Some geometric applications of the discrete heat flow

Let X=(\mathbb{R}^d,\|\cdot\|_X) be a d-dimensional normed space and suppose that f:\{-1,1\}^n\to X is a function such that

for some D\geq1. The conclusion of the theorem follows from [IVV20] when d\geq n so we shall assume that d<n. Let F:[-1,1]^n\to X be the multilinear extension of f given by (?). Then, F is clearly continuous as a polynomial and therefore, by Lemma 11, there exists a point z\in\mathscr{C}_d^n such that F(z)=F(-z). As z has at least n-d coordinates equal to 1 in absolute value we shall assume without loss of generality that |z({d+1})|=\ldots=|z(n)|=1 and consider the functions h_+, h_-:\{-1,1\}^d\to X which are defined as

Consider also the bias vector \pmb{\alpha}_z = \big( \frac{1+z(1)}{2},\ldots,\frac{1+z(d)}{2}\big)\in(0,1)^d and notice that, by the multilinearity of F, we have the identity

Therefore, by the triangle inequality and Theorem 14 we get

Now, in view of the lower Lipschitz condition (Proof), we clearly have

for every x\in\{-1,1\}^d. On the other hand, for a fixed i\in\{1,\ldots,d\} and \beta = \frac{1+z(i)}{2}, we have

where in the last equality we used that p\leq 2 along with the upper Lipschitz condition (Proof). The same bound also holds for h_-. Integrating the last two inequalities and combining them with (Proof), we deduce that

which completes the proof of the theorem.

Given a scalar-valued function h:\{-1,1\}^n\to\mathbb{R}, we denote by \mathsf{M}h:\{-1,1\}^n\to\mathbb{R}_+ the asymmetric gradient of h, given by

where a_+=\max\{a,0\} for a\in\mathbb{R}. A combination of the triangle inequality with a technical result of Talagrand [Tal93, Proposition 5.1] on the biased cube implies that if a vector-valued function f:\{-1,1\}^n\to X satisfies \int f \,\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}\mu_\alpha^n=0, then

The second term can be controlled by the right hand side of (2) or (2) using the results of Theorem 16. For the first term, we use the key pointwise inequality of [CE24], asserting that

To further upper bound this by the square function where \partial_i is replaced by \partial_i^\alpha, observe that

and thus the contraction principle and integration in x yield the desired conclusions.

It is clear from Lemma 17 that any normed space with metric stable type p also has stable type p. For the converse implication, we treat the case p=1 separately. Assuming that X has stable type 1, it follows from [Pis74b] that it also has nontrivial Rademacher type and thus (in view of [Pis73]) finite cotype. Therefore, by the X-valued Pisier inequality with a dimension-free constant of [IVV20], we get

Applying Lemma 17 conditionally on x\in\{-1,1\}^n, we can further bound this quantity as

and this proves the converse implication since \mathfrak{d}_if(x) = \|\partial_if(x)\|_X.

While this proof extends to all values of p, in the case p>1 we present a more cumbersome argument which avoids the X-valued Pisier inequality and thus gives better dependence on parameters of X. For t\geq0, let \xi_1(t),\ldots,\xi_n(t) be i.i.d. random variables distributed according to \mu_{\beta(t)}, where \beta(t)=\tfrac{1+e^{-t}}{2}, and denote by \eta_i(t) = \frac{\xi_i(t)-e^{-t}}{e^t-e^{-t}}. Then, it follows from the semigroup argument leading to (Proof) along with identity (15) of [IVV20] and Jensen’s inequality that

Fixing x\in\{-1,1\}^n, the independent random vectors \eta_1(t)\partial_1f(x),\ldots,\eta_n(t)\partial_nf(x) are centered. Thus, by standard symmetrization estimates, we can further bound the last term by

where the expectation on the right hand side is with respect to (\delta_i,\eta_i(t)), where the \delta_i are uniformly random signs, independent of the \eta_i(t). Therefore, conditioning first on the values of \eta_1(t),\ldots,\eta_n(t) and using Lemma 17 for the integrand, we get

where \{e_1,\ldots,e_n\} is the standard basis of \mathbb{R}^n. It is well-known that, since p>1, \ell_{p,\infty}^n is isomorphic to a normed space up to constants depending only on p. Moreover, it has finite cotype with a constant independent of n (for instance because it can be realized as a real interpolation space between \ell_1^n and \ell_2^n, see [BL76, Section 5.3]). Therefore, using again the comparison principle [LT91, Proposition 9.14], we have

for any r>\max\{r',p\}, where r' is the cotype of \ell_{p,\infty}^n. Combining all the above along with the fact that t\mapsto \|\eta_1(t)\|_{L_r} is integrable for any r<\infty, we conclude the proof. It is worth emphasizing that this proof shows additionally that the metric stable type constant of X is proportional to the parameter \mathsf{ST}_p(X) of (17) up to constants depending only on p, provided that p>1.

Suppose that (\mathsf{M},d_\mathsf{M}) has metric stable type p with constant S and suppose that a function f:\{-1,1\}^n\to\mathsf{M} satisfies

for some constants s>0 and D\geq1. Combined with the stable type assumption, this gives

Rearranging gives the desired lower bound (6) for the distortion D.

Due to the product structure of the Markov chain, it suffices to consider the case n=1, that is, to prove that for \alpha\in(0,1),

This follows automatically by the expression (?) for the transition matrix. The simple fact that reversibility implies stationarity is well-known [LLP17, Proposition 1.20].

The claim follows from the expression (?) of the semigroup and the definition

Consider the function g\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=} F\circ h_d : \mathbb{S}^d\to\mathbb{R}^d, where h_d is the function of Lemma 10. By the Borsuk–Ulam theorem and the oddness of h_d, there exists a point w\in\mathbb{S}^d such that

and the conclusion follows by choosing z=h_d(w)\in\mathscr{C}_d^n.

The centering condition (12) can be checked easily using the explicit formulas (?) and (?) of the matrices. For (12), we compute that for any \theta\in\mathbb{R},

As this is the maximum of two quadratic functions in \theta, its minimum is attained at the point \theta^\ast where they intersect in the interval (0,e^{-t}), namely at

The first equality in (12) is immediate, whereas for the inequality we compute

where both inequalities follow from the convexity of x\mapsto x^2.

In view of (8) and the product structure of the process \{X_t^{\pmb{\alpha}}\}_{t\geq0}, it suffices to check the claim for n=1, namely that for every \beta\in(0,1), \theta\in\mathbb{R} and f:\{-1,1\}\to X,

where the first equality follows from the probabilistic representation (?). Taking into account that \beta \partial^\beta f(1) + (1-\beta) \partial^\beta f(-1) = 0, this amounts to the system of equations

which can be easily verified by direct computation.

Writing

and using Jensen’s inequality and Proposition 13, we see that for \theta_1(t),\ldots,\theta_n(t)\in\mathbb{R},

where in the last expectation X_0^{\pmb{\alpha}} is distributed according to \mu_{\pmb{\alpha}}. Now, by the reversibility of the chain, this expectation can be written as

Fixing x\in\{-1,1\}^n, equation (12) asserts that each \eta_t^{\alpha_i} (y(i),x(i);\theta_i(t)) is a centered random variable when y(i) is distributed according to p_t^{\alpha_i}(x(i),\cdot). Therefore, as p_t^{\pmb{\alpha}}(x,\cdot) is a product measure, the Rademacher type condition for sums of centered independent random vectors (see [LT91, Proposition 9.11]) yields the bound

where we also used that p\leq2. Now, choosing the \theta_i(t) which minimize the quantity in the left-hand side of (12) with bias \alpha_i, and combining (Proof), (Proof) and (Proof), we conclude that

which is precisely the desired estimate.

Let \pmb{\alpha}=(\alpha,\ldots,\alpha) and without loss of generality assume that \int f \,\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}\mu_{\pmb{\alpha}}=0. We start by proving the general inequality (16). Notice that, by convexity,

where the last inequality follows from the definitions of \partial_i^\alpha. Therefore,

Since P_t^{\pmb{\alpha}} = e^{t\mathscr{L}_{\pmb{\alpha}}} for t\geq0, this inequality applied to P_t^{\pmb{\alpha}}f with t=\tfrac{1}{n} implies that

Similarly to (Proof) and (Proof), we thus have

Fix t\geq0 and x\in\{-1,1\}^n. Since p_t^{\pmb{\alpha}}(x,\cdot) is a product measure, the centering condition (12) gives

To prove (16), set \theta_i(t) = \frac{e^{-t}}{2} and observe that by the contraction principle [LT91, Theorem 4.4], we can further bound this quantity by

It is now elementary to check that we have

and thus combining all the above we get

which readily concludes the proof of (16).

For the proof of (16), we combine (Proof) and (Proof) with (Proof) to get

Fix x\in\{-1,1\}^n and t\geq0. Denoting by I(x)= \{i:\ x(i)=1\}, the inner term is bounded above by

When y\in\{-1,1\}^{I(x)} is distributed according to p_t^{\pmb{\alpha}}(x,\cdot) and \delta is a uniformly random sign, the random variables \delta_i|\eta_t^{\alpha}(y(i),1;\tfrac{e^{-t}}{2})|, i\in I(x), are independent and identically distributed. Therefore, standard comparison principles going back to works of Maurey and Pisier (see, e.g., [LT91, Proposition 9.14]) show that if X has cotype q<\infty and r> \max\{p, q\}, then

It is again elementary to show that

In view of the convergence of the integrals

combining (?), the corresponding estimate on I(x)^c and (?), we finally get

Now, if F,G are two independent centered X-valued random vectors, then

Therefore,

and this concludes the proof of the theorem.