pr.probability – Change variables in Gaussian integral over subspace $S$

I have been thinking about a problem and I have an intuition about it but I don’t seem to know how to properly address it mathematically, so I’m sharing it with you hoping to get help. Suppose I have two $ntimes n$ real matrices $C$ and $M$ and consider the Gaussian integral:
$$I = Nint e^{-frac{1}{2}ilangle x, C^{-1} xrangle} e^{langle x, M xrangle}dx$$
where $N$ is a normalizig constant and I’m writting:
$$langle x, A x rangle = sum_{i,j}x_{i}A_{ij}x_{j}$$
the inner product of $x$ and $Ax$ on $mathbb{R}^{n}$. $C$ is the covariance of the Gaussian measure; moreover, suppose $M$ is not invertible and has $1 le k < n$ linearly independent eigenvectors associated to the eigenvalue $lambda = 0$. All other eigenvectors of $M$ are also linearly independent, but associated to different nonzero eigenvalues.

This is my problem. I’d like to know how does the formula for the Gaussian integral $I$ changes if I was to integrate over the subspace $S$ spanned by the eigenvectors $v_{1},…,v_{k}$ associated to $lambda = 0$. Intuitively, this integral wouldn’t have the $e^{langle x, Mx rangle}$ factor because $Mequiv 0$ in this subspace. In addition, since $S$ is a $k$-dimensional subspace, I’d expect this integral would become some sort of Gaussian integral over a new variable $y$ which has now $k$ entries.

I would like to know if my intuition is correct and if it is possible to explicitly write this new integral over $S$, which I was not able to do by myself. Thanks!

pr.probability – Contiguity of uniform random regular graphs and uniform random regular graphs which have a perfect matching

Let us consider $cal{G}_{_{n,d}}$ as the uniform probability space of d-regular graphs
on the n vertices ${1, ldots, n }$ (where $dn$ is even). We say that an event $H_{_{n}}$ occurs a.a.s. (asymptotically almost surely) if $mathbf{P}_{_{cal{G}}}(H_{_{n}}) longrightarrow 1$ as $n ⟶ infty$.

Also, suppose $(cal{G}_{_{n}})_{_{n ≥ 1}}$ and $(cal{hat{G}}_{_{n}})_{_{n ≥ 1}}$ are two sequences of probability spaces such that $cal{G}_{_{n}}$ and $cal{hat{G}}_{_{n}}$ are differ only in the probabilities. We say that these sequences are contiguous if a sequence of events $A_{_{n}}$ is a.a.s. true in $cal{hat{G}}_{_{n}}$ if and only if it is true in $cal{hat{G}}_{_{n}}$, in which case we write
$$cal{G}_{_{n}} approx cal{hat{G}}_{_{n}}.$$

Thorem. (Bollobas) For any fixed $d geq 3$, $G_{_{n}} ∈ cal{G}_{_{n,d}}$ a.a.s has a perfect matching.

Using $cal{G}^p_{_{n,d}}$ to denote the uniform probability space of d-regular graphs which have a perfect matching on the n vertices ${1, ldots, n }$, is it true to conclude from the above theorem that $cal{G}_{_{n,d}} approx cal{G}^p_{_{n,d}}$?

pr.probability – Induction arising in proof of Berry Esseen theorem

I’ve been studying the following paper by Bolthausen, which proves the Berry Essen theorem using Stein’s method:

Let $gamma$ be the absolute third moment of a random variable $X$, and let $X_{i}$ be iid with the same law as $X$. Let $S_{n}=sum_{i}^{n}X_{i}$, and suppose $E(X)=0$, $E(X^{2})=1$.

The goal is to find some universal constant $C$ such that $|P(S_{n} leq x) – P(Yleq x)| leq Cfrac{gamma}{sqrt{n}}$.

Let $delta(n,gamma) = sup_{x}|P(S_{n} leq x) – P(Yleq x)|$. We would like to bound $sup_{n}frac{sqrt{n}}{gamma}delta(n, gamma)$.

In the proof the following bound is derived:

$delta(n,gamma) leq cfrac{gamma}{sqrt{n}}+frac{1}{2}delta(n-1,gamma)$ where $c$ is a universal constant. Noting that $delta(1,gamma) leq 1$, the author claims that the result is implied. However when I try to use induction to get the result the constant $C$ increases without bound $n$ grows. If anyone has studied this paper before, I would love to hear from you.

pr.probability – Ratios and propotion

pr.probability – Ratios and propotion – MathOverflow

pr.probability – To prove a relation involving a probability distribution

I’m reading a book and have encountered a relation which seems to me to be impossible to prove, I would like to be sure if this is the case. The author gives a probability function as
$$p_n = frac{e^{-c_1 n – c_2/n}}{Z},$$
where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants and Z is a normalization factor and $n geq 3$. Then by defining $alpha$ as $alpha = sum_{n = 3}^{infty} p_n (n – 6)^2$, the author claims one can show that

alpha + p_6 = 1, quad quad quad 0.66 < p_6 < 1,

alpha p_6^2 = 1 / 2 pi, quad quad quad 0.34 < p_6 < 0.66.

How is such a thing possible in the first place as these relations are not even dependent on $c_1$ and $c_2$?

pr.probability – inverse of moment-generating function in terms of moments

Let ${h_i}$ be decreasing sequence of $n$ positive reals. Define distribution $p(X=h_i)propto h_i$ and let $g(s)=E_X(e^{sX})$ be the moment generating function. For instance, for $h={1,frac{1}{4},frac{1}{9}}$, unnormalized distribution over $X$ looks like this

enter image description here

For a given $epsilon$, I need to find smallest $s$ such that the following is true

Is it possible to approximate/bound $s$ by only relying on moments $E(X^i)$ for $i=1,2,ldots,k$ and small $k$?


$g(-2s)/n$ gives a remarkably good fit to average case loss decrease after $s$ steps when minimizing a quadratic with eigenvalues $h_1,h_2,ldots$ and gradient descent with learning rate 1. Is this a known fact?

Solving equation above in terms of moments would give a practical way to estimate how many more steps are needed to achieve $epsilon$ reduction in loss. In practice, $napprox 10^9$, $sapprox 10^9$, $h_1=1$, $epsilon approx 10^{-3}$, $h_i$ probably decay faster than $frac{1}{i}$

pr.probability – Summation of All subsets of Laplacian Sampled Variables

Say I have a set defined: $L = (L_1, … L_N)$, where $L_i sim Laplace(0, b)$. Now I have two questions, what will be:

  1. The summation of all $L$: $sum_{i=1}^{i=N} L_i$
  2. The summation: $sum_{k=1}^{N} (-1)^{k+1}sum_{1 leq i_1 cdots i_k leq N} sum_{j in {i_1 cdots i_k}} L_i$.

I am specifically interested in what these summations will look like as N approaches infinity, or just any really large N.

pr.probability – Upper bound of Wasserstein distance given by subvariables of codim 1

recently I am considering the upper-bound of Wasserstain distance. Say we have random vectors $X,Y$ of dimension $n$, and let $tilde{X}_i (tilde{Y}_i,$ resp.) be the $(n-1)$-dim random vector of $X (Y $, resp.) discarding the $i$-th component. For example, $n=3$ and $X=(X_1,X_2,X_3)$, then $tilde{X}_2=(X_1,X_3)$.

My question is, can we formulate an inequality of the form $W_p(X,Y) leq sum limits_{i=1}^na_i W_p(tilde{X}_i,tilde{Y}_i)$? I know that we can formulate similar inequality by using $1$-dim marginals refer here, hence I believe such inequality would hold for $(n-1)$-subvariables.

pr.probability – Conditions ensuring that conditional law of a process belongs to a given exponential family

Let $(X_t,Y_t)_{tgeq 0}$ be a pair of $mathbb{R}^n$-(resp. $mathbb{R}^m$)-valued stochastic processes on a filtered probability space $(Omega,mathcal{F},(mathcal{F}_t)_{tgeq 0},mathbb{P})$, defined through the SDEs:
dX_t & = mu(t,X_t,Y_t)dt + sigma(t,X_t,Y_t)dW_t^1\
dY_t & = m(t,X_t,Y_t)dt + s(t,X_t,Y_t)dW_t^2,

where $mu,sigma,m,s$ are all suitable uniformly-Lipschitz functions and $(W^i_t)_{tgeq 0}$ are independent Brownian motions of compatible dimensions with the above dynamics.

In Chapter 11 of Lipster and Shiryaev’s book, conditions on $mu,sigma,m,s$ and the initial laws of $X_0$ and $Y_0$ are given ensuring that the conditional probabilities:
mathbb{P}left(X_t in cdotmiddle|sigma({Y_s}_{0leq s<t}right),

are all $mathbb{P}$-a.s. Gaussian measures on $mathbb{R}^n$.

Fix an exponential family of probability measures $mathcal{F}$ on $mathbb{R}^n$. Are there known conditions in the literature ensuring that:
mathbb{P}left(X_t in cdotmiddle|sigma({Y_s}_{0leq s<t}right) in mathcal{M} qquad forall t geq 0 ,mathbb{P}-a.s?

pr.probability – A monotonicity formula for the stochastic integral with respect to Brownian motion

Suppose $f, g: mathbb R to mathbb R$ are continuous, non negative functions with $f leq g$.

Fix some $T > 0$, and denote by $X^f$ the stochastic integral $int_{(0, T)} f(s) dW_s$, where $W_s$ is a standard Brownian motion. Similarly write $X^g$ for the corresponding integral of $g$.

Write $F^f$ for the cumulative distribution function of $|X^f|$, that is $F^f (x) := P(|X^f| < x)$. Similarly write $F^g$ for the corresponding cumulative distribution function of $|X^g|$.

Question: Is it true that $F^f leq F^g$?

DreamProxies - Cheapest USA Elite Private Proxies 100 Cheap USA Private Proxies Buy 200 Cheap USA Private Proxies 400 Best Private Proxies Cheap 1000 USA Private Proxies 2000 USA Private Proxies 5000 Cheap USA Private Proxies - Buy Cheap Private Proxies Buy 50 Private Proxies Buy 100 Private Proxies Buy 200 Private Proxies Buy 500 Private Proxies Buy 1000 Private Proxies Buy 2000 Private Proxies New Proxy Lists Every Day Best Quality USA Private Proxies