groups Combinatorics: Monotonicity of partial orders, Sperner theory, graph theory, Ramsey theory

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 6/3 The case of R n x = (x 1,...,x n ) and y = (y 1,...,y n ) in R n The partial order: x y if x j y j, j = 1,...,n The lattice operations x y = (max(x 1,y 1 ),...,max(x n,y n )) x y = (min(x 1,y 1 ),...,min(x n,y n )) f : R n R is increasing if f(x) f(y) whenever x y

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 7/3 A probability density function K : R n R is MTP 2 if K(x y)k(x y) K(x)K(y), x,y R n A remarkable result: For suitably smooth K, the MTP 2 condition is equivalent to 2 x i x j lnk(x) 0 for all i j The FKG inequality: If f 1,f 2 : R n R are increasing and K is MTP 2 then ( ) ( ) f 1 f 2 K dx f 1 K dx f 2 K dx 0 R n R n R n

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 8/3 The normal distribution (X 1,...,X n ) N n (0,Σ) K(x) = (2π) n/2 Σ 1/2 exp ( 1 2 x Σ 1 x) K is MTP 2 if (Σ 1 ) ij 0 for all i j For a = (a 1,...,a n ) R n, construct the indicator function I a (x) = I a is increasing { 1, x 1 a 1,...,x n a n 0, otherwise

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 9/3 If (X 1,...,X n ) is a MTP 2 normal random vector then EI a (X 1,...,X n )I b (X 1,...,X n ) EI a (X 1,...,X n ) EI b (X 1,...,X n ) Equivalently, P(X 1 a 1 b 1,...,X n a n b n ) P(X 1 a 1,...,X n a n ) P(X 1 b 1,...,X n b n ) There are many applications of this result in statistical inference

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 10/3 Cumulants X R n : A random vector f 1,...,f m : R n R Cumulants: The coefficients in the Taylor-Maclaurin expansion of the cumulant-generating function log E exp(t 1 f 1 + + t n f m ) κ 2 = E(f 1 f 2 ) E(f 1 )E(f 2 ) is the simplest cumulant The next three cumulants are κ 3 := E(f 1 f 2 f 3 ) [E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 ) + E(f 1 f 3 )E(f 2 ) + E(f 1 )E(f 2 f 3 )] + 2E(f 1 )E(f 2 )E(f 3 )

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 11/3 κ 4 := E(f 1 f 2 f 3 f 4 ) [E(f 1 f 2 f 3 )E(f 4 ) + ] [E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 f 4 ) + ] + 2[E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 )E(f 4 ) + ] 6E(f 1 )E(f 2 )E(f 3 )E(f 4 ) κ 5 := E(f 1 f 2 f 3 f 4 f 5 ) [E(f 1 f 2 f 3 f 4 )E(f 5 ) + ] [E(f 1 f 2 f 3 )E(f 4 f 5 ) + ] + 2[E(f 1 f 2 f 3 )E(f 4 )E(f 5 ) + ] + 2[E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 f 4 )E(f 5 ) + ] 6[E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 )E(f 4 )E(f 5 ) + ] + 24E(f 1 )E(f 2 )E(f 3 )E(f 4 ) Question: Are there FKG inequalities for the cumulants?

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 12/3 Answer: Probably not For the normal distribution, cumulants of order 3 or more are identically zero It is not difficult to find MTP 2 random vectors with negative cumulants Percus (1975), Sylvester (1975): Interesting correlation inequalities for cumulants Evidence of cumulant-type inequalities were obtained with indicator functions

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 13/3 Recall that κ 3 := E(f 1 f 2 f 3 ) [E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 ) + E(f 1 f 3 )E(f 2 ) + E(f 1 )E(f 2 f 3 )] + 2E(f 1 )E(f 2 )E(f 3 ) Define the conjugate cumulant κ 3 := 2E(f 1 f 2 f 3 ) [E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 ) + E(f 1 f 3 )E(f 2 ) + E(f 1 )E(f 2 f 3 )] + E(f 1 )E(f 2 )E(f 3 ) Conjugate : Reverse the order of the absolute value of the coefficients in the cumulant Analogy with the conjugate of a partition

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 14/3 L: finite distributive lattice µ: An MTP 2 probability measure on L f 1, f 2 and f 3 : Nonnegative increasing functions on L After years of hard work... Theorem: κ 3 (f 1,f 2,f 3 ) 0 My gratitude to the Institute for Advanced Study

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 15/3 Corollary: The FKG inequality Proof: Set f 3 1 The theorem cannot be deduced from the FKG inequality κ 3 is an alternating sum κ 3 = Cov(f 1 f 2,f 3 ) E(f 1 )Cov(f 2,f 3 ) + Cov(f 1 f 3,f 2 ), κ 4 and κ 5 : Conjugating the coefficients still works f 1,...,f 5 : Nonnegative increasing functions on L

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 16/3 Define the fourth- and fifth-order conjugate cumulants κ 4 := 6E(f 1 f 2 f 3 f 4 ) 2[E(f 1 f 2 f 3 )E(f 4 ) + ] [E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 f 4 ) + ] + [E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 )E(f 4 ) + ] E(f 1 )E(f 2 )E(f 3 )E(f 4 ) κ 5 := 24E(f 1 f 2 f 3 f 4 f 5 ) 6[E(f 1 f 2 f 3 f 4 )E(f 5 ) + ] 2[E(f 1 f 2 f 3 )E(f 4 f 5 ) + ] + 2[E(f 1 f 2 f 3 )E(f 4 )E(f 5 ) + ] + [E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 f 4 )E(f 5 ) + ] [E(f 1 f 2 )E(f 3 )E(f 4 )E(f 5 ) + ] + E(f 1 )E(f 2 )E(f 3 )E(f 4 ) Theorem: Under the same hypotheses as before, κ 4,κ 5 0

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 17/3 The proof that κ 3 0 We adapt a proof of the FKG inequality due to den Hollander and Keane (1986) The proof is by induction on the length of maximal chains in L L = 2 A for some finite set A If A = then the result is trivial, so assume that A WLOG, assume that µ(a) > 0 for all a A Why? Ef depends only on the support of µ Choose and fix B, an arbitrarily chosen subset of A

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 18/3 For a B, define µ B (a) := b A\B µ(a b) (1) µ B is the marginal probability measure on the lattice 2 B Easy fact (well-known to statisticians!): µ B is MTP 2

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 19/3 For f : 2 A R, define f B (a) := 1 µ B (a) b A\B µ(a b)f(a b) (2) f B (a) is the conditional expectation of f, given a B Easy fact (well-known to statisticians!): If f is increasing then so is f B

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 20/3 For g : 2 B R, define E B (g) := a B µ B (a)g(a) The Double-Expectation Theorem (well-known to undergrad. statistics & probability students!): For B A, E(f) = a A µ(a)f(a) = a B µ B (a)f B (a) = E B (f B ) In words: The overall average value of f equals the average value of its conditional averages

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 21/3 Suppose B = A\{z} where z A is chosen arbitrarily Shorthand notation: f ib denotes (f i ) B, i = 1,2,3 The Claim: ( ) 2E B (f1 f 2 f 3 ) B [ ( ) ( ) ( )] E B (f1 f 2 ) B f 3B + EB (f1 f 3 ) B f 2B + EB f1b (f 2 f 3 ) B + E B (f 1B f 2B f 3B ) 0 (3)

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 22/3 For a B, it follows from (1) that µ B (a) = µ(a) + µ(a {z}) (4) and, from (2), we get f B (a) = 1 µ B (a) ( µ(a)f(a) + µ(a {z})f(a {z}) ) (5) Conclude: µ B (a) 3 (f 1 f 2 f 3 ) B (a) = µ B (a) 2[ µ(a)f 1 (a)f 2 (a)f 3 (a) ] + µ(a {z})f 1 (a {z})f 2 (a {z})f 3 (a {z}) (6)

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 23/3 For {i,j,k} = {1,2,3}, µ B (a) 3 (f i f j ) B (a)f kb (a) = µ B (a) [ µ(a)f i (a)f j (a) + µ(a {z})f i (a {z})f j (a {z}) ] [ µ(a)f k (a) + µ(a {z})f k (a {z}) ] (7) µ B (a) 3 f 1B (a)f 2B (a)f 3B (a) = 3 [ µ(a)fi (a) + µ(a {z})f i (a {z}) ] (8) i=1 Collect together (6) - (8), simplify the algebraic expressions using (4) and (5):

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 24/3 µ B (a) 3{ 2(f 1 f 2 f 3 ) B (a) [ (f 1 f 2 ) B (a)f 3B (a) + (f 1 f 3 ) B (a)f 2B (a) + f 1B (a)(f 2 f 3 ) B (a) ] } + f 1B (a)f 2B (a)f 3B (a) = µ(a)µ(a {z}) [ (f1 (a {z}) f 1 (a) ) ] Φ 1B (a) + f 1 (a {z})φ 2B (a) (9) where

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 25/3 Φ 1B (a) = µ(a) ( f 2 (a {z})f 3 (a {z}) f 2 (a)f 3 (a) ) +µ(a {z})f 3 (a) ( f 2 (a {z}) f 2 (a) ) +µ(a {z})f 2 (a) ( f 3 (a {z}) f 3 (a) ) Φ 2B (a) = ( µ(a {z}) + µ(a) ) ( f 2 (a {z}) f 2 (a) ) ( f 3 (a {z}) f 3 (a) ) Each f i is nonnegative and increasing Therefore Φ 1B,Φ 2B are sums of products of nonnegative terms Conclude: (9) is nonnegative

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 26/3 Divide both sides of (9) by µ B (a) 2 and sum over all a B Double-Expectation Theorem gives: a B µ B (a)(f 1 f 2 f 3 ) B (a) = E B ( (f1 f 2 f 3 ) B ) = E(f1 f 2 f 3 ), For {i,j,k} = {1,2,3}, ( ) µ B (a)(f i f j ) B (a)f kb (a) = E B (fi f j ) B f kb a B Also, a B µ B (a)f 1B (a)f 2B (a)f 3B (a) = E B (f 1B f 2B f 3B )

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 27/3 Collect together these identities, apply the nonnegativity of (9); we obtain The Claim: 2E B ( (f1 f 2 f 3 ) B ) [ E B ( (f1 f 2 ) B f 3B ) + EB ( (f1 f 3 ) B f 2B ) + EB ( f1b (f 2 f 3 ) B )] Finally, set B = ; observe that E (f i ) E(f i ); E ((f i f j ) f k ) E(f i f j )E(f k ); E (f 1 f 2 f 3 ) E(f 1 )E(f 2 )E(f 3 ) + E B (f 1B f 2B f 3B ) 0 The Claim reduces to: κ 3 0 Q.E.D.

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 28/3 The proof of κ 4,κ 5 0: Similar We used MAPLE to carry out the algebraic computations What about κ 6? We had some evidence that κ 6 0 Siddhartha Sahi (Rutgers Univ.) has found stronger evidence recently Nevertheless, there is a conjecture...

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 29/3 A partition λ = (λ 1,λ 2,...) is a sequence of nonnegative integers with λ 1 λ 2 The parts of λ are the non-zero λ i The weight of λ is λ := λ 1 + λ 2 + The length of λ, denoted by l(λ), is the number of parts of λ For i = 1,2,..., let λ i denote the cardinality of the set {j : λ j i} Clearly, λ 1 λ 2 The partition λ = (λ 1,λ 2,...) is the partition conjugate to λ Easy homework: Verify that (λ ) = λ and that λ 1 = l(λ)

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 30/3 S m : The symmetric group on m symbols The standard action of S m on R m : For τ S m and u = (u 1,...,u m ) R m, set τ u := (u τ(1),...,u τ(m) ) For each partition λ = (λ 1,...,λ m ) of weight m, define P λ (f 1,...,f m ) := l(λ) j=1 ( λ j E k=1 f λ1 + +λ j 1 +k Denote by D(λ) the set of all τ S m which give rise to distinct permutations P λ (τ (f 1,...,f m )) of P λ (f 1,...,f m ) )

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 31/3 Conjecture: Let µ be an MTP 2 probability measure on L, and f 1,...,f m be nonnegative increasing functions on L. Then (i) There exist non-zero constants {c λ Z : λ = m} such that P m (f 1,...,f m ) := P λ (τ (f 1,...,f m )) is nonnegative λ =m c λ τ D(λ) (ii) For m 3, there exists a constant d m such that P m (f 1,...,f m 1,1) d m P m 1 (f 1,...,f m 1 ) (iii) If f j 1, j = 1,...,m then P m (1,...,1) = 0; equivalently, card(d(λ))c λ = 0 λ =m

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 32/3 For m = 2,3,4,5, the conjecture is valid Choose for P m the conjugate cumulant κ m For λ = (λ 1,λ 2,...), all coefficients c λ = ( 1) l(λ) 1 (λ 1 1)! in the expansion of κ m(f 1,...,f m ) are non-zero and satisfy (iii) For m = 3,4,5 each κ m satisfies (ii) with d m = m 2 I found evidence that κ m(1,...,1) > 0, m 6

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 33/3 Sahi has constructed a class of functionals τ m such that τ m κ m, m = 2,3,4,5, and τ m κ m, m 6 For special MTP 2 measures µ, Sahi has proved that τ m 0 for all m Sahi explains that there is a crucial difference between the class of partitions of weight 5 and those of weight > 5 Sahi conjectures that, for λ = (λ 1,λ 2,...), we can take c λ = ( 1) l(λ) 1 (λ 1 1)!(λ 2 1)! This differs from my coefficients only if λ 2 3, in which case λ 6

Algebraic methods toward higher-orderprobability inequalities p. 34/3 Sahi also has obtained FKG inequalities for functions taking values in very general partially ordered algebras, e.g., the algebra of square matrices, symmetric matrices, or polynomials His proofs are, in a sense, simpler than the original FKG An amazing coincidence? Connections with k-characters, group determinants Ken Johnson s paper Johnson believes that there is a connection between FKG-type inequalities and Chern classes