Applying Chernoff bound on normal distribution

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding a bound for the deviation of a normally distributed variable from its mean using the Chernoff bound. The user applies Chebyshev's inequality to the mean of independent identically distributed normal variables and seeks to calculate the expectation E[e^{s(m_n-\mu)^2}]. There is a debate about whether the parameter s can be treated as a constant or if it should be considered a random variable. Participants also discuss the legitimacy of manipulating s within the expectation and its implications for simplifying the calculation. The conversation highlights the complexities of applying bounds to normal distributions and the challenges in deriving the necessary expectations.
phonic
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

I am trying to find out a good bound on the deveation of a normal distributed variable from its mean.

The noramly distributed variables X_t \sim N(\mu, \sigma^2), t= 1,2,...,n are iid. Applying the Chebyshev inequality on the mean of these n iid variables:

m_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{t=1}^n X_t

P(m_n - \mu \geq \epsilon ) = \frac{1}{2} P(e^{s(m_n - \mu)^2} \geq e^{s\epsilon^2} ) \leq \frac{1}{2}e^{-s \epsilon^2} E[e^{s(m_n-\mu)^2}]

The question is how to calculate this expectaion
E[e^{s(m_n-\mu)^2}]

Can anybody give some hints? Thanks a lot!

Since m_n \sim N(\mu, \frac{\sigma^2}{n} ),
E[(m_n-\mu)^2}] = \frac{\sigma^2}{n}. But
E[e^{s(m_n-\mu)^2}] seems not easy.

Phonic
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you treating s as a constant? Can you? Isn't it a r.v., e.g. s = sn?
 
s can be considered as a constant number. Since the Markov inequality holds for any s.

Is there some bounds on the tail probability of a normal distribution?
 
But in P(m_n - \mu \geq \epsilon ) = \frac{1}{2} P(e^{s(m_n - \mu)^2} \geq e^{s\epsilon^2} ) \leq \frac{1}{2}e^{-s \epsilon^2} E[e^{s(m_n-\mu)^2}], you have moved s out of the E[] in e^{-s \epsilon^2} but then left it inside the E[] in E[e^{s(m_n-\mu)^2}], is that legit? More to the point, can you also take it out of the latter, and if you can, would that make the job easier?
 
Last edited:
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top