What is wrong with this inequality?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EngWiPy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the inequality involving the upper bound of the Q Gaussian function and its implications for determining the value of N given certain constraints. Participants explore the mathematical steps involved in solving the inequality and the conditions under which it holds, focusing on the relationship between N, η, and ε.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula involving the Q Gaussian function and its upper bound using the Chernoff bound, questioning why the derived inequality does not hold for their calculated N.
  • Another participant questions the confidence in the Chernoff bound and suggests reworking the steps, highlighting potential issues with the variance when substituting values.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of the logarithmic transformation of the inequality and provide a method for solving for N, noting the direction change of the inequality due to negative values.
  • There is a mention of the complexity of the original problem, where η is a function of N, leading to a quadratic relationship that complicates the analysis.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumptions regarding the non-negativity of η and its implications for the inequality, with suggestions to consider different cases.
  • One participant proposes a specific condition under which N would need to be negative based on the values of η and ε, indicating a potential conflict in the assumptions made earlier.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the Chernoff bound, the assumptions regarding η, and the implications of the derived inequalities. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on how to approach the problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that η is assumed to be non-negative, but there is uncertainty about its behavior under different conditions. The relationship between η and N introduces additional complexity that is not fully resolved in the discussion.

EngWiPy
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
61
Hello all,

I have this formula ##\left[2\sqrt{Q\left(\sqrt{2\eta}\right)}\right]^N## where Q is the Q Gaussian function which can be upper bounded by the Chernoff bound ##Q\left(\sqrt{2\eta}\right)\leq exp\left(-\eta\right)##, and thus the original formula can be upper bounded as ##2^Nexp\left(-\frac{N\,\eta}{2}\right)##. Right? Now I need this upper bound to be less than a certain value, say ##\varepsilon\leq 0.5##, i.e. ##2^Nexp\left(-\frac{N\,\eta}{2}\right)\leq \varepsilon##. It seems straightforward to solve this inequality to find N for a given ##\eta##. However, when I did, and did the verification, the term ##2^Nexp\left(-\frac{N\,\eta}{2}\right)## isn't less than ##\varepsilon##. Do I need to be careful about something here that I might have missed?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How confident are you in the Chernoff bound?
 
Are you using ##Q(x) \leq e^{- x^2/2}##? If so, then you forgot to account for the difference in the variance caused by taking the sqrt(2x).
I would recommend reworking the steps for the Chernoff bound from the beginning.
A possible shortcut might be using wolframalpha.com. If you put in Gaussian(x) and Gaussian( \sqrt(2x)), you will notice that a ##\sqrt{2x}## terms comes out in front of the formula, giving:
##Q(\sqrt{2x})=\sqrt{2x} Q(x) ## So, ##Q(\sqrt{2x}) \leq \sqrt{2x} e^{- x^2/2}##
But I have not done any of the analysis, so I can't say if this even makes sense.
 
RUber said:
Are you using ##Q(x) \leq e^{- x^2/2}##? If so, then you forgot to account for the difference in the variance caused by taking the sqrt(2x).
I would recommend reworking the steps for the Chernoff bound from the beginning.
A possible shortcut might be using wolframalpha.com. If you put in Gaussian(x) and Gaussian( \sqrt(2x)), you will notice that a ##\sqrt{2x}## terms comes out in front of the formula, giving:
##Q(\sqrt{2x})=\sqrt{2x} Q(x) ## So, ##Q(\sqrt{2x}) \leq \sqrt{2x} e^{- x^2/2}##
But I have not done any of the analysis, so I can't say if this even makes sense.

Yes, I am using this. I think it is straightforward: Put ##\sqrt{2\eta}=x##. It is used all the time in my field. I don't think this is the problem. I think the problem has to do with the convergence of the term ##2^Nexp\left(-\frac{N\,\eta}{2}\right)##.
 
So you started with:
## 2^N e^{-N\eta / 2} < \varepsilon ##
and solved for N ... but the inequality didn't hold. When this happens, you most likely found the wrong N. The bigger N is, the smaller the term, so when in doubt, you can increase N and make it go under epsilon.
Here is how I would solve for N ( log refers to the natural log) :
## \log [ 2^N e^{-N\eta / 2}] < \log[\varepsilon ]##
##N (\log 2 - \eta /2) < \log \varepsilon ##
## N > \frac{\log \varepsilon}{\log 2 - \eta /2}##
Note the direction change of the inequality since (log 2 - eta/2 ) is negative.
N should be relatively large and positive, since log epsilon is negative and you divide by a negative quantity.
Is this what you found for N?
 
RUber said:
So you started with:
## 2^N e^{-N\eta / 2} < \varepsilon ##
and solved for N ... but the inequality didn't hold. When this happens, you most likely found the wrong N. The bigger N is, the smaller the term, so when in doubt, you can increase N and make it go under epsilon.
Here is how I would solve for N ( log refers to the natural log) :
## \log [ 2^N e^{-N\eta / 2}] < \log[\varepsilon ]##
##N (\log 2 - \eta /2) < \log \varepsilon ##
## N > \frac{\log \varepsilon}{\log 2 - \eta /2}##
Note the direction change of the inequality since (log 2 - eta/2 ) is negative.
N should be relatively large and positive, since log epsilon is negative and you divide by a negative quantity.
Is this what you found for N?

My actual problem is very complicated, and here I tried to simplify it. In my problem ##\eta## is also a function of N, and with another constraint in N, which results eventually on a quadratic function in N. I will try to given more details if the problem is not obvious from what I posted. Why ##log(2)-\eta/2## is negative for all ##\eta##?
 
I assumed that eta was non-negative, since it was under the square root in the beginning. Are you considering imaginary inputs for the Gaussian?
*edit*
I suppose it does not need to be negative for all eta...sorry. Maybe it has to be broken into cases?
 
RUber said:
I assumed that eta was non-negative, since it was under the square root in the beginning. Are you considering imaginary inputs for the Gaussian?
*edit*
I suppose it does not need to be negative for all eta...sorry. Maybe it has to be broken into cases?

Yes it is non-negative. Also, I need N to be greater than or equal 2.
 
If eta< 2log2 (approx. 1.386) and epsilon is less than 1, then N would have to be negative.

Alternately, following the vein of post #3. Solving for N in the inequality
##\left[ 2 \sqrt{2\eta } e^{-\eta^2/2}\right]^N < \varepsilon ##
Generates something like
##N> \frac{\log \varepsilon}{\log (2\sqrt{ 2\eta}) - \eta^2/2}## for ##.12>\eta \text{ or } \eta>1.6##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: EngWiPy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K