1: \documentclass{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{verbatim,amsfonts,amsthm,epsfig,fullpage,amsmath,psfig,color}

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: 

8: \newcommand{\chek}[1]{{{#1}}}

9: \newcommand{\dima}[1]{{{#1}}}

10: %\newcommand{\dima}[1]{{\color{blue}{#1}}}

11: %\newcommand{\chek}[1]{{\color{red}{#1}}}

12: 

13: \newtheorem{definition}{Definition}

14: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

15: \newtheorem{claim}{Claim}

16: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

17: \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}

18: \newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}

19: \newtheorem{fact}{Fact}

20: \newtheorem{proposition}[lemma]{Proposition}

21: 

22: \def\whp{w.h.p.}

23: \def\wupp{with uniformly positive probability}

24: \def\Whp{W.h.p.}

25: \def\eg{e.g.\ }

26: \def\ie{i.e.\ }

27: 

28: \newcommand{\p}{p}

29: \newcommand{\q}{q}

30: \renewcommand{\log}{\ln}

31: 

32: \newcommand{\viol}{\not\models}

33: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

34: 

35: \newcommand{\e}{\epsilon}

36: \newcommand{\dd}{\delta}

37: 

38: \newcommand{\rc}{{c}}

39: \newcommand{\fc}{{\omega}}

40: 

41: \newcommand{\Z}{Z}

42: 

43: \newcommand{\up}{*}

44: \newcommand{\rr}{T}

45: \newcommand{\ttk}{t_k}

46: 

47: 

48: \newcommand{\amax}{\alpha_{\max}}

49: \newcommand{\gmax}{g_{\max}}

50: \def\a{\alpha}

51: 

52: \def\e{\varepsilon}

53: \def\FF{F}

54: 

55: \def\ex{{\mathbf E}}

56: \def\E{{\mathbf E}}

57: \newcommand{\one}{{\mathbf{1}}}

58: \newcommand{\PS}{\mathbf{P}}

59: \newcommand{\Pa}{{\mathbf P_{\sigma}}}

60: \newcommand{\Ea}{{\mathbf E_{\sigma}}}

61: 

62: \title{On the Maximum Satisfiability of Random Formulas}

63: 

64: \author{

65:     Dimitris Achlioptas\thanks{Part of this work was done while visiting UC Berkeley.} \\

66:     Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington \\

67:     {\tt optas@microsoft.com}

68:     \and

69:     Assaf Naor \\

70:     Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington \\

71:     {\tt anaor@microsoft.com}

72:     \and Yuval Peres\thanks{Research supported by NSF Grant

73: DMS-0104073 and a Miller Professorship at UC Berkeley.}\\

74: Departments of Statistics and Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley\\

75: {\tt peres@stat.berkeley.edu} }

76: 

77: \date{\empty}

78: 

79: \maketitle

80: 

81: \begin{abstract}

82: Maximum satisfiability is a canonical NP-hard optimization problem

83: that \dima{appears empirically hard for random instances}. In

84: particular, its apparent hardness on random $k$-CNF formulas

85: \dima{of certain densities} was recently suggested by Feige as a

86: starting point for studying inapproximability. At the same time,

87: it is rapidly becoming a canonical problem for statistical

88: physics. In both of these realms, evaluating new ideas relies

89: crucially on knowing the maximum number of clauses one can

90: typically satisfy in a random $k$-CNF formula. In this paper we

91: give asymptotically tight estimates for this quantity.

92: Specifically, let us say that a $k$-CNF  is {\em $\p$-satisfiable}

93: if there exists a truth assignment satisfying $1-2^{-k}+\p 2^{-k}$

94: of all clauses (observe that every $k$-CNF is 0-satisfiable).

95: Also, let $F_k(n,m)$ denote a random \mbox{$k$-CNF} on $n$

96: variables formed by selecting uniformly and independently $m$ out

97: of all $2^k \binom{n}{k}$ possible $k$-clauses.

98: 

99: Let \dima{$\tau(p) = 2^k \ln 2/({\p+(1-\p)\log (1-\p)})$}. It is

100: easy to prove that for every $k \geq 2$ and every $\p \in (0,1]$,

101: if $r \geq \tau(\p)$ then the probability that $F_k(n,rn)$ is

102: $\p$-satisfiable tends to 0 as $n \to \infty$. We prove that

103: \dima{there exists a sequence $\delta_k \to 0$ such that if $r

104: \leq (1-\delta_k) \tau(\p)$ then the probability that $F_k(n,rn)$

105: is $\p$-satisfiable tends to 1 as $n \to \infty$. The sequence

106: $\delta_k$ tends to 0 exponentially fast in $k$. Indeed, even for

107: moderate values of $k$, \eg $k=10$, our result gives very tight

108: bounds for the number of satisfiable clauses in a random $k$-CNF.

109: In particular, for $k>2$ it improves upon all previously known

110: such bounds.}

111: \end{abstract}

112: 

113: \newpage

114: 

115: \section{Introduction}

116: Given a Boolean CNF formula $F$, the Satisfiability problem is to

117: determine whether there exists a truth assignment that satisfies

118: $F$. When $F$ has exactly $k$ literals in each clause,

119: Satisfiability is known as $k$-SAT and is NP-complete~\cite{cook}

120: for all $k \geq 3$. A natural generalization of satisfiability is

121: determining whether there exists a truth assignment that satisfies

122: a given number of clauses in $F$. For $k$-CNF this problem is

123: known as Max $k$-SAT and is NP-complete for all $k\geq 2$

124: (see~\cite{GaJo79}).

125: 

126: Optimization problems with random inputs are pervasive in

127: operations research (e.g., the travelling salesman problem and

128: variants), in statistical physics (determining ground states of

129: spin glasses) and in computer science. An interesting source of

130: Max $k$-SAT instances comes from considering $k$-CNF chosen

131: uniformly at random (see below). Historically, the motivation for

132: studying such formulas has been the desire to understand the

133: hardness of ``typical'' instances.

134:  Random $k$-CNF are

135: by now the most studied generative model for random formulas and

136: have been a very popular benchmark for testing and tuning

137: satisfiability algorithms. In fact, some of the better practical

138: ideas in use today come from insights gained by studying the

139: performance of algorithms on random

140: $k$-CNF~\cite{slm:gsat,sk:walksat,heavytail}.

141: 

142: A natural starting point for considering Max $k$-SAT is the

143: observation that for every $k$-CNF formula there exists a truth

144: assignment satisfying at least $(1-2^{-k})$ of all clauses.

145: Indeed, if such a formula has $m$ clauses, the average over all

146: $2^n$ truth assignments of the number of satisfied clauses is

147: precisely $(1-2^{-k})m$. With this in mind, we will say that a

148: $k$-CNF formula is {\em $\p$-satisfiable}, where $p \in [0,1]$, if

149: there exists a truth assignment satisfying $1-2^{-k}+\p 2^{-k}$ of

150: all clauses.

151: 

152: \dima{To consider random $k$-CNF formulas, let $C_k$ denote the

153: set of all $(2n)^k$ possible disjunctions of $k$ literals on some

154: canonical set of $n$ Boolean variables. To form a random $k$-CNF

155: formula $F_k(n,m)$ with $m$ clauses we select uniformly,

156: independently and with replacement $m$ clauses from $C_k$ and take

157: their conjunction\footnotemark[2].} We will say that a sequence of

158: random events ${\mathcal E}_n$ occurs {\em with high probability\/

159: } (w.h.p.) if $\lim_{n \ra \infty} \Pr[{\mathcal E}_n]=1$ and {\em

160: with uniformly positive probability\/ } if $\liminf_{n \ra \infty}

161: \Pr[{\mathcal E}_n]>0$. We emphasize that throughout the paper $k$

162: is arbitrarily large but fixed, while $n \rightarrow \infty$. For

163: every $k \geq 2$ and $\p \in (0,1]$, let

164: \begin{eqnarray*}

165: r_k(p)  & \equiv &

166:         \sup\{r : F_k(n,rn)\mbox{ is $p$-satisfiable    \whp}\} \\

167:         & \leq &

168:         \inf\{r : F_k(n,rn)\mbox{ is {\em not\/} $p$-satisfiable  \whp}\}

169:         \; \equiv \; r_k^\up(p) \enspace .

170: \end{eqnarray*}

171: 

172: \footnotetext[2]{Our discussion and results hold in all common

173: models for random $k$-CNF, \eg when clause replacement is not

174: allowed and/or when each $k$-clause is formed by selecting $k$

175: distinct, non-complementary literals with/without ordering. The

176: model defined here is best suited for our calculations. We further

177: comment on its relationship to other models in the end of

178: Section~\ref{outline}.}

179: 

180: One of the most intriguing aspects of random formulas is the {\em

181: Satisfiability Threshold Conjecture} which asserts that

182: $r_k(1)=r_k^\up(1)$ for every $k \geq 3$.  Much work has been done

183: to bound $r_k(1)$ and $r_k^\up(1)$. Currently, the best rigorous

184: bounds for general $k \geq 3$, from~\cite{yuval,DuBo}

185: respectively, are: $2^k \ln 2 - O(k) < r_k \le r_k^\up< 2^k \ln 2

186: - O(1)$. \dima{For $p<1$, the bounds for $r_k(\p), r_k^\up(\p)$

187: were much further apart.}

188: 

189: The state of the art for general $k$ was presented in an important

190: recent paper by Coppersmith, Gamarnik, Hajiaghayi, and

191: Sorkin~\cite{sork}, where it was proved \dima{(see~\eqref{sor_or}

192: for a more precise formulation)} that there exists an absolute

193: constant $c>0$ such that for all $k$ and all $p \in (0, p_0(k)]$,

194: \begin{equation} \label{sor2}

195: \frac{c}{k} \,  \frac{2^{k+1} \ln 2}{\p^{2}} \le r_k(\p) \le

196: r_k^\up(\p) \leq \frac{2^{k+1} \ln 2}{\p^{2}(1+o(1))} \enspace .

197: \end{equation}

198: 

199: % sufficiently large $r$, we have as $n \to \infty$,

200: %\begin{equation} \label{sor1}

201: %\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}} \times \sqrt{\frac{A_k}{r}} \le \Phi_k(n,rn)

202: %\le \sqrt{\frac{B_k}{r}} \enspace ,

203: %\end{equation}

204: %where $A_k/B_k \to 2/(\pi \ln 2)$. % and $A_k=\Theta(2^{-k/2})$. %(Explicitly,

205: %%$A_k=\frac{4k^2}{\pi (k+1)^2 2^k}-O(\sqrt{k/r})$ and

206: %%$B_k=\frac{(2^k-1) \ln 2}{2^{2k-1}}$.)

207: %These estimates are equivalent to the assertion that

208: 

209: The upper bound in~\eqref{sor2} was proved via the first moment

210: method, while the lower bound is algorithmic. For small $k$ the

211: two are reasonably close, but the ratio between them tends to

212: infinity as $k$ grows; this naturally raises the question which

213: bound is closer to the truth. %Fortunately, for moderate and large values of

214: %$k$ where algorithms have the most difficulty, our result gives a

215: %satisfying answer.

216: Our main result \dima{resolves this question by pinpointing the

217: values of $r_k(\p)$ and $r_k^\up(\p)$ with relative error that

218: tends to zero exponentially fast in $k$.} For every $\p \in (0,1)$

219: denote

220: \begin{equation}\label{defrr}

221: \rr_k(\p)=\frac{2^k\ln 2}{\p+(1-\p)\log (1-\p)} \,,

222: \end{equation}

223: %we use the convention dictated by continuity that

224: %$0\log 0=0$

225: and let $\rr_k(1)=2^k\ln 2$ so that $\rr_k(\cdot)$ is continuous

226: on $(0,1]$.

227: \begin{theorem}\label{main}

228: There exists a  sequence $\delta_k=O(k 2^{-k/2})$, such that for

229: all $k \geq 2$ and $p \in (0,1]$,

230: \begin{equation}\label{eq:main}

231:  (1-\delta_k) \, {\rr}_k(\p) < r_k(\p)\le r_k^{\up}(\p)\le {\rr}_k(\p) \enspace .

232: \end{equation}

233: \end{theorem}

234: \dima{The upper bound in (\ref{eq:main}) follows from well-known

235: tail estimates}. Taylor expansion gives that as $p \to 0$,

236: $$

237: \rr_k(\p)=\frac{2^k\ln 2}{\p^2/2+O(\p^3)} \enspace ,

238: $$

239: %so the upper bound in Theorem~\ref{main} is consistent with (and

240: %slightly sharper than) the upper bound in~

241: so as $p \to 0$, we can sharpen \eqref{sor2} to

242: \begin{equation} \label{nsor2}

243:  (1-\delta_k) \frac{2^{k+1} \ln 2}{\p^{2}+O(p^3)} \le r_k(\p) \le

244: r_k^\up(\p) \leq \frac{2^{k+1} \ln 2}{\p^{2}+O(p^3)} \enspace .

245: \end{equation}

246: 

247: 

248: Our proof  of Theorem~\ref{main} actually yields an explicit lower

249: bound for $r_k(p)$ for each $k \geq 2$.

250: %%\chek{Also, one can

251: %``invert" the bounds to get upper and lower bounds on the fraction

252: %of satisfiable clauses as a function of density.} \marginpar{\tiny

253: %This is where our ``fraction satisfied" version goes.}

254: For $k =2$, \ie Max 2-SAT, the algorithm presented in~\cite{sork}

255: dominates our lower bound uniformly, \ie for every density it

256: satisfies a greater fraction of all clauses. Already for $k \geq

257: 3$, though, our methods yield a better bound, as indicated by the

258: following plots.

259: 

260: 

261: 

262: \vspace*{0.7cm}

263: 

264: \begin{minipage}{3in}

265: \begin{center}

266:         \centerline{\hbox{

267:         \psfig{figure=upper_lower_3sat.eps,height=1.5in,width=2in}

268:         }}

269:         \centerline{$k=3$}

270: \end{center}

271: \end{minipage}\    \

272: \begin{minipage}{3in}

273: \begin{center}

274:         \centerline{\hbox{

275:         \psfig{figure=upper_lower_4sat.eps,height=1.5in,width=2in}

276:         }}

277:         \centerline{$k=4$}

278: \end{center}

279: \end{minipage}

280: 

281: \vspace*{0.6cm}

282: 

283: \begin{minipage}{3in}

284: \begin{center}

285:         \centerline{\hbox{

286:         \psfig{figure=upper_lower_7sat.eps,height=1.5in,width=2in}

287:         }}

288:         \centerline{$k=7$}

289: \end{center}

290: \end{minipage}\    \

291: \begin{minipage}{3in}

292: \begin{center}

293:         \centerline{\hbox{

294:         \psfig{figure=upper_lower_10sat.eps,height=1.5in,width=2in}

295:         }}

296:         \centerline{$k=10$}

297: \end{center}

298: \end{minipage}

299: 

300: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

301: 

302: 

303: \begin{center}

304: Figure 1. Upper and lower bounds for the density $r$ as a function

305: of $\q=1-p$.

306: \end{center}

307: 

308: 

309: Our approach in proving Theorem~\ref{main} is non-algorithmic,

310: based instead on a delicate application of the second moment

311: method to a random generating function in two variables. It is

312: notoriously difficult to obtain precise asymptotics from such

313: random multivariable generating functions; the fact that this is

314: possible for random Max $k$-SAT is technically due to the

315: surprising cancellation of four terms of equal magnitude in our

316: analysis, leaving only lower order terms. This cancellation hints

317: at the existence of some unexpected hidden structure in random Max

318: $k$-SAT; characterizing this structure combinatorially (rather

319: than just analytically) appears to us  worthy of further study.

320: 

321: \subsection{Background}

322: 

323: For a random formula $F_k(n,m)$, denote by $s_k(n,m)$ the random

324: variable equal to the maximum (over all truth assignments

325: $\sigma$) of the number of clauses satisfied by $\sigma$. Perhaps

326: the first rigorous study of random Max $k$-SAT appeared in the

327: work of Frieze, Broder and Upfal~\cite{BFU} where  it was shown

328: that $s_k(n,m)$ is sharply concentrated

329: around its mean. Specifically, %using standard concentration

330: %inequalities, \eg Azuma's inequality, it follows that

331: \begin{theorem}[{\cite{BFU}}]\label{conc}

332: $\displaystyle{ \Pr\biggl[\bigl|s_k(n,m) - \ex[s_k(n,m)]\bigr| > t

333: \biggr] < 2 \exp(-2t^2/m)}$.

334: \end{theorem}

335: 

336: 

337: The following corollary allows us to infer high probability

338: results from positive probability results.

339: \begin{corollary}\label{booster}

340: If $F_k(n,rn)$ is $\p_0$-satisfiable \wupp, then for every

341: constant $\p<\p_0$, $F_k(n,rn)$ is $\p$-satisfiable \whp\

342: \end{corollary}

343: \begin{proof}

344: Let $S \equiv (1-2^{-k}+\p_0 2^{-k})rn$. Since $F_k(n,rn)$ is

345: $\p_0$-satisfiable \wupp, $\ex[s_k(n,rn)] > S - n^{2/3}$. For,

346: otherwise, Theorem~\ref{conc} would imply that the probability of

347: $\p_0$-satisfiability is exponentially small. By the same token,

348: $\Pr[s_k(n,rn) < S- 2  n^{2/3}] =o(1)$, implying the claim.

349: %

350: % Moreover,

351: %observe that for any constants $r < r_0$ we have $\ex[s_k(n,rn)] =

352: %\ex[s_k(n,r_0 n)] -\Omega(n)$. To see this assume, without loss of

353: %generality, that $F_k(n,r_0 n)$ is generated by first generating

354: %$F_k(n, r n)$ and then adding $(r_0-r)n$ random clauses. Clearly,

355: %any fixed assignment \whp\ will satisfy $\Omega(n)$ of the

356: %$(r_0-r)n$ random clauses added in the second phase; and this is

357: %true, in particular, for any assignment that satisfies a maximum

358: %number of clauses in $F_k(n,r n)$. Thus, by invoking

359: %Theorem~\ref{conc} again, we conclude that if $F_k(n,rn)$ is

360: %$\p$-satisfiable \whp, for otherwise the probability that

361: %

362: \end{proof}

363: 

364: Thus it will suffice to find, for every $\p \in (0,1]$, a value

365: $r=r(\p)$ such that $F_k(n,rn)$ is $\p$-satisfiable with uniformly

366: positive probability and rely on Corollary~\ref{booster} to get a

367: high probability result.

368: 

369: \dima{Regarding the mean in Theorem~\ref{conc},} in view of the a

370: priori bound $s_k(n,m) \ge (1-2^{-k})m$, it is natural to consider

371: $\Phi_k(n,m)=\E[s_k(n,m)]-(1-2^{-k})m$, measuring how much the

372: optimum truth assignment does better than the a priori bound in

373: expectation (over random $k$-CNF). In~\cite{sork} it was shown

374: that for all $k$, for sufficiently large $r$, as $n \to \infty$

375: one has in $F_k(n,rn)$

376: \begin{equation} \label{sor1}

377: \frac{2}{k+1}\sqrt{\frac{k}{\pi 2^k}}\times {\sqrt{r}}-O(1) \le

378: \frac{\Phi_k(n,rn)}{n} \le \sqrt{\frac{(2^k-1) \ln 2}{2^{2k-1}}}

379: \times \sqrt{r}  \enspace .

380: \end{equation}

381: This is equivalent to the assertion that for $\p$ sufficiently

382: small,

383: \begin{equation}\label{sor_or}

384: \frac{k2^{k+2}}{\pi (k+1)^2}\times p^{-2} -O(\p^{-1}) \le r_k(\p)

385: \le r_k^\up(\p) \le 2(2^k-1) \ln 2

386:  \times \p^{-2} \enspace ,

387: \end{equation}

388: \dima{which is a more precise formulation of~\eqref{sor2}.}

389: 

390: Since for $k=2$, the threshold for satisfiability is known, namely

391: $r_2(1)=r_2^{\up}(1)$=1, in~\cite{sork} very fine results were

392: derived for $s_k(n,rn)$ when $r \approx 1$. In particular, when

393: $r=1+\varepsilon$ one has $\E[s_2(n,m)] =

394: (1+\varepsilon-O(\varepsilon^3))n$, while for large $r>1$ the

395: bound in~\eqref{sor1} can be improved to

396: \[

397: \frac{\sqrt{8}-1}{3\sqrt{\pi}} \times {\sqrt{r}} -O(1) \le

398: \frac{\Phi_2(n,rn)}{n} \le \sqrt{\frac{3 \ln 2}{8}} \times

399: {\sqrt{r}} \enspace .

400: \]

401: 

402: 

403: 

404: 

405: \dima{Another intriguing aspect of random $k$-CNF formulas is

406: their proof complexity. In a seminal paper, Chv\'{a}tal and

407: Szemer\'{e}di~\cite{ChvSz} proved that for all $k \geq 3$ and

408: $r>2^k \ln 2$ there exists $\e=\e(r)$ such that \whp\ every

409: resolution refutation of $F_k(n,rn)$ contains at least $(1+\e)^n$

410: clauses. Since then there have been a number of extensions of this

411: result~\cite{bp:resolve,BKPS} and it is widely believed that

412: random $k$-CNF are hard for much stronger proof systems than

413: resolution. Indeed, recently, Feige~\cite{feiger} showed that a

414: hypothesis asserting that proving unsatisfiability of random

415: $k$-CNF with $r \gg 2^k \ln 2$ is hard, implies a number of strong

416: inapproximability results. A closely related hypothesis is that

417: approximating Max $k$-SAT for such formulas is also hard for all

418: $k \geq 2$. Recent work by Fernandez De la Vega and

419: Karpinski~\cite{karpinski} proves that one can approximate Max

420: 3-SAT on $F_3(n,rn)$ within $9/8$ which is better than the trivial

421: $8/7$ bound.}

422: 

423: 

424: 

425: \section{Outline}\label{outline}

426: 

427: \subsection{Understanding correlation sources in MAX $k$-SAT}

428: The following easy consequence of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality

429: underlies the second moment method.

430: \begin{lemma}\label{lemma:sec}

431: For any non-negative random variable $X$,

432: \begin{equation}\label{eq:smm}

433: \Pr[X > 0] \,\ge\, \frac{\ex[X]^2}{\ex[X^2]} \enspace .

434: \end{equation}

435: \end{lemma}

436: 

437: Thus, for any fixed $\p \in (0,1]$ one can let $X$ denote the

438: number of $\p$-satisfying assignments and

439: apply~\eqref{lemma:sec}  to bound \mbox{$\Pr[X>0]$} from below.

440: Unfortunately, it turns out that for every

441: $r>0$, there exists a constant $\beta=\beta(k,r)>1$ such that $\ex[X^2]

442: > \beta^n \ex[X]^2$. As a result, this straightforward approach

443: only gives a trivial lower bound on the probability of

444: $\p$-satisfiability.

445: 

446: In~\cite{yuval}, it was shown that in the case $\p=1$ a major

447: factor in the excessive correlations behind the above failure is

448: the following form of populism: leaning toward the majority vote

449: truth assignment. To see this, first observe that truth

450: assignments that satisfy more literal occurrences than average,

451: have higher probability of being satisfying. At the same time, in

452: order to satisfy many literal occurrences such assignments tend to

453: agree with each other (and the majority truth assignment) on more

454: than half the variables. As a result, the successes of such

455: assignments tend to be highly correlated, thus dominating

456: $\ex[X^2]$. In order to avoid this pitfall, we would like, as in

457: \cite{yuval}, to apply the second moment method to truth

458: assignments that satisfy, approximately, half of all literal

459: occurrences; we call such truth assignments  {\em ``balanced''}.

460: In the context of $\p$-satisfiability, however, there are new

461: obstacles \chek{to overcome before obtaining} a lower bound for

462: $r_k(p)$ that asymptotically matches the upper bound.

463: %\subsection{Weighted second moments: a transform}

464: %Recall that our plan for establishing $\p$-satisfiability for

465: %$F_k(n,m)$ is to prove that the number of balanced

466: %\footnote{I

467: %think that talking about non-populism solves a lot of semantic

468: %problems in the context of a weighting scheme. For one thing,

469: %formally, it is on such assignments that we actually focus. That

470: %said, a better name is definitely needed? ``Contrarian" sounds too

471: %negative. ``Left wing"? ;-)}  $\p$-satisfying assignments has small

472: %variance.

473: To capture the behavior of balanced truth assignments we begin by

474: defining two ``fitness'' gauges.\medskip

475: 

476: Given any $k$-CNF formula ${\FF}$ on $n$ variables

477: % and a fixed value of $\p$, recall that ${\cal S}({\FF})$ is the set of

478: %$\p$-satisfying truth assignments of ${\FF}$. Given

479: and any truth assignment $\sigma \in \{0,1\}^n$ let

480: \begin{enumerate}

481: \item

482: $H= H(\sigma,{\FF})$ be the number of satisfied {literal

483: occurrences} in ${\FF}$ under $\sigma$, minus the number of

484: unsatisfied literal occurrences in ${\FF}$ under $\sigma$.

485: \item

486: $U= U(\sigma,{\FF})$ be the number of unsatisfied clauses in

487: ${\FF}$ under $\sigma$.

488: \end{enumerate}

489: 

490: We would like to focus on truth assignments that are

491: balanced and $p$-satisfying, up to fluctuations

492: one would expect from a central limit theorem, i.e.,  truth assignments

493: $\sigma$ such that

494: \begin{align}

495: |H(\sigma,F)| & \leq A\sqrt{m} \label{iopu}\\

496: |U(\sigma,{\FF}) (1-\p)2^{-k} m| & \leq A\sqrt{m} \label{colopu} \enspace .

497: \end{align}

498: 

499: \chek{To do this let us write} $u_0 \equiv (1-\p)2^{-k}$ and fix

500: some $\gamma,\eta < 1$. \chek{Now,} for a random $k$-CNF formula

501: $\FF$, consider the weighted sum $F$

502: \[

503:     X = X(\gamma,\eta) = \sum_{\sigma} \gamma^{H(\sigma,{\FF})} \eta^{U(\sigma,{\FF})-u_0 m}

504: \enspace .

505: \]

506: Since $\gamma,\eta<1$ we see that in $X$ \chek{the} truth

507: assignments $\sigma$ for which $H(\sigma,F)>0$ or

508: $U(\sigma,{\FF})>u_0m$ are suppressed exponentially, whereas

509: \chek{the rest} are rewarded exponentially. Decreasing

510: $\gamma,\eta \in [0,1)$ makes this phenomenon more and more acute,

511: with the limiting case $\gamma, \eta = 0$ corresponding to a 0-1

512: weighting scheme (we adopt the convention $0^0\equiv 1$). Indeed,

513: applying the second moment method to $X$ with $\eta =0$

514: corresponds to the approach of~\cite{yuval} for the random $k$-SAT

515: threshold, where only satisfying assignments receive non-zero

516: weight $\gamma^{H(\sigma,F)}$. A key step in our analysis,

517: presented in Subsection \ref{tune}, is the tuning of the

518: parameters $\gamma,\eta$ to focus on truth assignments $\sigma$

519: for which (\ref{iopu}) and (\ref{colopu}) hold. Before doing that,

520: we establish the upper bound in Theorem~\ref{main}.

521: 

522: \subsection{The upper bound in Theorem \ref{main}}

523: This upper bound can be \chek{readily established by using the

524: entropic-form Chernoff bound for the Binomial} 

525: (see Lemma A.10 in \cite{AS} or Lemma 3.8 in \cite{DM}),

526: but it is more

527: informative to give a self-contained argument.

528: % for the following, more precise, statement. 

529: Recall the definition of $\rr_k(\cdot)$

530: from (\ref{defrr}).

531: 

532: \begin{lemma}\label{lemma:upper}

533: For all $k \geq 2$ and $\p \in (0,1]$, if $\q=1-p$ then

534: \begin{equation}\label{eq:upper}

535: r_k^{\up}(\p)\le \frac{2^k \log 2}

536: {\q \log \q -(2^{k}-\q)\log\Big(\frac{2^k-1}{2^k-q}\Big)}

537: \le {\rr}_k(\p) \enspace .

538: \end{equation}

539: \end{lemma}

540: \begin{proof}

541: The right hand inequality of (\ref{eq:upper}) follows from the

542: inequality $\log t \le t-1$ applied to $t=\frac{2^k-1}{2^k-q}$,

543: so we just need to verify the  left hand inequality. To do that,

544: write $u_0=2^k \q$. Let $\eta \in (0,1)$, and

545: observe that if  $\FF$ is $\p$-satisfiable, then $U(\sigma,{\FF})

546: \le u_0 m$ for some $\sigma$, whence

547: $$

548: X(1,\eta)=  \sum_{\sigma} \eta^{U(\sigma,{\FF})-u_0 m} \ge 1 \,.

549: $$

550: From (\ref{eq:mean}) in the next section we have that

551: \begin{equation}\label{eq:up2}

552: \PS[X(1,\eta) \ge 1] \le \ex[X(1,\eta)]=2^n \eta^{-\q rn 2^{-k}}

553:   \Big(1- (1-\eta)2^{-k}\Big)^{rn} \,.

554: \end{equation}

555: Thus, the probability of $\p$-satisfiability decays exponentially

556: in $n$ if the \chek{the $n$-th root of the RHS of} \eqref{eq:up2}

557: is strictly smaller than $1$.

558: %So if  $\p$-satisfiability holds with uniformly positive probability,

559: %we must have

560: %By the definition of $r_k^*(\p)$, we must have

561: %\begin{equation}\label{eq:up3}

562: %\log 2 \ge r_k^*(\p) \Big[\q 2^{-k} \log(\eta)-\log\Big(1-

563: %(1-\eta)2^{-k}\Big)\Big] \,.

564: %\end{equation}

565: Taking $\eta=\q (2^k-1)/(2^k-\q)$ 

566: %\chek{minimizes that last quantity} and 

567: yields the lemma.

568: \end{proof}

569: 

570: 

571: \subsection{Tuning parameters and truncation} \label{tune}

572: 

573: When $\eta>0$, attempting to apply the

574: second moment method to $X$ we encounter two major problems.

575: 

576: The first problem is that while $X>0$ implies satisfiability when

577: $\eta=0$, when $\eta >0$ having $X>0$ does not imply

578: $\p_0$-satisfiability:

579: %even when $r$ is such that most of the contribution to $\ex[X]$ comes

580: %from assignments falsifying about $u_0m$ clauses:

581: in principle, $X$ could be positive due to the

582: contribution of assignments falsifying many more clauses than $u_0

583: m$. This necessitates restricting the sum defining $X$ to truth

584: assignments falsifying at most $u_0m+O(\sqrt{m})$ clauses, \ie

585: truncating $X$.

586: 

587: The second, more severe, problem is that with or without this

588: truncation, $\ex[X]^2/\ex[X^2]$ becomes exponentially small when

589: $r$ is only, roughly, half the (asymptotically optimal) lower

590: bound of Theorem~\ref{main}.  Rather counterintuitively, we will

591: be able to delay this explosion until $r$ is within $1-o(1)$ of

592: the upper bound by also removing from the sum those ``heroic"

593: truth assignments falsifying {\em fewer\/} than $u_0 m$ clauses.

594: This affords us much tighter control of pairs of assignments that

595: agree on nearly all variables, which turn out to be the dominant

596: contributors to $\ex[X^2]$ as we approach the upper bound. The

597: idea behind this sacrifice is motivated by Cramer's classical

598: ``change of measure'' technique in large deviation theory. The

599: corresponding ``adaptive weighting" scheme requires an extremely

600: sharp asymptotic analysis, involving a number of rather miraculous

601: cancellations. Due to space limitations this analysis appears

602: entirely in the Appendix.

603: 

604: Specifically, for some fixed $A>0$ let

605: $${\cal S^*}= \{ \sigma \in \{0,1\}^n :

606: H(\sigma, {\FF}) \geq 0 \mbox{ \rm and } \, U(\sigma,\FF) \in [u_0

607: m ,u_0 m +A\sqrt{m}] \}  \, .

608: $$

609: Moreover, given $u_0$, let $\gamma_0,\eta_0$ be defined by

610: \begin{eqnarray}

611: 1-\eta_0  & = & (1-\gamma_0^2)(1+\gamma_0^2)^{k-1} \nonumber\\

612: \label{eq:defzero} \\

613: u_0  & = & \frac{\eta_0}{(1+\gamma_0^2)^k-(1-\eta_0)} \nonumber

614: \enspace .

615: \end{eqnarray}

616: These two equations are designed so that the main contribution in

617: the sum defining $X$ comes from truth assignments  for which

618: (\ref{iopu}) and (\ref{colopu}) holds. The connection is made in

619: equations (\ref{EH}) and (\ref{EU}) in Section \ref{doobya}.

620: 

621: \chek{We define}

622: \[

623: X_*  = \sum_{\sigma \in {\cal S^*}}

624: \gamma_0^{H(\sigma,F)}\eta_0^{U(\sigma,F)-u_0 m} \enspace .

625: \]

626: Note that, by definition, when $X_*>0$ at least one truth

627: assignment must falsify at most $u_0 m + A\sqrt{m}$ clauses. Thus,

628: if for a given $\p_0$ we can prove that there exists a constant

629: $D>0$ such that $\ex[X_*^2] < D \times \ex[X_*]^2$ then, by

630: Corollary~\ref{booster}, it follows that $F_k(n,rn)$ is \whp\

631: $\p$-satisfiable for all $\p<\p_0$.

632: 

633: Bounding the second moment of $X_*$ will be accomplished in the

634: following lemmata. For $\alpha \in [0,1]$, let

635: \begin{flalign}\label{eq:deff}

636: \mbox{} \!\!\!\!\! f(\alpha,\gamma,\eta) =\eta^{-2u_0}\left[

637:     \left(\a \left(\frac{\gamma^2+\gamma^{-2}}{2}\right)+1-\a

638:     \right)^k

639:     - 2 (1-\eta)\left(\frac{\a\gamma^{-2}+(1-\a)}{2}\right)^k

640:     + (1-\eta)^2 \left(\frac{\a\gamma^{-2}}{2}\right)^k\right]

641: \end{flalign}

642: and

643: \begin{equation}

644:  g_r(\alpha,\gamma,\eta) = \frac{f(\alpha,\gamma,\eta)^r}{\alpha^{\alpha}(1-\alpha)^{1-\alpha}}\enspace .

645: \end{equation}\medskip

646: In all of the following lemmata $k \geq 2$ is a fixed integer and

647: $r>0$.

648: \begin{itemize}

649: \item

650: Lemma~\ref{middle} with $\gamma=\gamma_0$ and $\eta=\eta_0$ gives

651: us $\ex[X(\gamma_0,\eta_0)]^2$ which is $\ex[X_*]^2$ but for the

652: truncation.

653: \item

654: Lemma~\ref{doobya2} asserts that for every value of $u_0$,

655: $\ex[X_*]$ is a constant fraction of $\ex[X(\gamma_0,\eta_0)]$.

656: Thus, combined with Lemma~\ref{middle}, it gives us $\ex[X_*]^2$

657: up to a constant factor (which is all we need).

658: \item

659: Lemma~\ref{ola} expresses $\ex[X_*^2]$ as a sum with $n+1$ terms,

660: the $z$-th term capturing the contribution of the $2^n

661: \binom{n}{z}$ pairs of truth assignments with overlap $z$. The

662: contribution of each such pair is then bounded by

663: $f(z/n,\gamma,\eta)^{rn}$ where $\gamma,\eta$ are allowed to {\em

664: depend on $z$}, subject only to $\gamma \geq \gamma_0$ and $\eta

665: \geq \eta_0$ respectively. In other words, Lemma~\ref{ola} allows

666: us to adapt $\gamma$ and $\eta$ to $\alpha$, which is crucial when

667: $\p <1$.

668: \item

669: Lemma~\ref{ksekola} is based on the fact that for any ``smooth"

670: choice of sequences $\gamma(z),\eta(z)$, the sum in

671: Lemma~\ref{ola} will be dominated by the contribution of the

672: $\Theta(n^{1/2})$ terms around the maximum term. Specifically, if

673: $\chi,\omega$ express our adaptive scheme for $\gamma,\eta$, then

674: we can use the Laplace method to get that the maximum of

675: $g_r(\alpha,\chi(\alpha),\omega(\alpha))$ over $\alpha \in (0,1)$,

676: characterizes the sum in Lemma~\ref{ola} up to a constant factor.

677: \end{itemize}

678: 

679: 

680: \begin{lemma}\label{middle}

681: For every $u_0,\gamma,\eta \in [0,1)$,

682: \[

683: \ex[X]^2 = \Bigl(2\,g_r(1/2,\gamma,\eta)\Bigr)^n \enspace .

684: \]

685: \end{lemma}

686: 

687: \begin{lemma}\label{doobya2}

688: For every $u_0$, there exists $\theta = \theta(k,A)>0$ such that

689: as $n \to \infty$,

690: \[

691: \frac{\ex[X_*]}{\ex [X(\gamma_0,\eta_0)]} \to \theta \enspace .

692: \]

693: \end{lemma}

694: 

695: 

696: \begin{lemma}\label{ola}

697: Let $\gamma(z),\eta(z)$ be arbitrary sequences such that

698: $\gamma(z) \geq \gamma_0$ and $\eta(z) \geq \eta(0)$ for every $0

699: \leq z \leq n$. Then, for every $u_0$,

700: \[

701: \ex[X_*^2] \leq 2^n \sum_{z=0}^n \binom{n}{z}

702: f(z/n,\gamma(z),\eta(z))^{rn} \enspace .

703: \]

704: \end{lemma}

705: 

706: \begin{lemma}\label{ksekola}

707: Let $\chi : [0,1] \rightarrow [\gamma_0,1)$ and $\omega : [0,1]

708: \rightarrow [\eta_0,1)$ be arbitrary piecewise-smooth functions

709: and let $g_r(\alpha) = g_r(\alpha,\chi(\alpha),\omega(\alpha))$.

710: If there exists $\amax \in (0,1)$ such that $g_r(\amax) \equiv

711: \gmax > g_r(\alpha)$ for all $\alpha \neq \amax$, and

712: $g''_r(\amax)< 0$, then there exists a constant $D =

713: D_{\chi,\omega}(k,r,u_0)>0$ such that for all sufficiently large

714: $n$

715: \[

716: \ex[X_*^2] < D \times {

717:     \Bigl(2 \,

718:             \gmax

719:     \Bigr)^n}\enspace .

720: \]

721: \end{lemma}

722: 

723: Combining Lemmata~\ref{middle}--\ref{ksekola} we  see that if for

724: a given $u_0$ and $r$ there exist $\chi,\omega$ such that for all

725: $\alpha \neq 1/2$

726: \begin{equation}\label{masterp}

727: g_{r}\Bigl(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0\Bigr) >

728: g_{r}\Bigl(\alpha,\chi(\alpha),\omega(\alpha)\Bigr)

729: \end{equation}

730: then $\ex[X_*^2] < D \theta^{-2} \times \ex[X_*]^2$, yielding the

731: desired conclusion $\ex[X_*^2] = O(\ex[X_*]^2)$.

732: \bigskip

733: 

734: Indeed, to prove  Theorem~\ref{main} we will show that for every

735: $\p \in (0,1]$ and for the stated $r = r(\p)$, there exist

736: functions $\chi,\omega$ for which~\eqref{masterp} holds. To

737: simplify the asymptotic analysis, we use the crudest possible such

738: functions, paying the price of this simplicity in the value of

739: $k_0$ in Proposition~\ref{prop:main} below. We note that by

740: choosing a more refined (and more cumbersome) adaptation of

741: $\gamma,\eta$ to $\alpha$ this value can be improved greatly.

742: Moreover, we emphasize that for any fixed value of $k$, one can

743: get a sharper lower bound (such as those reported in the

744: Introduction) by partitioning $[0,1]$ to a large number of

745: intervals and numerically finding a good value of $\gamma,\eta$

746: for each one. We discuss this point further in

747: Section~\ref{finitek}. Finally, we note that general large

748: deviations considerations imply that for every $k$ and $\p$, the

749: condition~\eqref{masterp} is sharp for our method. That is, no

750: better lower bound can be derived by considering balanced

751: assignments and, in fact, by any argument that classifies

752: assignments according to their number of satisfied literal

753: occurrences in the formula.

754: \begin{definition}\label{skolio}

755: Let $\q = 1-\p_0 = u_0 2^k$ and let

756: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:defrk}

757: \ttk=\frac{2^k\ln 2}{1-\q+\q\log

758: \q}\left(1-20k2^{-k\varphi(\q)}\right)\quad \mathrm{where}\quad

759: \varphi(\q)=\frac{(1-\sqrt{\q})^2}{1-\q+\q\log \q} \enspace .

760: \end{eqnarray}

761: \end{definition}

762: Theorem~\ref{main} will follow from the following

763: Proposition.

764: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:main}

765: Let

766: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:defE}

767: G_r(\alpha)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} g_r(\alpha,\gamma_0,\eta_0)

768: &\mbox{ if }

769: \alpha \in \left[\frac{3\log k}{k}, 1-\frac{3\log k}{k}\right]\\

770: \\

771: g_r(\alpha, \sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}) & \mbox{ otherwise.}

772: \end{array}\right.

773: \end{eqnarray}

774: For all $k\ge k_0$, if\/ $r\le \ttk$ then $G_r''(1/2)<0$ and

775: $G_r(1/2)>G_r(\alpha)$ for all $\alpha\neq 1/2$.

776: \end{proposition}

777: 

778: 

779: \bigskip

780: 

781: The proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:main}, itself, will be

782: decomposed into three lemmata of increasing difficulty. The first

783: lemma holds for any $\gamma,\eta$ and reduces the proof to the

784: case $\alpha \geq 1/2$. The second lemma reflects the behavior of

785: $f$ (and thus $g_r$) around $\a = 1/2$, motivating the judicious

786: choice $\eta=\eta_0$ and $\gamma=\gamma_0$ for $G_r$. The third

787: lemma deals with $\alpha$ near 1. That case needs a lot more work

788: in order to handle the unique local maximum of $g_r$ in that

789: region. The condition $r \leq \ttk$ and the change to

790: $\gamma=\sqrt{\gamma_0}, \eta=\sqrt{\eta_0}$ aims precisely at

791: keeping the value of $g_r$ at this other local maximum smaller

792: than $g_r(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)$.

793: 

794: 

795: \begin{lemma}%[Reduction to the interval ${ \bf[1/2,1]}$]

796: \label{lem:biggerthanhalf} For every $0< x\le \frac12$,

797: $G_r(1/2+x)>G_r(1/2-x)$.

798: \end{lemma}

799: 

800: \begin{lemma}%[Reduction to large ${\bf \alpha}$]

801: \label{lem:decreasing} For all $k\ge k_0$, if\/ $r\le

802: \frac{2^k\log 2}{1-\q+\q\log \q}$ then $G_r''(1/2)<0$ and $G_r$ is

803: strictly decreasing on $\left[\frac{1}{2},1-\frac{3\log

804: k}{k}\right]$.

805: \end{lemma}

806: 

807: \begin{lemma}%[Dealing with ${\bf \alpha}$ near $1$]

808: \label{lem:bigalpha} For all $k \geq k_0$, if  $r\le \ttk$ then

809: for every $\alpha\in \left[1-\frac{3\log k}{k},1\right]$,

810: $G_r(1/2)>G_r(\alpha)$.

811: \end{lemma}

812: 

813: In the following sections we prove

814: Lemmata~\ref{middle}--\ref{ksekola}, while

815: Lemmata~\ref{lem:biggerthanhalf}--\ref{lem:bigalpha} are proven in

816: the appendix. Before delving into the probabilistic calculations

817: involved in proving Lemmata~\ref{middle}--\ref{ola} a couple of

818: remarks are in order.\medskip

819: 

820: 

821: 

822: \noindent {\bf Relationship to other $k$-CNF models:} Recall that

823: the $m$ clauses of $F_k(n,m)$ are chosen independently with

824: replacement among the $(2n)^k$ possibilities. Thus, the $m$

825: clauses $\{c_i\}_{i=1}^m$ are i.i.d.\ random variables, each $c_i$

826: being the conjunction of $k$ i.i.d.\ random variables

827: $\{\ell_{ij}\}_{j=1}^k$, each $\ell_{ij}$ being a uniformly random

828: literal. This viewpoint of the formula as a sequence of $km$

829: i.i.d.\ random literals will be very handy for our calculations.

830: 

831: Clearly, in this model some clauses might be improper, \ie they

832: might contain repeated and/or contradictory literals. At the same

833: time, though, observe that the probability that any given clause

834: is improper is smaller than $k^2/n$ and, moreover, the proper

835: clauses are uniformly selected among all such clauses. Therefore

836: \whp\ the number of improper clauses is $o(n)$ implying that if

837: for a given $r$, $F_k(n,rn)$ is $\p$-satisfiable \whp\ then for

838: $m=rn-o(n)$, the same is true in the model where we only select

839: among proper clauses. The issue of selecting clauses without

840: replacement is completely analogous as \whp\ there are $o(n)$

841: clauses that contain the same $k$ variables as some other clause.

842: \medskip

843: 

844: 

845: \noindent {\bf Notation:} In the ensuing probabilistic

846: calculations it will be convenient to write $\sigma \viol F$ to

847: denote that the truth assignment $\sigma$ violates the formula $F$

848: where $F$ can be a literal, a clause, or an entire CNF.

849: 

850: 

851: \section{The first moment and proof of Lemma~\ref{middle}}

852: 

853: By linearity of expectation and since the $m = rn$ clauses

854: $c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_m$ are chosen independently we have

855: \begin{eqnarray}

856: \eta^{u_0 m}  \, \ex[X]   & = &  \ex \left[\sum_{\sigma}  \gamma^{H(\sigma,{\FF})}  \eta^{U(\sigma,{\FF})}\right] \nonumber \\

857: %            & = & \sum_{\sigma}  \ex[\gamma^{H(\sigma,{\FF})} \one_{\sigma \in {\cal S(\FF)}}] \\

858:             & = &  \sum_{\sigma}   \ex\left[\prod_{c_i}

859:                             \gamma^{H(\sigma,c_i)}  \eta^{U(\sigma,c_i)}

860:                     \right] \nonumber \\

861:             & = & \sum_{\sigma}   \prod_{c_i}\ex

862:                     \left[

863:                             \gamma^{H(\sigma,c_i)}  \eta^{U(\sigma,c_i)}

864:                     \right] \enspace . \label{eq:sumonday}

865: \end{eqnarray}

866: %

867: %

868: %                    \nonumber \\

869: %            & = & \eta^{-u_0 r n} \, 2^n \,

870: %\psi(\gamma,\eta)^{rn} \enspace . \label{eq:sq_exp_psi}

871: 

872: Observe now that since the clauses are identically distributed, by

873: symmetry, it suffices to consider the expectation

874: in~\eqref{eq:sumonday} for a single random clause $c= \ell_1 \vee

875: \cdots \vee \ell_k$ and a fixed truth assignment $\sigma$.

876: Moreover, observe that if we write $\gamma^H \eta^U$ as $\gamma^H

877: + \gamma^H(\eta^U-1)$ we see that the second expression is

878: non-zero only when $U>0$, \ie when $c$ is violated by $\sigma$.

879: So, since the literals $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_k$ are i.i.d.\ we get

880: \begin{eqnarray}

881:     \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)} \eta^{U(\sigma,c)}\right] & = &

882:     \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)} - \gamma^{H(\sigma,c)}

883: \left(1-\eta^{U(\sigma,c)}\right)\right]\nonumber  \\

884:     & = & \ex\left[ \gamma^{H(\sigma,c)}\right] -

885:  \ex\left[\gamma^{-k} (1-\eta) \, \one_{\sigma \viol c}\right] \nonumber \\

886: & = &     \ex\left[\prod_{\ell_i}\gamma^{H(\sigma,\ell_i)}\right]

887: - 2^{-k} \gamma^{-k} (1-\eta) \nonumber \\

888: & = &  \prod_{\ell_i}\ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,\ell_i)}\right]

889: - 2^{-k} \gamma^{-k} (1-\eta) \nonumber \\

890: & = & \left(\frac{\gamma+\gamma^{-1}}{2}\right)^k - (2\gamma)^{-k}

891: (1-\eta)

892: \nonumber \\

893: & \equiv & \Z(\gamma,\eta) \label{eq:defZ} \enspace .

894: \end{eqnarray}

895: Thus,

896: \begin{equation} \label{eq:mean}

897: \ex[X] = \eta^{-u_0 rn} \, 2^n \, \Z(\gamma,\eta)^{rn} \,.

898: \end{equation}

899: Observe now that

900: \[

901: \left(\eta^{-u_0}\Z(\gamma,\eta)\right)^2 = f(1/2,\gamma,\eta)

902: \enspace .

903: \]

904: Therefore,

905: \[

906: \ex[X]^2 = \left(\eta^{-u_0 rn} \, 2^n \,

907: \Z(\gamma,\eta)^{rn}\right)^2 =

908:  \left[\left(\eta^{-u_0 r} \, 2 \,

909: \Z(\gamma,\eta)^r\right)^2\right]^n = \left[4 \,

910: f(1/2,\gamma,\eta)^r\right]^{n} = \left[2 \,

911: g_r(1/2,\gamma,\eta)\right]^n \enspace .

912: \]

913: 

914: 

915: 

916: \section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{doobya2}} \label{doobya}

917: 

918: By linearity of expectation, it suffices to prove that there

919: exists some $\theta=\theta(k,A)>0$ such that for the values of

920: $\gamma_0, \eta_0$ satisfying \eqref{eq:defzero} and every truth

921: assignment $\sigma$, we have

922: \begin{equation} \label{favor}

923:     \frac{\ex\left[\gamma_0^{H(\sigma,\FF)}\eta_0^{U(\sigma,\FF)}

924: \one_{\sigma \in {\cal S^*({\FF})}}\right ]}

925:          {\ex \left[\gamma_0^{H(\sigma,\FF)}\eta_0^{U(\sigma,\FF)}\right]}

926:  \rightarrow \theta \enspace .

927: \end{equation}

928: 

929: Recalling that formulas in our model are sequences of i.i.d.\

930: random literals $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_{km}$, let $\PS(\cdot)$ denote

931: the probability assigned by our distribution to any such sequence,

932: \ie $(2n)^{-km}$. Now, fix any truth assignment $\sigma$ and

933: consider an auxiliary distribution $\Pa$ on $k$-CNF formulas where

934: the $m$ clauses $c_1,\ldots,c_m$ are again i.i.d.\ among all

935: $(2n)^k$ clauses, but where now for any fixed clause $\fc$

936: \begin{equation} \label{doob2}

937: \Pa(\rc_i=\fc) =

938: \frac{\gamma_0^{H(\sigma,\fc)}\eta_0^{U(\sigma,\fc)}\PS(\fc)}

939: {\Z(\gamma_0,\eta_0)} \enspace ,

940: \end{equation}

941: where

942: \begin{equation}\label{defZ2}

943: \Z(\gamma_0,\eta_0) =

944: \ex\left[\gamma_0^{H(\sigma,\rc)}\eta_0^{U(\sigma,\rc)} \right]

945: %=\left(\frac{\gamma_0+\gamma_0^{-1}}{2}\right)^k -

946: %(2\gamma_0)^{-k} (1-\eta_0)

947: \enspace ,

948: \end{equation}

949: was defined in~(\ref{eq:defZ}). (Since each fixed clause $\fc$

950: receives probability proportional to

951: $\gamma_0^{H(\sigma,\fc)}\eta_0^{U(\sigma,\fc)}$, indeed

952: $Z(\gamma_0,\eta_0)$ provides the correct normalization to a

953: probability distribution.) So, whereas under $\PS(\cdot)$ every

954: $k$-CNF formula ${\FF}$ with $m$ clauses had the same probability

955: $\PS(F)=(2n)^{-km}$, under $\Pa$ its probability is

956: \begin{equation} \label{doob3} \Pa({\FF}) =

957: \frac{\gamma_0^{H(\sigma,{\FF})}\eta_0^{U(\sigma,{\FF})}

958: \PS({\FF})} {\Z(\gamma_0,\eta_0)^m} \enspace .

959: \end{equation}

960: 

961: Let $\Ea$ be the expectation operator corresponding to $\Pa$. A

962: calculation similar to that leading to (\ref{eq:defZ}), adding the

963: equal contributions from the $k$ literals, gives that for a single

964: random clause $c$

965: \begin{equation} \label{EH}

966: \Z(\gamma_0,\eta_0)\Ea[H(\sigma,\rc)]= k(\gamma_0-\gamma_0^{-1})

967: \left(\frac{\gamma_0+\gamma_0^{-1}}{2}\right)^{k-1}

968: +k(2\gamma_0)^{-k} (1-\eta_0) \enspace .

969: \end{equation}

970: Moreover,

971: \begin{equation} \label{EU}

972: \Z(\gamma_0,\eta_0)\Ea[U(\sigma,\rc)]= (2\gamma_0)^k \eta_0 \,.

973: \end{equation}

974: Thus~\eqref{eq:defzero} ensures that $\Ea[H(\sigma,\rc)] = 0$ and

975: also that $\Ea[U(\sigma,\rc)-u_0] = 0$.\medskip

976: 

977: Next, we apply the multivariate central limit theorem (see, e.g.\

978: \cite{pollard}, page 182) to the i.i.d.\ mean-zero random vectors

979: $\Big(H(\sigma,\rc_i),U(\sigma,\rc_i)-u_0\Big)$ for

980: $i=1,\ldots,m$. Observe that, since $k \ge 2$,  the common law of

981: these random vectors is not supported on a line. We deduce that as

982: $n \rightarrow \infty$

983: $$

984: \Pa[\sigma \in {\cal S}^*(\FF)]=\Pa\Big[H(\sigma,{\FF}) \geq 0 \mbox{ \rm

985: and } U(\sigma,\FF) \in [m u_0 ,m u_0+A\sqrt{m}]\Big]

986:  \rightarrow \theta(k,A)>0 \enspace .

987: $$

988: Here, the right hand side is the probability that a certain

989: nondegenerate bivariate normal law assigns to a certain open set.

990: Its exact value is unimportant for our purpose. By (\ref{doob3}),

991: this is equivalent to (\ref{favor}).

992: 

993: \section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{ola}}

994: 

995: Linearity of expectation implies

996: \begin{eqnarray}

997: \eta_0^{2u_0 m} \, \ex [X_*^2]     & = & \ex \left[\left(\sum_{\sigma}  \gamma_0^{H(\sigma,{\FF})}  \eta_0^{U(\sigma,{\FF})} \, \one_{\sigma \in {\cal S^*}({\FF})}\right)^2 \right] \nonumber \\

998:             & = &   \sum_{\sigma,\tau} \,\ex \left[\gamma_0^{H(\sigma,{\FF})+H(\tau,{\FF})}

999:             \eta_0^{U(\sigma,{\FF})+U(\tau,{\FF})}\, \one_{\sigma,\tau \in {\cal S^*}({\FF})}

1000:         \right] \label{eq:doldrum} \enspace .

1001: \end{eqnarray}

1002: Observe now that since $\sigma \in {\cal S}^*$ implies

1003: $H(\sigma,F) \geq 0$ and $U(\sigma,F) \geq u_0 m$, we get that for

1004: every pair $\sigma,\tau$ and any $\gamma \ge \gamma_0$ and $\eta

1005: \ge \eta_0$,

1006: \begin{eqnarray}

1007:     \ex \left[\gamma_0^{H(\sigma,{\FF})+H(\tau,{\FF})}

1008:             \eta_0^{U(\sigma,{\FF})+U(\tau,{\FF})}\, \one_{\sigma,\tau \in {\cal S^*}({\FF})}

1009:         \right]    &\le&

1010: \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,{\FF})+H(\tau,{\FF})}

1011: \eta^{U(\sigma,{\FF})+U(\tau,{\FF})} \, \one_{\sigma,\tau \in

1012: {\cal S^*}({\FF})}\right] \nonumber \\

1013:    &\le&

1014:  \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,{\FF})+H(\tau,{\FF})}

1015: \eta^{U(\sigma,{\FF})+U(\tau,{\FF})}\right] \enspace .

1016: \label{eq:choice}

1017: \end{eqnarray}

1018: In other words, when using the right hand side

1019: of~\eqref{eq:choice} to bound each term of the sum

1020: in~\eqref{eq:doldrum}, we are allowed to {\em adapt\/} the value

1021: of $\gamma$ and $\eta$ to the pair $\sigma,\tau$, the only

1022: restrictions being $\gamma \geq \gamma_0$ and $\eta \geq \eta_0$.

1023: This is a crucial point and we will exploit it heavily when

1024: bounding the contribution of pairs with large overlap.

1025: \medskip

1026: 

1027: To estimate the right hand side of~\eqref{eq:choice} for any pair

1028: $\sigma,\tau$ we first observe that since the $m$ clauses

1029: $c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_m$ are i.i.d., letting $c$ be a single random

1030: clause we have

1031: \begin{eqnarray}

1032: \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,{\FF})+H(\tau,{\FF})}

1033: \eta^{U(\sigma,{\FF})+U(\tau,{\FF})}\right]        & = &

1034:         \ex\left[\prod_{c_i} {\gamma^{H(\sigma,c_i)+H(\tau,c_i)}

1035: \eta^{U(\sigma,c_i)+U(\tau,c_i)}}

1036:                     \right] \nonumber \\

1037:             & = &  \prod_{c_i}\ex

1038:                     \left[{\gamma^{H(\sigma,c_i)+H(\tau,c_i)}

1039: \eta^{U(\sigma,c_i)+U(\tau,c_i)}}

1040:                     \right]\nonumber \\

1041:                     & = &

1042:                     \biggl(\ex \left[{\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)+H(\tau,c)}

1043: \eta^{U(\sigma,c)+U(\tau,c)}}

1044:                     \right]\biggr)^m \label{eq:monday} \enspace .

1045: \end{eqnarray}

1046: 

1047: Next, we observe that for every pair $\sigma,\tau$, by symmetry,

1048: the expectation in~\eqref{eq:monday} depends only on the number of

1049: variables to which $\sigma,\tau$ assign the same value. So, let

1050: $\sigma,\tau$ be any pair of truth assignments that agree on

1051: exactly $z = \alpha n$ variables, \ie have overlap $z$. By first

1052: rewriting (again) $\gamma^H \eta^U$ as $\gamma^H +

1053: \gamma^H(\eta^U-1)$ and then observing that $\eta^{U(\tau,c)}$ is

1054: distributed identically with $\eta^{U(\sigma,c)}$ we  get

1055: \begin{align}

1056: \lefteqn{\ex

1057:     \biggl[

1058:               \gamma^{H(\sigma,{c})}\eta^{H(\sigma,{c})} \gamma^{H(\tau,{c})}  \eta^{H(\tau,{c})}

1059:     \biggr]} \nonumber \\

1060: \mbox{} \quad \mbox{} & = \ex

1061:     \Biggl[

1062:               \biggr(\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)}-\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)}\left(1-\eta^{U(\sigma,c)}\right)\biggr)

1063:               \biggr(\gamma^{H(\tau,c)}-\gamma^{H(\tau,c)}\left(1-\eta^{U(\tau,c)}\right)\biggr)

1064:     \Biggr]

1065: \nonumber \\

1066: & =        \ex\biggl[\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)+H(\tau,c)}\biggr]

1067:             - 2 \,

1068:             \ex\biggl[\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)+H(\tau,c)}\left(1-\eta^{U(\sigma,c)}\right)\biggr]+

1069: \ex\biggl[\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)+H(\tau,c)}\left(1-\eta^{U(\sigma,c)}\right)\left(1-\eta^{U(\tau,c)}\right)\biggr]

1070: \nonumber

1071:             \\

1072: & =        \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)+H(\tau,c)}\right]

1073:             - 2(1-\eta)

1074:             \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)+H(\tau,c)} \one_{\sigma \viol c}\right]+

1075:             2^{-k}\alpha^k \gamma^{-2k} (1-\eta)^2   \enspace .

1076:             \label{eq:merge}

1077: \end{align}

1078: 

1079: Now, to estimate~\eqref{eq:merge} we note that since the literals

1080: $\ell_1,\ell_2,\ldots \ell_k$ comprising $c$ are i.i.d.\ we have

1081: \begin{align*}

1082:     \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)+H(\tau,c)}

1083:     \right] & =

1084:     \ex\left[

1085:             \prod_i \gamma^{H(\sigma,\ell_i)+H(\tau,\ell_i)}

1086:         \right]

1087:       =

1088:         \prod_i \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,\ell_i)+H(\tau,\ell_i)}

1089:         \right]

1090:         = \left(\a \left(\frac{\gamma^2+\gamma^{-2}}{2}\right)+1-\a

1091:         \right)^k \nonumber \\

1092: \intertext{and, similarly,}

1093: \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,c)+H(\tau,c)} \one_{\sigma \viol c}

1094:     \right] & =

1095:     \ex\left[

1096:             \prod_i \gamma^{H(\sigma,\ell_i)+H(\tau,\ell_i)} \one_{\sigma

1097:             \viol \ell_i}

1098:         \right]

1099:      =

1100:         \prod_i \ex\left[\gamma^{H(\sigma,\ell_i)+H(\tau,\ell_i)} \one_{\sigma \viol \ell_i}

1101:         \right]  = \left(\frac{\a\gamma^{-2}+(1-\a)}{2}

1102:         \right)^k .

1103: \end{align*}

1104: Substituting these last two equations in~\eqref{eq:merge} we get

1105: \begin{align} \lefteqn{\eta ^{-2u_0}\,\ex

1106:     \left[

1107:               \gamma^{H(\sigma,{c})}\eta^{H(\sigma,{c})} \gamma^{H(\tau,{c})}  \eta^{H(\tau,{c})}

1108:     \right]} \nonumber \\

1109: & = \nonumber \eta^{-2u_0}\left[

1110:     \left(\a \left(\frac{\gamma^2+\gamma^{-2}}{2}\right)+1-\a

1111:     \right)^k

1112:     - 2 (1-\eta)\left(\frac{\a\gamma^{-2}+(1-\a)}{2}\right)^k

1113:     + (1-\eta)^2 \left(\frac{\a\gamma^{-2}}{2}\right)^k\right] \\

1114: & =  f(\alpha,\gamma,\eta) \enspace . \label{eq:gotcha}

1115: \end{align}

1116: 

1117: So, in conclusion, since the number of ordered pairs with overlap

1118: $z$ is $ 2^n \,\binom{n}{z}$ we get that

1119: \begin{equation}

1120:  \ex[X_*^2] \leq 2^n \sum_{z=0}^n  \binom{n}{z} f(z/n,\gamma(z),\eta(z))^{m}

1121:  \enspace ,

1122: \label{eq:naesum}

1123: \end{equation}

1124: for any set of choices for $\gamma(z),\eta(z)$ such that

1125: $\gamma(z) \geq \gamma_0$ and $\eta(z)\geq \eta_0$ for all $0\leq

1126: z \leq n$.\bigskip

1127: 

1128: \subsection{Proof of Lemma~\ref{ksekola}}

1129: 

1130: If $\chi : [0,1] \rightarrow [\gamma_0,1]$ and $\omega : [0,1]

1131: \rightarrow [\gamma_0,1]$ are piecewise smooth, then from the

1132: definition of $f$ we see that

1133: $f(\alpha,\chi(\alpha),\omega(\alpha))$ is also piecewise smooth.

1134: Thus, we can decompose the sum in~\eqref{eq:naesum} into a fixed

1135: number of sums such that $f(\alpha,\chi(\alpha),\omega(\alpha))$

1136: is smooth in the range of each sum. To bound each such sum, then,

1137: we use the following lemma whose proof is implied by the proof of

1138: Lemma~2 in~\cite{naesat} (that lemma is stated with the

1139: requirement that $f$ is analytic, a condition not needed for the

1140: proof; in fact, it suffices for $f$ to only be twice

1141: differentiable.) The idea is that each of these sums is dominated

1142: by the contribution of $\Theta(n^{1/2})$ terms around the maximum

1143: term. Since the number of sums is finite the lemma follows.

1144: \begin{lemma} Let $\phi$ be any

1145: real, positive, twice-differentiable function on $[0,1]$ and let

1146: $$

1147: S_n = \sum_{z=0}^n \binom{n}{z} \,\phi(z/n)^n \enspace .

1148: $$

1149: Letting $0^0 \equiv 1$, define $g$ on $[0,1]$ as

1150: \[

1151: g(\alpha) = \frac{\phi(\alpha)}

1152:                  {\alpha^\alpha \,(1-\alpha)^{1-\alpha}} \enspace

1153:                  .

1154: \]

1155: If there exists $\amax \in (0,1)$ such that $g(\amax) \equiv \gmax

1156: > g(\alpha)$ for all $\alpha \neq \amax$, and $g''(\amax) < 0$,

1157: then there exist constants $B, C > 0$ such that for all

1158: sufficiently large $n$

1159: \[

1160: B \times \gmax^n \,\le\, S_n \,\le\, C \times \gmax^n \enspace .

1161: \]

1162: \end{lemma}

1163: 

1164: \section{Bounds for finite {\large{$k$}}}\label{finitek}

1165: 

1166: As mentioned in Section~\ref{outline}, for small values of $k$ the

1167: simple adaptation scheme of Proposition~\ref{prop:main} does not

1168: yield the best possible lower bound for $\p$-satisfiability

1169: afforded by our method. For that, one has to use a significantly

1170: more refined adaptation of $\gamma,\eta$ with respect to $\alpha$.

1171: Our lower bounds reported in Figure 1 are, indeed, the result of

1172: performing such optimization of $\gamma,\eta$ numerically (for

1173: both the upper bound plots and the plots of the lower bound

1174: from~\cite{sork} we used the explicit formulas).

1175: 

1176: Specifically, to create the plots of the lower bounds we computed

1177: a lower bound for 100 equally spaced values of $p$ on the

1178: horizontal axis (and then had Maple's~\cite{maple} plotting

1179: function ``connect the dots"). For each of these values of $p$, to

1180: prove the corresponding lower bound for $r$ we had to establish

1181: that there exist a choice of functions $\chi,\omega$ as in

1182: Lemma~\ref{ksekola} such that for all $\alpha \in (1/2,1]$ we have

1183: $g_{r}(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0) >

1184: g_{r}(\alpha,\chi(\alpha),\omega(\alpha))$. To that end, we

1185: partitioned $(1/2,1]$ to 10,000 points and for each such point we

1186: searched for values of $\gamma \geq \gamma_0$ and $\eta \geq

1187: \eta_0$ such that this condition holds with a bit of room. (For

1188: $k>4$ we solved~\eqref{eq:defzero}, defining $\gamma_0$ and

1189: $\eta_0$, numerically to 10 digits of accuracy. For the

1190: optimization we exploited convexity to speed up the search.)

1191: Having determined such values, we (implicitly) extended the

1192: functions $\chi,\omega$ to all $(1/2,1]$ by assigning to every

1193: not-chosen point the value at the nearest chosen point. Finally,

1194: we computed a (crude) upper bound on the derivative of $g_r$ with

1195: respect to $\alpha$ in $(1/2,1]$. This bound on the derivative,

1196: along with our room factor, then implied that for every point that

1197: we did not check, the value of $g_r$ was sufficiently close to its

1198: value at the corresponding chosen point to also be dominated by

1199: $g_{r}(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)$.

1200: 

1201: 

1202: 

1203: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1204: We thank Cris Moore for helpful conversations in the early stages

1205: of this work.

1206: 

1207: \bibliographystyle{amsalpha}

1208: \bibliography{stoc,extra,theory}

1209: 

1210: \newpage

1211: 

1212: \appendix

1213: 

1214: 

1215: 

1216: \section{Building up an arsenal}

1217: 

1218: 

1219: In this section we collect some basic inequalities and identities

1220: that we will use in the proofs of Lemmas \ref{lem:biggerthanhalf},

1221: \ref{lem:decreasing} and \ref{lem:bigalpha}. For readability, in

1222: this Appendix we have replaced $q$ of Definition~\ref{skolio} with

1223: the letter $y$.

1224: 

1225: Plugging in the definition of $\eta_0$ from (\ref{eq:defzero})

1226: into the definition of $f$ we get

1227: \begin{align*} \lefteqn{f(\alpha,\gamma_0,\eta_0)} \nonumber \\

1228: &

1229: =\eta_0^{-{y}/{2^{k-1}}}\left\{\left(1-\alpha+\alpha\frac{\gamma_0^2+\gamma_0^{-2}}{2}\right)^k-

1230: \frac{(1-\gamma_0^2)(1+\gamma_0^2)^{k-1}}{2^{k-1}}

1231: \left(\alpha\gamma_0^{-2}+1-\alpha\right)^k+

1232: \frac{\alpha^k(1-\gamma_0^2)^2(1+\gamma_0^2)^{2k-2}}{2^k\gamma_0^{2k}}\right\}.

1233: \end{align*}

1234: For some parts of the ensuing calculations, it will be to

1235: convenient to use the following normalizations of

1236: $f(\alpha,\gamma_0,\eta_0)$ and $g_r(\alpha,\gamma_0,\eta_0)$

1237: denoted as $f_0$ and $g_0$ respectively

1238: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:normalization}

1239: f_0(\alpha)=2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}\eta_0^{y/2^{k-1}}f(\alpha,\gamma_0,\eta_0)\quad

1240: \mathrm{and}\quad

1241: g_0(\alpha)=2^{2kr}\gamma_0^{2kr}\eta_0^{yr/2^{k-1}}g_r(\alpha,\gamma_0,\eta_0).

1242: \end{eqnarray}

1243: We will also write $\e_0=1-\gamma_0^2$. With this notation, we

1244: have the following formula for $f_0$, which holds for every

1245: $x\in[-1/2,1/2]$

1246: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:f0}

1247: f_0\left(\frac{1}{2}+x\right)=[2x{\e_0}^2+(2-{\e_0})^2]^k-2{\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}[2-{\e_0}+2x{\e_0}]^k+{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}(1+2x)^k

1248: \enspace ,

1249: \end{eqnarray}

1250: In particular,

1251: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:f1/2}

1252: f_0\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)=(2-{\e_0})^{2k}-2{\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{2k-1}+{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}

1253: =4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2} \enspace .

1254: \end{eqnarray}

1255: 

1256: The function $y\mapsto 1-y+y\log y$, defined on $[0,1]$, appears

1257: throughout our analysis. The following inequalities, valid for all

1258: $y\in [0,1]$, will be used

1259: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:stupid}

1260: \frac{(1-y)^2}{2}\le 1-y+y\log y\le (1-y)^2.

1261: \end{eqnarray}

1262: The right-hand inequality follows from the estimate $\log y\le

1263: y-1$. The left-hand inequality follows from integrating this

1264: estimate as follows

1265: $$

1266: -1+y-y\log y=\int_y^1\log x dx\le

1267: \int_y^1(1-x)dx=-\frac{(1-y)^2}{2}.

1268: $$

1269: 

1270: \medskip

1271: We end this section by providing some estimates for the values of

1272: ${\e_0}$ and $\eta_0$

1273: \begin{fact}\label{fact:etae} For all sufficiently large $k$ ,

1274: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:e}

1275: \frac{2(1-y)}{2^{k}-k-1}-\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\;\le\;

1276: {\e_0}\;\le \;\frac{2(1-y)}{2^{k}-k-1} \enspace ,

1277: \end{eqnarray}

1278: and

1279: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:eta}

1280: \eta_0 \;\le \;

1281: \min\left\{y,y-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^k}\right\}

1282: \enspace .

1283: \end{eqnarray}

1284: \end{fact}

1285: 

1286: \subsection{Proof of Fact \ref{fact:etae}}

1287: 

1288: By the first equation in (\ref{eq:defzero}) we have that

1289: $\eta_0=1-{\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}$. Plugging this into the second

1290: equation in (\ref{eq:defzero}) we find that

1291: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:identityy}

1292: \frac{y}{2^k}=\frac{1-{\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}}{(2-{\e_0})^k-{\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}}

1293: = \frac{1-{\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}}{2(1-{\e_0})(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}}

1294: =\frac{1}{2}\left[1-\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\frac{1}{(2-{\e_0})^{j}}\right].

1295: \end{eqnarray}

1296: Hence, if we denote

1297: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:defpsi}

1298: \psi(t)=\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\frac{1}{(2-t)^{j}}=\frac{(2-t)^{k-1}-1}{(1-t)(2-t)^{k-1}}

1299: \enspace ,

1300: \end{eqnarray}

1301: then we require that $\psi({\e_0})=1-\frac{y}{2^{k-1}}$. We

1302: collect below some useful properties of $\psi$.

1303: 

1304: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:psi} $\psi$ is increasing on $[0,1]$.

1305: Furthermore, for $k$ large enough and every $t\le t\le 1/(2k)$,

1306: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ineqpsi}

1307: 1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}+t-\frac{(k+1)t}{2^k}+\frac{t^2}{2}\le

1308: \psi(t)\le  1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}+t-\frac{(k+1)t}{2^k}+2t^2

1309: \enspace.

1310: \end{eqnarray}

1311: 

1312: 

1313: \end{lemma}

1314: 

1315: \begin{proof} The fact that $\psi$ is increasing follows

1316: immediately from the first formula in (\ref{eq:defpsi}). To prove

1317: the inequalities in (\ref{eq:ineqpsi}), observe that

1318: $$

1319: \psi(t)=\frac{\left(1-\frac{t}{2}\right)^{k-1}-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}}{(1-t)\left(1-\frac{t}{2}\right)^{k-1}}=

1320: \frac{1}{1-t}-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}(1-t)\left(1-\frac{t}{2}\right)^{k-1}}

1321: \enspace .

1322: $$

1323: To estimate $\psi$ from below, we use the inequalities $1+a+a^2\le

1324: 1/(1-a)\le 1+a+2a^2$ and $(1-a)^{k-1}\ge1-(k-1)a$, valid for all

1325: $0\le a\le 1/2$, to show that whenever $a\le 1/(2k)$

1326: \begin{eqnarray*}

1327: \psi(t)&\ge&

1328: 1+t+t^2-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}(1-t)\left(1-\frac{(k-1)t}{2}\right)}\\

1329: &\ge&

1330: 1+t^2-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}(1+t+2t^2)\left(1+\frac{(k-1)t}{2}+2\frac{(k-1)^2t^2}{4}\right)\\

1331: &\ge& 1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}+t-\frac{(k+1)t}{2^k}+\frac{t^2}{2}

1332: \enspace,

1333: \end{eqnarray*}

1334: for all $k$ sufficiently large.

1335: 

1336: The reverse inequality is just as simple

1337: \begin{eqnarray*}

1338: \psi(t)&\le&

1339: 1+t+2t^2-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}(1+t)\left(1+\frac{t}{2}\right)^{k-1}\\

1340: &\le&

1341: 1+t+2t^2-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}(1+t)\left(1+\frac{(k-1)t}{2}\right)\\

1342: &\le& 1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}+t-\frac{(k+1)t}{2^k}+2t^2 \enspace.

1343: \end{eqnarray*}

1344: \end{proof}

1345: 

1346: We are now in position to conclude the proof of Fact

1347: \ref{fact:etae}. Since $\psi$ is increasing and

1348: $\psi({\e_0})=1-\frac{y}{2^{k-1}}$, the inequalities in

1349: (\ref{eq:e}) will be proved once we show that

1350: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:need}

1351: \psi\left(\frac{2(1-y)}{2^{k}-k-1}-\frac{16(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right)\le

1352: 1-\frac{y}{2^{k-1}}\le \psi\left(\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}\right)

1353: \enspace.

1354: \end{eqnarray}

1355: To prove the right-hand inequality in (\ref{eq:need}), set

1356: $t=\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}$ and observe that for $k$ large enough,

1357: $t\le 1/(2k)$. Hence, by Lemma \ref{lem:psi},

1358: \begin{eqnarray*}

1359: \psi(t)\ge

1360: 1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}+t-\frac{(k+1)t}{2^k}=1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}+\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}-\frac{(k+1)}{2^k}\cdot

1361: \frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}=1-\frac{y}{2^{k-1}} \enspace.

1362: \end{eqnarray*}

1363: 

1364: The left-hand inequality in (\ref{eq:need}) is equally simple. In

1365: this case we apply Lemma \ref{lem:psi} with

1366: $t=\frac{2(1-y)}{2^{k}-k-1}-\frac{16(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}$ and get that

1367: \begin{eqnarray*}

1368: \psi(t)&\le& 1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}+t-\frac{(k+1)t}{2^k}+2t^2\\

1369: &\le&

1370: 1-\frac{1}{2^{k-1}}+\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}-\frac{(k+1)}{2^k}\cdot

1371: \frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}-\frac{16(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}+2\cdot

1372: \frac{4(1-y)^2}{(2^k-k-1)^2}\\&\le& 1-\frac{y}{2^{k-1}} \enspace,

1373: \end{eqnarray*}

1374: as long as $k$ is sufficiently large.

1375: 

1376: \smallskip

1377: 

1378: To prove the estimate (\ref{eq:eta}) observe that the function

1379: $s\mapsto s(2-s)^{k-1}$ is increasing on $[0,2/k]$. Since we have

1380: shown that for sufficiently large $k$, ${\e_0}\le

1381: \frac{2(1-y)}{2^{k}-k-1}\le \frac{2}{k}$, the lower bound in

1382: (\ref{eq:e}) yields

1383: \begin{eqnarray*}

1384: \eta_0&=&1-{\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}\\

1385: &\le&1-2^{k-1}\left(\frac{2(1-y)}{2^{k}-k-1}-\frac{16(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right)

1386: \left(1-\frac{1-y}{2^{k}-k-1}-\frac{8(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}

1387: \right)^{k-1}\\

1388: &\le& 1-\left(\frac{2^k(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}-\frac{8(1-y)^2}{2^k}\right)

1389: \left(1-\frac{(k-1)(1-y)}{2^{k}-k-1}-\frac{8(k-1)(1-y)}{2^{2k}}

1390: \right)\\

1391: &<& y-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^k} \enspace,

1392: \end{eqnarray*}

1393: provided $k$ is large enough. The inequality $\eta_0\le y$ is

1394: simpler. By (\ref{eq:identityy}),

1395: $$

1396: \frac{y}{2^k}=\frac{1-{\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}}{2(1-{\e_0})(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}}=\frac{\eta_0}{2^k(1-\e_0)(1-\e_0/2)^{k-1}}\ge

1397: \frac{\eta_0}{2^k} \enspace .

1398: $$

1399: 

1400: \section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:biggerthanhalf}}

1401: 

1402: 

1403: Since the function $\alpha\mapsto

1404: \alpha^\alpha(1-\alpha)^{1-\alpha}$ is symmetric around $1/2$, it

1405: suffices to prove that for every $x\in (0,1/2]$,

1406: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:notsym}

1407: f\left(\frac12+x,\gamma,\eta\right)>f\left(\frac12-x,\gamma,\eta\right).

1408: \end{eqnarray}

1409: To this end, fix $x\in [-1/2,1/2]$ and $\gamma,\eta>0$. Denote

1410: $\e=1-\gamma^2$. Plugging this notation and $\alpha=1/2+x$ into

1411: (\ref{eq:deff}), we find that the following identity holds

1412: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:binom}

1413: \eta^{y/2^{k-1}}2^{2k}\gamma^{2k}f\left(\frac12+x,\gamma,\eta\right)&=&[2x\e^2+(2-\e)^2]^k-2(1-\eta)[(2-\e)+

1414: 2x\e]^k+(1-\eta)^2(1+2x)^k\nonumber\\

1415: &=&\sum_{j=0}^k\binom{k}{j}2^jx^{j}[\e^{2j}(2-\e)^{2(k-j)}-2(1-\eta)\e^j(2-\e)^{k-j}+(1-\eta)^2]\nonumber\\

1416: &=&\sum_{j=0}^k\binom{k}{j}2^jx^{j}[\e^j(2-\e)^{k-j}-(1-\eta)]^2.

1417: \end{eqnarray}

1418: This shows that we can write

1419: $f(1/2+x,\gamma,\eta)=\sum_{j=0}^ka_jx^j$ for some $a_j\ge 0$,

1420: such that at most one of the $a_j$'s is zero. Since for every

1421: $x>0$ and odd $j$, $x^j-(-x)^j>0$, (\ref{eq:notsym}) follows.

1422: 

1423: 

1424: \section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:decreasing}}

1425: 

1426: In this section we will use the normalization

1427: (\ref{eq:normalization}). To prove the first assertion of Lemma

1428: \ref{lem:decreasing}, our goal is to show that $g_0'(\alpha) < 0$

1429: for $\frac12 < \alpha \le 1-\frac{3\log k}{k}$. Observe that

1430: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:derg0}

1431: g'_0(\alpha)=\frac{f_0(\alpha)^{r-1}\Big\{rf'_0(\alpha)+

1432: f_0(\alpha)\big[\log(1-\alpha)-\log\alpha\big]\Big\}}{\alpha^\alpha(1-\alpha)^{1-\alpha}}

1433: \enspace .

1434: \end{eqnarray}

1435: Differentiating (\ref{eq:f0}) at $x=0$ we find that

1436: $$

1437: f_0'\left(\frac12\right)=2k{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}-4{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}+2{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}=0\enspace.

1438: $$

1439: Since, by (\ref{eq:binom}), $f_0(\alpha)>0$ it is enough to show

1440: that the following function is decreasing on

1441: $\left[\frac12,1-\frac{3\log k}{k}\right]$

1442: $$

1443: \psi(\alpha)=rf_0'(\alpha)+f_0(\alpha)[\log (1-\alpha)-\log\alpha]

1444: \enspace .

1445: $$

1446: Now,

1447: $$

1448: \psi'(\alpha)= rf_0''(\alpha)+f_0'(\alpha)[\log

1449: (1-\alpha)-\log\alpha]-f_0(\alpha)\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\right)

1450: \enspace .

1451: $$

1452: Since for $1/2< \alpha\le 1$, $\log(1-\alpha)< \log \alpha$ and,

1453: by (\ref{eq:binom}), $f_0'>0$ on $(1/2,1]$, it is thus enough to

1454: prove that

1455: $$

1456: rf_0''(\alpha)\le

1457: f_0(\alpha)\left(\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\right)

1458: \enspace.

1459: $$

1460: Now, $\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{1-\alpha}\ge 4$ and, from

1461: (\ref{eq:f1/2}), we get that for $\alpha\ge 1/2$,

1462: $$

1463: f_0(\alpha)\ge

1464: f_0\left(\frac12\right)=4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}\ge

1465: (2-{\e_0})^{2k-2} \enspace,

1466: $$

1467: where we also used that, by (\ref{eq:e}), ${\e_0}\le 1/2$ for $k$

1468: large enough. Thus, it suffices to prove

1469: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:goal}

1470: rf_0''\left(\frac{1}{2}+x\right)\le 4(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}.

1471: \end{eqnarray}

1472: 

1473: Now, using that $x\le\frac12- \frac{3\log k}{k}$, we differentiate

1474: (\ref{eq:f0}) twice to get

1475: \begin{align*}\label{eq:crude}

1476: \lefteqn{f_0''\left(\frac{1}{2}+x\right)} \nonumber\\

1477: &=4k(k-1)\left\{

1478: {\e_0}^4[2x{\e_0}^2+(2-{\e_0})^2]^{k-2}-2{\e_0}^3(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}[2-{\e_0}+2x{\e_0}]^{k-2}+{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}(1+2x)^{k-2}\right\}\nonumber\\

1479: &\le 4k^2\left\{

1480: {\e_0}^4(2-{\e_0})^{2k-4}\left(1+\frac{2x{\e_0}^2}{(2-{\e_0})^2}\right)^{k-2}

1481: +{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}(1+2x)^{k-2}\right\}\nonumber\\

1482: &\le 4k^2\left\{ {\e_0}^4(2-{\e_0})^{2k-4}\left(1+2x\right)^{k-2}

1483: +{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}(1+2x)^{k-2}\right\}\\

1484: &\le 8k^2{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}(1+2x)^k\\ &\le

1485: 8k^2{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}\left[2-\frac{6\log k}{k}\right]^k\\

1486: &\le 8k^2{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}2^k\frac{1}{k^3}\\

1487: &\le

1488: \frac{2^{k+3}}{k}\left(\frac{4(1-y)}{2^k}\right)^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2},

1489: \end{align*}

1490: where in the last line we used the fact that for $k$ large enough,

1491: (\ref{eq:e}) implies  ${\e_0}\le {4(1-y)}/{2^k}$.

1492: 

1493: Combining this estimate with (\ref{eq:goal}), we see that we must

1494: show that for sufficiently large $k$

1495: $$

1496: \frac{128\log 2}{1-y+y\log y}\cdot \frac{(1-y)^2}{k}\le 4 \enspace

1497: ,

1498: $$

1499: and this is indeed the case by (\ref{eq:stupid}).

1500: 

1501: \smallskip

1502: 

1503: It remains to show that $g_0''(1/2)<0$. Denoting

1504: $\zeta(\alpha)=\alpha^{-\alpha}(1-\alpha)^{\alpha-1}$, we see from

1505: (\ref{eq:derg0}) that

1506: $g_0'(\alpha)=f_0(\alpha)^{r-1}\psi(\alpha)\zeta(\alpha)$. Since

1507: $f_0(1/2)=0$, $\zeta'(1/2)=0$, and we have just verified that

1508: $\psi'(1/2)<0$, the required result follows.

1509: 

1510: \section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:bigalpha}}

1511: 

1512: Our goal is to show that for any $0<r\le \ttk$, and $1-\frac{3\log

1513: k}{k}< \alpha\le 1$,

1514: \begin{equation}\label{eq:maingoal}

1515: \left[\frac{f(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}\right]^r\le

1516: 2\alpha^\alpha(1-\alpha)^{1-\alpha} \enspace .

1517: \end{equation}

1518: 

1519: The following lemma gives an upper bound for the left-hand side of

1520: (\ref{eq:maingoal}).

1521: 

1522: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:ratio} For all

1523: sufficiently large $k$,

1524: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:final}

1525: \frac{f(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}\le

1526: y^{y/2^k}\left[1+\frac{2(1-y)-2(1-\sqrt{y})+(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right]

1527: \enspace .

1528: \end{eqnarray}

1529: \end{lemma}

1530: 

1531: 

1532: \begin{proof}

1533: 

1534: 

1535: \begin{comment}

1536: To this end, we naturally require a lower bound for

1537: $f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)$ and an upper bound for

1538: $f(\alpha,\gamma_0,\sqrt{\eta_0})$. By (\ref{eq:f1/2}),

1539: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:lowerf1/2}

1540: \eta_0^{y/2^{k-1}}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(\frac12,\gamma_0,\eta_0\right)&=&4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}\nonumber\\&=&

1541: 2^{2k}(1-{\e_0})^2\left(1-\frac{{\e_0}}{2}\right)^{2k-2}\nonumber\\

1542: &\ge& 2^{2k}(1-2{\e_0})[1-(k-1){\e_0}]\nonumber\\&\ge&

1543: 2^{2k}[1-(k+1){\e_0}].

1544: \end{eqnarray}

1545: \end{comment}

1546: 

1547: 

1548: Denote $\e_1=1-(\sqrt{\gamma_0})^2=1-\sqrt{1-\e_0}$. For

1549: $1-\frac{4\log k}{k}< \alpha\le 1$ write $x=\alpha-1/2$.

1550: Analogously to (\ref{eq:binom}) we have we have the following

1551: identity

1552: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:identitye}

1553: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\frac12+x,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)\nonumber\\

1554: &=&

1555: [2x{\e_1}^2+(2-{\e_1})^2]^k-2(1-\sqrt{\eta_0})[(2-{\e_1})+2x{\e_1}]^k+(1-\sqrt{\eta_0})^2(1+2x)^k.

1556: \end{eqnarray}

1557: Our first goal is replace $\eta_0$ in the right-hand side of

1558: (\ref{eq:identitye}) by its upper bound from (\ref{eq:eta}). To

1559: this end consider the function

1560: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:rho}

1561: \rho(b)=[2x{\e_1}^2+(2-{\e_1})^2]^k-2b[(2-{\e_1})+2x{\e_1}]^k+b^2(1+2x)^k,

1562: \end{eqnarray}

1563: and observe the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:identitye}) equals

1564: $\rho\left(1-\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)$. So, that it is enough to show

1565: that $\rho$ is decreasing on $[0,1]$. Since $\rho$ is convex and

1566: quadratic, this would follow once we show that $\rho'(1)\le 0$.

1567: This is equivalent to $1+2x\le 2-{\e_1}+2x{\e_1}$, which is true

1568: since $x\le 1/2$. Hence

1569: \begin{comment}

1570: Now,

1571: $$

1572: \eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(\frac12+x,\gamma_0,\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)=\rho\left(1-\sqrt{\eta_0}\right).

1573: $$

1574: By Fact \ref{fact:etae}, as long as $k\ge 30$, $1-\sqrt{\eta_0}\ge

1575: 1-\sqrt{y}$, and since $\rho$ is decreasing on $[0,1]$, we can

1576: bound

1577: $\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(\alpha,\gamma_0,\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)$

1578: from above as follows

1579: \end{comment}

1580: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:upperf}

1581: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)=

1582: \rho(1-\sqrt{\eta_0})

1583: \nonumber\\

1584: &\le& \rho(1-\sqrt{z})=

1585: [2x{\e_1}^2+(2-{\e_1})^2]^k-2(1-\sqrt{z})[(2-{\e_1})+2x{\e_1}]^k+(1-\sqrt{z})^2(1+2x)^k,

1586: \end{eqnarray}

1587: Where $z$ is the upper bound for $\eta_0$ from (\ref{eq:eta}),

1588: i.e.,

1589: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:defz}

1590: z=

1591: \min\left\{y,y-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^k}\right\}

1592: \enspace .

1593: \end{eqnarray}

1594: 

1595: Hence using $\eta_0\le z$ and the identity (\ref{eq:f1/2}) we

1596: bound the ratio in (\ref{eq:maingoal}) as follows

1597: \begin{align}

1598: \lefteqn{\frac{f(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}} \nonumber \\

1599: & =\eta_0^{y/2^k}\cdot\gamma_0^k\cdot

1600: \frac{\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)}

1601: {\eta_0^{y/2^{k-1}}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0\right)}\nonumber\\

1602: &=\frac{\eta_0^{y/2^k}(1-\e_0)^{k/2}}{4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}}\cdot

1603: \eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)\nonumber\\

1604: &\le

1605: \frac{z^{y/2^k}(1-\e_0)^{k/2}}{4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}}\cdot

1606: \left\{[2x{\e_1}^2+(2-{\e_1})^2]^k-2(1-\sqrt{z})[(2-{\e_1})+2x{\e_1}]^k+(1-\sqrt{z})^2(1+2x)^k\right\}\nonumber\\

1607: &= z^{y/2^k}\left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2

1608: (1-{\e_0})}\right]^2\left[\frac{\sqrt{1-\e_0}}{(1-\e_0/2)^2}\right]^k\cdot\nonumber\\

1609: &\phantom{\le}

1610: \left\{\left[\frac{x\e_1^2}{4}+\left(1-\frac{\e_1}{2}\right)^2\right]^k-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})

1611: [1-{\e_1}(1-\alpha)]^k}{2^k}+\frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}\right\}

1612: \enspace . \label{eq:estimate}

1613: \end{align}

1614: %

1615: %\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:estimate}

1616: %&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{f(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}

1617: %=\eta_0^{y/2^k}\cdot\gamma_0^k\cdot

1618: %\frac{\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)}

1619: %{\eta_0^{y/2^{k-1}}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0\right)}\nonumber\\

1620: %&=&\frac{\eta_0^{y/2^k}(1-\e_0)^{k/2}}{4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}}\cdot

1621: %\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)\nonumber\\

1622: %&\le&

1623: %\frac{z^{y/2^k}(1-\e_0)^{k/2}}{4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}}\cdot

1624: %\left\{[2x{\e_1}^2+(2-{\e_1})^2]^k-2(1-\sqrt{z})[(2-{\e_1})+2x{\e_1}]^k+(1-\sqrt{z})^2(1+2x)^k\right\}\nonumber\\

1625: %&=& z^{y/2^k}\left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2

1626: %(1-{\e_0})}\right]^2\left[\frac{\sqrt{1-\e_0}}{(1-\e_0/2)^2}\right]^k\cdot\nonumber\\

1627: %&\phantom{\le}&

1628: %\left\{\left[\frac{x\e_1^2}{4}+\left(1-\frac{\e_1}{2}\right)^2\right]^k-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})

1629: %[1-{\e_1}(1-\alpha)]^k}{2^k}+\frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}\right\}.

1630: %\end{eqnarray}

1631: 

1632: We will bound the various terms in (\ref{eq:estimate}) separately.

1633: First of all, using (\ref{eq:defz}) and the inequality $e^a\le

1634: 1+a+a^2$, which is valid for $0\le a\le 1$, we get that

1635: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:zpart}

1636: z^{y/2^k}&\le&

1637: y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{y(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{y2^k}\right]^{y/2^k}\nonumber\\

1638: &\le&

1639: y^{y/2^k}\exp\left[-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right]\nonumber\\

1640: &\le&y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right],

1641: \end{eqnarray}

1642: as long as $k$ is large enough.

1643: 

1644: Next, using the inequality $1/(1-a)\le 1+2a$, valid for $0\le a\le

1645: 1/2$ we get

1646: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:thesquare}

1647: \left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2

1648: (1-{\e_0})}\right]^2\le\left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2}(1+2{\e_0})\right]^2\le

1649: 1+\e_0+5\e_0^2.

1650: \end{eqnarray}

1651: Next, using the inequality $\sqrt{1-x}\le 1-x/2$, the inequality

1652: $1/(1-a)\le 1+a+2a^2$, valid for $0\le a\le 1/2$, and the

1653: inequality $(1+a)^k\le 1+ka+k^2a^2/2$, which is valid for all

1654: $a\le 1/(4k^2)$, we get that since for $k$ large enough $\e_0\le

1655: 1/(4k^2)$,

1656: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:theroot}

1657: \left[\frac{\sqrt{1-\e_0}}{(1-\e_0/2)^2}\right]^k\le

1658: \frac{1}{(1-\e_0/2)^k}\le

1659: \left(1+\frac{\e_0}{2}+\frac{\e_0^2}{2}\right)^k\le

1660: 1+\frac{k\e_0}{2}+\frac{k^2\e_0^2}{8}+k\e_0^2.

1661: \end{eqnarray}

1662: Hence, for $k$ large enough

1663: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:theproduct}

1664: \left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2

1665: (1-{\e_0})}\right]^2\left[\frac{\sqrt{1-\e_0}}{(1-\e_0/2)^2}\right]^k\le

1666: 1+\left(1+\frac{k}{2}\right)\e_0+\frac{k^2\e_0^2}{4}+k\e_0^2.

1667: \end{eqnarray}

1668: 

1669: Next, using the inequality $x/2\le 1-\sqrt{1-x}\le x/2+x^2$, which

1670: is valid for $0\le x\le 1/2$, we get that

1671: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ineqe1}

1672: \frac{\e_0}{2}\le\e_1=1-\sqrt{1-\e_0}\le \frac{\e_0}{2}+\e_0^2\le

1673: \e_0.

1674: \end{eqnarray}

1675: Observe that since $0\le x\le 1/2$ and $\e_1<1/2$, the function

1676: $\e_1\mapsto \frac{x\e_1^2}{4}+\left(1-\frac{\e_1}{2}\right)^2$ is

1677: decreasing in $\e_1$. Hence, the lower bound in (\ref{eq:ineqe1}),

1678: together with another application of the inequality $(1+a)^k\le

1679: 1+ka+k^2a^2/2$, valid for all $a\le 1/(4k^2)$, implies that for

1680: sufficiently large $k$

1681: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:firstbracket}

1682: \left[\frac{x\e_1^2}{4}+\left(1-\frac{\e_1}{2}\right)^2\right]^k&\le&

1683: \left[\frac{\e_0^2}{32}+\left(1-\frac{\e_0}{4}\right)^2\right]^k\le

1684: \left[1-\frac{\e_0}{2}+\frac{\e_0^2}{10}\right]^k\le

1685: 1-\frac{k\e_0}{2}+\frac{k^2\e_0^2}{8}+k\e_0^2 \enspace .

1686: \end{eqnarray}

1687: 

1688: The second term in the brackets of (\ref{eq:estimate}) appears

1689: with a minus sign, so we bound it from below, using the fact that

1690: $z\le y$ and $\e_1\le\e_0$.

1691: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:secondbracket}

1692: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z}) [1-{\e_1}(1-\alpha)]^k}{2^k}&\ge&\nonumber

1693: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})k\e_1(1-\alpha)}{2^k}\\&\ge&

1694: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{y})k\e_0}{2^k}\nonumber\\

1695: &\ge&

1696: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-y)k}{2^k}\cdot\frac{2(1-y)}{2^{k}-k-1}\nonumber\\

1697: &\ge& \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}-\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}},

1698: \end{eqnarray}

1699: where we have used the upper bound in (\ref{eq:e}).

1700: 

1701: Combining (\ref{eq:estimate}), (\ref{eq:zpart}),

1702: (\ref{eq:theproduct}), (\ref{eq:firstbracket}) and

1703: (\ref{eq:secondbracket}) we get

1704: 

1705: 

1706: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:almost}

1707: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{f(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}\nonumber\\

1708: &\le&y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right]

1709: \left[1+\left(1+\frac{k}{2}\right)\e_0+\frac{k^2\e_0^2}{8}+k\e_0^2\right]\cdot\nonumber\\

1710: &\phantom{\le}&\left\{1-\frac{k\e_0}{2}+\frac{k^2\e_0^2}{8}+k\e_0^2-

1711: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}+\frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}\right\}\nonumber\\

1712: &\le&

1713: y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right]\cdot\nonumber\\

1714: &\phantom{\le}&\left\{1+\e_0+\frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}

1715: +\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}+\frac{k(1-\sqrt{z})^2\e_0}{2^k}+\frac{8k^2(1-y)^2\e_0}{2^{2k}}+k^3\e_0^3\right\}\nonumber\\

1716: &\le&y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right]\left\{1+\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}+

1717: \frac{30k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right\}\nonumber\\

1718: &\le&y^{y/2^k}\left\{1+\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+

1719: \frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}+

1720: \frac{50k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right\},

1721: \end{eqnarray}

1722: where we have used the upper bound in (\ref{eq:e}),

1723: (\ref{eq:defz}) and the fact that $k$ is large enough.

1724: 

1725: Now, we claim that for every $\alpha\in [0,1]$,

1726: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:trick}

1727: (1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k -2(1-\sqrt{z})\le (1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k

1728: -2(1-\sqrt{y})+z-y.

1729: \end{eqnarray}

1730: Indeed, since by (\ref{eq:defz}), $z\le y$, the left-hand side

1731: minus the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:trick}) is an increasing

1732: function, which vanishes at $1$. Moreover, by (\ref{eq:defz}),

1733: $$

1734: z-y\le -\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^k},

1735: $$

1736: so that (\ref{eq:trick}) becomes

1737: $$ (1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k

1738: -2(1-\sqrt{z})\le (1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k

1739: -2(1-\sqrt{y})-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^k}.

1740: $$

1741: Plugging this into (\ref{eq:almost}) we get

1742: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:almostalmost}

1743: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{f(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}\le

1744: y^{y/2^k}

1745: \left\{1+\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}-\frac{2(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}-

1746: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{y})}{2^k}+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right\}\nonumber\\

1747: &=& y^{y/2^k}

1748: \left\{1+\frac{2(1-y)+(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k-2(1-\sqrt{y})}{2^k}+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right\}.

1749: \end{eqnarray}

1750: 

1751: This concludes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:ratio}.\bigskip

1752: \end{proof}

1753: 

1754: \mbox{}

1755: 

1756:  Denote $h(\alpha)=-\alpha\log

1757: \alpha-(1-\alpha)\log(1-\alpha)$. Taking logarithms of

1758: (\ref{eq:maingoal}), and using (\ref{eq:final}) and the inequality

1759: $\log (1+x)\le x$, we see that our goal is reduced to showing that

1760: for all $r\le \ttk$,

1761: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:newgoal}

1762: \frac{r}{2^k}&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\left[y\log

1763: y+2(1-y)-2(1-\sqrt{y})+(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^{k}}\right]

1764: \le \log 2-h(\alpha) \enspace .

1765: \end{eqnarray}

1766: 

1767: For simplicity denote:

1768: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:abc}

1769: \left\{\begin{array}{ll} A=(1-\sqrt{y})^2 \\

1770: B=y\log

1771: y+2(1-y)-2(1-\sqrt{y})+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^{k}}\end{array}\right.

1772: \end{eqnarray}

1773: With this notation (\ref{eq:newgoal}) becomes

1774: $$

1775: \frac{r}{2^k}\le \frac{\log2-h(\alpha)}{A\alpha^k+B}\equiv

1776: M(\alpha) \enspace ,

1777: $$

1778: and this should hold for all $\alpha \ge 1-\frac{3\log k}{k}$. We

1779: are therefore interested in the minimal value of $M$ on the

1780: interval $\left[1-\frac{3\log k}{k},1\right]$. The derivative of

1781: $M$ is

1782: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:derM}

1783: M'(\alpha)=\frac{(A\alpha^k+B)\cdot[\log

1784: \alpha-\log(1-\alpha)]-kA\alpha^{k-1}[\log2-h(\alpha)]}{(A\alpha^k+B)^2}.

1785: \end{eqnarray}

1786: In particular, $M'(1)=\infty$, so that the minimum of $M$ cannot

1787: occur at $\alpha=1$. We rule out the possibility of the minimum

1788: being at $1-\frac{3\log k}{k}$ in the following claim.

1789: \begin{claim}\label{claim:notleft} If $k$ is large enough

1790: then for every $1-\frac{3\log k}{k}\le \alpha\le 2^{-1/k}$,

1791: $M\left(\alpha\right)>M(1)$.

1792: \end{claim}

1793: \begin{proof} Observe that for every $\beta\in [0,1]$,

1794: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ineqh}

1795: h(\beta)&=&\beta\log(1/\beta)-(1-\beta)\log(1-\beta)\nonumber\\&\le&

1796: \beta\left(\frac{1}{\beta}-1\right)-(1-\beta)\log(1-\beta)=1-\beta-(1-\beta)\log(1-\beta)

1797: \enspace .

1798: \end{eqnarray}

1799: Hence, since $\alpha\ge 1-\frac{3\log k}{k}$,

1800: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:hleft}

1801: h(\alpha)\le h\left(1-\frac{3\log k}{k}\right)\le \frac{3\log

1802: k}{k}+\frac{3\log k}{k}\log\left(\frac{k}{3\log k}\right)\le

1803: \frac{4(\log k)^2}{k} \enspace .

1804: \end{eqnarray}

1805: Using the fact that $\alpha\le 2^{-1/k}$, it follows that

1806: \begin{eqnarray*}

1807: M\left(\alpha\right)\ge \frac{\log 2-\frac{5(\log

1808: k)^2}{k}}{A\left(2^{-1/k}\right)^k+B}\ge \frac{\log

1809: 2\left(1-\frac{10(\log k)^2}{k}\right)}{\frac{A}{2}+B} \enspace .

1810: \end{eqnarray*}

1811: On the other hand, $M(1)=\log 2/(A+B)$, so that it is enough to

1812: show that

1813: $$

1814: 1-\frac{10(\log

1815: k)^2}{k}\ge\frac{\frac{A}{2}+B}{A+B}=1-\frac{\frac{1}{2}A}{A+B}

1816: \enspace ,

1817: $$

1818: which is equivalent to

1819: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:stupidgoal}

1820: \frac{A}{A+B}\ge \frac{20(\log k)^2}{k} \enspace .

1821: \end{eqnarray}

1822: Observe that since $1-\sqrt{y}\ge (1-y)/2$, $A\ge (1-y)^2/4$. On

1823: the other hand, using (\ref{eq:stupid}) we get that for

1824: sufficiently large $k$,

1825: \begin{eqnarray*}

1826: A+B=1-y+y\log y+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^{k}} \le

1827: (1-y)^2+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^k}\le 2(1-y)^2 \enspace ,

1828: \end{eqnarray*}

1829: It follows that the left-hand side in (\ref{eq:stupidgoal}) is at

1830: least $1/8$, so that (\ref{eq:stupidgoal}) provided $k$ large

1831: enough.

1832: \end{proof}

1833: 

1834: By Claim \ref{claim:notleft} it remains to bound $M(\alpha)$ from

1835: below when $\alpha>2^{-1/k}$ and $M'(\alpha)=0$. In this case, by

1836: (\ref{eq:derM}),

1837: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:condition}

1838: -\log(1-\alpha)= -\log\alpha+

1839: \frac{kA\alpha^{k-1}}{A\alpha^k+B}[\log 2-h(\alpha)] \enspace .

1840: \end{eqnarray}

1841: From the lower bound $\alpha\ge 2^{-1/k}$ and (\ref{eq:ineqh}) it

1842: follows that $h(\alpha)\le \frac{4\log k}{k}$. Hence

1843: (\ref{eq:condition}), together with our assumption that $k$ is

1844: large, implies

1845: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:alphaisbig}

1846: -\log(1-\alpha)>\frac{kA/2}{A+B}\left[\log2-\frac{4\log

1847: k}{k}\right]\ge \frac{k}{5}\cdot\frac{A}{A+B} \enspace .

1848: \end{eqnarray}

1849: As we have seen in the proof of Claim \ref{claim:notleft}, $A\ge

1850: (1-y)^2/4$ and $A+B\le 2(1-y)^2$. Plugging these inequalities into

1851: (\ref{eq:alphaisbig}), we get that $-\log(1-\alpha)>k/40$, i.e.

1852: $\alpha\ge 1-e^{-k/40}$. Plugging this into (\ref{eq:condition})

1853: once more, we get that

1854: \begin{eqnarray*}

1855: -\log(1-\alpha)\ge \frac{kA[1-2k/(e^{k/40})]}{A+B}[\log

1856: 2-2/(e^{k/40})]\ge \frac{kA\log

1857: 2}{A+B}\left(1-\frac{6}{e^{k/40}}\right) \enspace .

1858: \end{eqnarray*}

1859: Finally, we have shown that

1860: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:maximizer}\alpha\ge 1-\exp\left[-\frac{kA\log

1861: 2}{A+B}\left(1-\frac{6}{e^{k/40}}\right)\right] \enspace .

1862: \end{eqnarray}

1863: 

1864: We are now ready to bound $M(\alpha)$ from below. We start by

1865: recalling that

1866: \begin{eqnarray*}

1867: A+B= 1-y+y\log y+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^{k}} \equiv 1-y+y\log y+P

1868: \enspace .

1869: \end{eqnarray*}

1870: Using the inequality $1/(1+x)\ge 1-x$, we get

1871: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:A+C}

1872: \frac{1}{A+B}\ge \frac{1}{1-y+y\log y}\left[1-\frac{P}{1-y+y\log

1873: y}\right] \ge\frac{1}{1-y+y\log y}\left[1-\frac{120k}{2^k}\right],

1874: \end{eqnarray}

1875: where the last inequality used (\ref{eq:stupid}). Of course, we

1876: also know that $A+B\ge 1-y+y\log y$.

1877: 

1878: Now, using (\ref{eq:ineqh}), (\ref{eq:maximizer}), (\ref{eq:A+C}),

1879: and the fact that $(1-\sqrt{y})^2/(1-y+y\log y)\le 1$, we get

1880: \begin{eqnarray*}

1881: h(\alpha)&\le& \frac{2kA\log

1882: 2}{A+B}\left(1-\frac{6}{e^{k/40}}\right)\exp\left[-\frac{kA\log

1883: 2}{A+B}\left(1-\frac{6}{e^{k/40}}\right)\right]\\

1884: &\le& 2k\log2\exp\left[-\frac{k(1-\sqrt{y})^2\log 2}{1-y+y\log

1885: y}\left(1-\frac{120k}{2^k}\right)\left(1-\frac{6}{e^{k/40}}\right)\right]\\

1886: &\le&2k\log2\exp\left[-\frac{k(1-\sqrt{y})^2\log 2}{1-y+y\log

1887: y}\left(1-\frac{120k}{2^k}-\frac{6}{e^{k/40}}\right)\right]\\

1888: &\le& 10k\log 2 \cdot 2^{-k\varphi(y)},

1889: \end{eqnarray*}

1890: where  as in Proposition \ref{prop:main},

1891: $\varphi(y)=\frac{(1-\sqrt{y})^2}{1-y+y\log y}$.

1892: 

1893: \smallskip

1894: So, using (\ref{eq:A+C}), we get

1895: \begin{eqnarray*}

1896: M(\alpha)&=&\frac{\log2-h(\alpha)}{A\alpha^k+B}\\

1897: &\ge& \frac{\log 2}{A+B}(1-10k2^{-k\varphi(y)})\\

1898: &\ge&\frac{\log 2}{1-y+y\log

1899: y}\left[1-\frac{120k}{2^k}\right](1-10k2^{-k\varphi(y)})\\

1900: &\ge&\frac{\log 2}{1-y+y\log

1901: y}\left[1-\frac{120k}{2^k}-10k2^{-k\varphi(y)}\right]\\

1902: &\ge& \frac{\log 2}{1-y+y\log

1903: y}\left[1-20k2^{-k\varphi(y)}\right],

1904: \end{eqnarray*}

1905: where we have used the fact that $\varphi(y)\ge 1/2$ and that $k$

1906: is sufficiently large.

1907: 

1908: \medskip

1909: 

1910: This concludes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:bigalpha}.

1911: 

1912: \end{document}

1913: 

1914: 

1915: 

1916: 

1917: 

1918: 

1919: \subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:ratio}}.

1920: 

1921: 

1922: \begin{comment}

1923: To this end, we naturally require a lower bound for

1924: $f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)$ and an upper bound for

1925: $f(\alpha,\gamma_0,\sqrt{\eta_0})$. By (\ref{eq:f1/2}),

1926: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:lowerf1/2}

1927: \eta_0^{y/2^{k-1}}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(\frac12,\gamma_0,\eta_0\right)&=&4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}\nonumber\\&=&

1928: 2^{2k}(1-{\e_0})^2\left(1-\frac{{\e_0}}{2}\right)^{2k-2}\nonumber\\

1929: &\ge& 2^{2k}(1-2{\e_0})[1-(k-1){\e_0}]\nonumber\\&\ge&

1930: 2^{2k}[1-(k+1){\e_0}].

1931: \end{eqnarray}

1932: \end{comment}

1933: 

1934: 

1935: Denote $\e_1=1-(\sqrt{\gamma_0})^2=1-\sqrt{1-\e_0}$. For

1936: $1-\frac{4\log k}{k}< \alpha\le 1$ write $x=\alpha-1/2$.

1937: Analogously to (\ref{eq:f0}) we have we have the following

1938: identity

1939: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:identitye}

1940: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\frac12+x,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)=

1941: \nonumber\\

1942: &=&

1943: [2x{\e_1}^2+(2-{\e_1})^2]^k-2(1-\sqrt{\eta_0})[(2-{\e_1})+2x{\e_1}]^k+(1-\sqrt{\eta_0})^2(1+2x)^k.

1944: \end{eqnarray}

1945: Our first goal is replace $\eta_0$ in the right-hand side of

1946: (\ref{eq:identitye}) by its upper bound from (\ref{eq:eta}). To

1947: this end consider the function

1948: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:rho}

1949: \rho(b)=[2x{\e_1}^2+(2-{\e_1})^2]^k-2b[(2-{\e_1})+2x{\e_1}]^k+b^2(1+2x)^k,

1950: \end{eqnarray}

1951: and observe the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:identitye}) equals

1952: $\rho\left(1-\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)$. So, that it is enough to show

1953: that $\rho$ is decreasing on $[0,1]$. Since $\rho$ is convex and

1954: quadratic, this would follow once we show that $\rho'(1)\le 0$.

1955: This is equivalent to $1+2x\le 2-{\e_1}+2x{\e_1}$, which is true

1956: since $x\le 1/2$.

1957: 

1958: \begin{comment}

1959: Now,

1960: $$

1961: \eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(\frac12+x,\gamma_0,\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)=\rho\left(1-\sqrt{\eta_0}\right).

1962: $$

1963: By Fact \ref{fact:etae}, as long as $k\ge 30$, $1-\sqrt{\eta_0}\ge

1964: 1-\sqrt{y}$, and since $\rho$ is decreasing on $[0,1]$, we can

1965: bound

1966: $\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(\alpha,\gamma_0,\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)$

1967: from above as follows

1968: \end{comment}

1969: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:upperf}

1970: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)\le

1971: \nonumber\\

1972: &\le&

1973: [2x{\e_1}^2+(2-{\e_1})^2]^k-2(1-\sqrt{z})[(2-{\e_1})+2x{\e_1}]^k+(1-\sqrt{z})^2(1+2x)^k,

1974: \end{eqnarray}

1975: Where $z$ is the upper bound for $\eta_0$ from (\ref{eq:eta}),

1976: i.e.,

1977: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:defz}

1978: z=

1979: \min\left\{y,y-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^k}\right\}.

1980: \end{eqnarray}

1981: 

1982:  Hence using $\eta_0\le z$ and the identity (\ref{eq:f1/2})

1983: we bound the ratio in (\ref{eq:maingoal}) as follows

1984: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:estimate}

1985: \frac{f(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}&=&\nonumber\\

1986: &=&\eta_0^{y/2^k}\cdot\gamma_0^k\cdot

1987: \frac{\eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)}

1988: {\eta_0^{y/2^{k-1}}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0\right)}\nonumber\\

1989: &=&\frac{\eta_0^{y/2^k}(1-\e_0)^{k/2}}{4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}}\cdot

1990: \eta_0^{y/2^k}2^{2k}\gamma_0^{k}f\left(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0}\right)\nonumber\\

1991: &\le& \frac{z^{y/2^k}(1-\e_0)^{k/2}}{4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}}\cdot\nonumber\\

1992: &\phantom{\le}&

1993: \left\{[2x{\e_1}^2+(2-{\e_1})^2]^k-2(1-\sqrt{z})[(2-{\e_1})+2x{\e_1}]^k+(1-\sqrt{z})^2(1+2x)^k\right\}\nonumber\\

1994: &=& z^{y/2^k}\left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2

1995: (1-{\e_0})}\right]^2\left[\frac{\sqrt{1-\e_0}}{(1-\e_0/2)^2}\right]^k\cdot\nonumber\\

1996: &\phantom{\le}&

1997: \left\{\left[\frac{x\e_1^2}{4}+\left(1-\frac{\e_1}{2}\right)^2\right]^k-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})

1998: [1-{\e_1}(1-\alpha)]^k}{2^k}+\frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}\right\}.

1999: \end{eqnarray}

2000: 

2001: We will bound the various terms in (\ref{eq:estimate}) separately.

2002: First of all, using (\ref{eq:defz}) and the inequality $e^a\le

2003: 1+a+a^2$, which is valid foe $0\le a\le 1$, we get

2004: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:zpart}

2005: z^{y/2^k}&\le&

2006: y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{y(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{y2^k}\right]^{y/2^k}\nonumber\\

2007: &\le&

2008: y^{y/2^k}\exp\left[-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right]\nonumber\\

2009: &\le&y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right],

2010: \end{eqnarray}

2011: where we have also used the fact that $k\ge 20000$.

2012: 

2013: Next, using the inequality $1/(1-a)\le 1+2a$, valid for $0\le a\le

2014: 1/2$ we get

2015: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:thesquare}

2016: \left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2

2017: (1-{\e_0})}\right]^2\le\left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2}(1+2{\e_0})\right]^2\le

2018: 1+\e_0+5\e_0^2.

2019: \end{eqnarray}

2020: Next, using the inequality $\sqrt{1-x}\le 1-x/2$, and the

2021: inequality $1/(1-a)\le 1+a+2a^2$, valid for $0\le a\le 1/2$, we

2022: get that since $\e_0\le 1/k$,

2023: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:theroot}

2024: \left[\frac{\sqrt{1-\e_0}}{(1-\e_0/2)^2}\right]^k\le

2025: \frac{1}{(1-\e_0/2)^k}\le \frac{1}{1-k\e_0/2}\le

2026: 1+\frac{k\e_0}{2}+\frac{k^2\e_0^2}{2}.

2027: \end{eqnarray}

2028: Hence, since $k\ge 20000$:

2029: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:theproduct}

2030: \left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2

2031: (1-{\e_0})}\right]^2\left[\frac{\sqrt{1-\e_0}}{(1-\e_0/2)^2}\right]^k\le

2032: 1+(1+k/2)\e_0+2\e_0^2.

2033: \end{eqnarray}

2034: 

2035: Next, using the inequality $x/2\le 1-\sqrt{1-x}\le x/2+x^2$, which

2036: is valid for $0\le x\le 1/2$, we get that:

2037: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ineqe1}

2038: \frac{\e_0}{2}\le\e_1=1-\sqrt{1-\e_0}\le \frac{\e_0}{2}+\e_0^2\le

2039: \e_0.

2040: \end{eqnarray}

2041: Observe that since $0\le x\le 1/2$ and $\e_1<1/2$, the function

2042: $\e_1\mapsto \frac{x\e_1^2}{4}+\left(1-\frac{\e_1}{2}\right)^2$ is

2043: decreasing in $\e_1$. Hence, the lower bound in (\ref{eq:ineqe1}),

2044: together with the inequality $(1+a)^k\le 1+ka+k^2a^2/2$, which is

2045: valid for all $a\le 1/(4k^2)$, implies that since $k\ge 20000$:

2046: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:firstbracket}

2047: \left[\frac{x\e_1^2}{4}+\left(1-\frac{\e_1}{2}\right)^2\right]^k&\le&

2048: \left[\frac{\e_0^2}{32}+\left(1-\frac{\e_0}{4}\right)^2\right]^k\le

2049: \left[1-\frac{\e_0}{2}+\frac{\e_0^2}{10}\right]^k\le

2050: 1-\frac{k\e_0}{2}+\frac{k^2\e_0^2}{4}.

2051: \end{eqnarray}

2052: 

2053: The second term in the brackets of (\ref{eq:estimate}) appears

2054: with a minus sign, so we bound it from below, using the fact that

2055: $z\le y$ and $\e_1\le\e_0$.

2056: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:secondbracket}

2057: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z}) [1-{\e_1}(1-\alpha)]^k}{2^k}&\ge&\nonumber

2058: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})k\e_1(1-\alpha)}{2^k}\\&\ge&

2059: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{y})k\e_0}{2^k}\nonumber\\

2060: &\ge&

2061: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-y)k}{2^k}\cdot\frac{2(1-y)}{2^{k}-k-1}\nonumber\\

2062: &\ge& \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}-\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}},

2063: \end{eqnarray}

2064: where we have used the upper bound in (\ref{eq:e}).

2065: 

2066: Combining (\ref{eq:estimate}), (\ref{eq:zpart}),

2067: (\ref{eq:theproduct}), (\ref{eq:firstbracket}) and

2068: (\ref{eq:secondbracket}) we get that:

2069: 

2070: 

2071: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:almost}

2072: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{f(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}\le\nonumber\\

2073: &\le&y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right]

2074: \left[1+\left(1+\frac{k}{2}\right)\e_0+2\e_0^2\right]\cdot\nonumber\\

2075: &\phantom{\le}&\left\{1-\frac{k\e_0}{2}+\frac{k^2\e_0^2}{4}-

2076: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}+\frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}\right\}\nonumber\\

2077: &\le&

2078: y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right]\cdot\nonumber\\

2079: &\phantom{\le}&\left\{1+\e_0+\frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}

2080: +\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}+\frac{k(1-\sqrt{z})^2\e_0}{2^k}+\nonumber\right.\\

2081: &\phantom{\le}&\left.\frac{8k^2(1-y)^2\e_0}{2^{2k}}+k^3\e_0^3\right\}\nonumber\\

2082: &\le&y^{y/2^k}\left[1-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right]\cdot\nonumber\\

2083: &\phantom{\le}&\left\{1+\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}-\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}+

2084: \frac{30k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right\}\nonumber\\

2085: &\le&y^{y/2^k}\left\{1+\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+

2086: \frac{(1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}-\nonumber\right.\\&\phantom{\le}&\left.\frac{2(1-\sqrt{z})}{2^k}+

2087: \frac{50k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right\},

2088: \end{eqnarray}

2089: where we have used the upper bound in (\ref{eq:e}),

2090: (\ref{eq:defz}) and the fact that $k\ge 20000$.

2091: 

2092: Now, we claim that for every $\alpha\in [0,1]$,

2093: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:trick}

2094: (1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k -2(1-\sqrt{z})\le (1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k

2095: -2(1-\sqrt{y})+z-y.

2096: \end{eqnarray}

2097: Indeed, since by (\ref{eq:defz}), $z\le y$, the left-hand side

2098: minus the right-hand side of (\ref{eq:trick}) is an increasing

2099: function, which vanishes at $1$. Moreover, by (\ref{eq:defz}),

2100: $$

2101: z-y\le -\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^k},

2102: $$

2103: so that (\ref{eq:trick}) becomes:

2104: $$

2105: (1-\sqrt{z})^2\alpha^k -2(1-\sqrt{z})\le (1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k

2106: -2(1-\sqrt{y})-\frac{(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}+\frac{4k(1-y)^2}{2^k}.

2107: $$

2108: Plugging this into (\ref{eq:almost}) we get:

2109: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:almostalmost}

2110: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{f(\alpha,\sqrt{\gamma_0},\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}\le\nonumber\\

2111: &\le& y^{y/2^k}

2112: \left\{1+\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k-k-1}-\frac{2(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k(2^k-k-1)}+\frac{(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}-\right.\nonumber\\

2113: &\phantom{\le}&\left.

2114: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{y})}{2^k}+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right\}\nonumber\\

2115: &=& y^{y/2^k}

2116: \left\{1+\frac{2(1-y)+(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k-2(1-\sqrt{y})}{2^k}+\frac{60k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}\right\}.

2117: \end{eqnarray}

2118: 

2119: This concludes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:ratio}.

2120: 

2121: 

2122: 

2123: 

2124: 

2125: 

2126: 

2127: 

2128: 

2129: 

2130: 

2131: 

2132: 

2133: 

2134: 

2135: 

2136: 

2137: 

2138: 

2139: 

2140: 

2141: 

2142: 

2143: 

2144: \pagebreak We will bound the various terms in (\ref{eq:estimate})

2145: separately. To bound the first term we use the inequality

2146: $1/(1-{\e_0})\le 1+2{\e_0}$ and the inequality $(1+a)^k\le

2147: 1+ka+k^2a^2$, which is valid for all $a\le 1/k$. Since for $k\ge

2148: 32$, ${\e_0}\le 1/k$, we get that:

2149: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:first}

2150: \left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2

2151: (1-{\e_0})}\right]^2\cdot\left[1+\frac{2x{\e_0}^2}{(2-{\e_0})^2}\right]^k&\le&

2152: \left[1+\frac{{\e_0}}{2}(1+2{\e_0})\right]^2\cdot(1+{\e_0}^2)^k\nonumber\\

2153: &\le& \left(1+{\e_0}+5{\e_0}^2\right)(1+k{\e_0}^2+k^2{\e_0}^4)\nonumber\\

2154: &=&

2155: 1+{\e_0}+2k{\e_0}^2+k{\e_0}^3+5k{\e_0}^4+k^2{\e_0}^4+k^2{\e_0}^5+5k^2{\e_0}^6\nonumber\\

2156: &\le& 1+\frac{2(1-y)}{2^k}+\frac{50k(1-y)}{2^{2k}},

2157: \end{eqnarray}

2158: where we have used the upper bound in (\ref{eq:e}) and the fact

2159: that $k\ge 20000$.

2160: 

2161: The second term in (\ref{eq:estimate}) appears with a minus sign,

2162: so we must bound it from below.

2163: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:second}

2164: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{y})[(2-{\e_0})+2x{\e_0}]^k}{4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}}&=&\frac{1}{2^{2k}}\cdot

2165: \frac{2(1-\sqrt{y})}{(1-{\e_0})^2(1-{\e_0}/2)^{2k-2}}\cdot

2166: 2^k[1-{\e_0}(1-\alpha)]^k\nonumber\\

2167: &\ge&\frac{2(1-\sqrt{y})}{2^k}[1-k{\e_0}(1-\alpha)]\nonumber\\

2168: &\ge& \frac{2(1-\sqrt{y})}{2^k}-\frac{8k(1-y)}{2^{2k}},

2169: \end{eqnarray}

2170: where we have used once more the estimate (\ref{eq:e}).

2171: 

2172: Finally, we estimate the last term in (\ref{eq:estimate}):

2173: 

2174: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:third}

2175: \frac{(1-\sqrt{y})^2(1+2x)^k}{4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}}&=&

2176: \frac{(1-\sqrt{y})^22^k\alpha^k}{2^{2k}(1-{\e_0})^2(1-{\e_0}/2)^{2k-2}}\nonumber\\

2177: &\le&

2178: \frac{(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k}{2^{k}}\cdot\frac{1}{(1-2{\e_0})[1-(k-1){\e_0}]}\nonumber\\

2179: &\le&

2180: \frac{(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k}{2^{k}}\cdot(1+4{\e_0})[1+2(k-1){\e_0}]\nonumber\\

2181: &\le& \frac{(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k}{2^{k}}+\frac{20

2182: k(1-y)}{2^{2k}}.

2183: \end{eqnarray}

2184: We have used here the estimate (\ref{eq:e}) one last time.

2185: 

2186: Plugging (\ref{eq:first}), (\ref{eq:second}), (\ref{eq:third})

2187: into (\ref{eq:estimate}) we get that:

2188: \begin{eqnarray*}

2189: \frac{f(\alpha,\gamma_0,\sqrt{\eta_0})}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}&=&

2190: y^{y/2^k}\left[1+\frac{2(1-y)-2(1-\sqrt{y})+(1-\sqrt{y})^2\alpha^k}{2^k}+\frac{80k(1-y)}{2^{2k}}\right],

2191: \end{eqnarray*}

2192: as required.

2193: 

2194: 

2195: 

2196: 

2197: 

2198: 

2199: 

2200: 

2201: 

2202: 

2203: 

2204: 

2205: 

2206: 

2207: 

2208: 

2209: 

2210: \pagebreak

2211: 

2212: 

2213: We will require the following fact:

2214: 

2215: \begin{claim}\label{claim:monotone} The function:

2216: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:chi}

2217: \chi(\alpha)=\frac{kA\alpha^{k-1}-B}{A\alpha^k+B(1-\alpha)+C}

2218: \end{eqnarray}

2219: is increasing on $\left[1-\frac{4\log k}{k},1\right]$.

2220: \end{claim}

2221: 

2222: 

2223: We postpone the proof of Fact \ref{claim:monotone} to the end of

2224: this section, and proceed to conclude the proof of Lemma

2225: \ref{lem:bigalpha}.

2226: 

2227: \medskip

2228: 

2229: By (\ref{eq:condition}), Claim \ref{claim:monotone} and

2230: (\ref{eq:hleft}), we get that for $\alpha\ge 1-\frac{4\log k}{k}$,

2231: \begin{eqnarray*}

2232: -\log(1-\alpha)&=&-\log \alpha +\chi(\alpha)[\log 2-h(\alpha)]\\

2233: &\le& -\log \alpha +\chi(1)[\log 2-h(\alpha)]\\ &=&

2234:  -\log\alpha+

2235: \frac{kA-B}{A+C}[\log 2-h(\alpha)]\\

2236: &\le& -\log \alpha +\frac{kA}{A+C}[\log 2-h(\alpha)].

2237: \end{eqnarray*}

2238: Since $C\ge y\log y+2(1-y)-2(1-\sqrt{y})$, we see that:

2239: $$

2240: \frac{A}{A+C}\le \frac{(1-\sqrt{y})^2}{1-y+y\log y}\le 1.

2241: $$

2242: 

2243: 

2244: 

2245: \begin{comment}

2246: -\log\left(1-\frac{4\log k}{k}\right)+\frac{kA}{A+C}\left[\log

2247: 2-h\left(1-\frac{4\log k}{k}\right)\right].

2248: \end{eqnarray*}

2249: \end{comment}

2250: 

2251: 

2252: 

2253: 

2254: 

2255: 

2256: \pagebreak

2257: 

2258: Our goal is to find the maximal $r$ such that for all $\alpha\in

2259: [0,1]$, $E(\alpha)\ge E(1/2)$. We assume that $z\le 1-\frac{3\log

2260: k}{k}$ and $r\le \frac{2^k\log 2}{1-y+y\log y}$, in which case

2261: Lemma \ref{lem:decreasing} tells us that we must show that for

2262: $\alpha\in [z,1]$,

2263: $$

2264: \left[\frac{f(\alpha,\gamma_1,\eta_1)}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}\right]^r\le

2265: 2\alpha^\alpha(1-\alpha)^{1-\alpha}.

2266: $$

2267: Denote ${\e_0}_1=1-\gamma_1^2$. Then:

2268: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:f1}

2269: \eta_1^u2^{2k}\gamma_1^{2k}&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!f\left(\frac12+x,\gamma_1,\eta_1\right)=\nonumber\\

2270: &=&

2271: [2x{\e_0}_1^2+(2-{\e_0}_1)^2]^k-2(1-\eta_1)[(2-{\e_0}_1)+2x{\e_0}_1]^k+(1-\eta_1)^2(1+2x)^k

2272: \begin{comment}

2273: &=& \sum_{j=0}^k

2274: \binom{k}{j}(2x)^j\big[{\e_0}_1^{2j}(2-{\e_0}_1)^{2(k-j)}-2{\e_0}_1^{j}(2-{\e_0})^{k-j}(1-\eta_1)+(1-\eta_1)^2\big]\nonumber\\

2275: &=& \sum_{j=0}^k

2276: \binom{k}{j}(2x)^j\big[{\e_0}_1^j(2-{\e_0}_1)^{k-j}-(1-\eta_1)\big]^2.

2277: \end{comment}

2278: \end{eqnarray}

2279: 

2280: Write ${\e_0}_1=\frac{w}{2^k}$, $w\in [0,1]$. For $1\ge

2281: \alpha>1-\frac{3\log k}{k}$ set $\alpha=1/2+x$, in which case:

2282: \begin{eqnarray*}

2283: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\eta_1^u2^{2k}\gamma_1^{2k}f\left(\frac12+x,\gamma_1,\eta_1\right)=\\

2284: &\le&

2285: \left[2^{2k}-2^kkw+\frac{k(k-1)}{2}w^2+kw^2\alpha^2+O\left(\frac{k^3}{2^k}\right)\right]-2(1-\eta_1)\left[2^k-kw(1-\alpha)\right] +(1-\eta_1)^22^k\alpha^k\\

2286: &\le&2^{2k}-2^k[kw+2(1-\eta_1)-(1-\eta_1)^2\alpha^k]+\frac{k^2w^2}{2}+\frac{kw^2}{2}+O(\log

2287: k).

2288: \end{eqnarray*}

2289: Similarly, since ${\e_0}$ is approximately $\frac{1-y}{2^{k-1}}$,

2290: \begin{eqnarray*}

2291: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\eta_0^u2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f\left(\frac12,\gamma_0,\eta_0\right)=4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}\\&=&

2292: 2^{2k}-2^{k+1}(k+1)(1-y)+2k^2(1-y)^2+3k(1-y)^2+O\left(1\right).

2293: \end{eqnarray*}

2294: Using the fact that $\frac{1}{1-v}=1+v+v^2+O(v^3)$, it follows

2295: that:

2296: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:fpart}

2297: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{\eta_1^u2^{2k}\gamma_1^{2k}

2298: f\left(\alpha,\gamma_1,\eta_1\right)}{\eta_0^u2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f

2299: \left(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0\right)}=\nonumber\\

2300: &=&\left[1-\frac{kw+2(1-\eta_1)-

2301: (1-\eta_1)^2\alpha^k}{2^k}+\frac{k^2}{2^{2k+1}}w^2+\frac{k}{2^{2k+1}}w^2+O\left(\frac{\log

2302: k}{2^{2k}}\right)\right]

2303: \cdot\nonumber\\

2304: &\phantom{\le}&\left[1+\frac{2(k+1)(1-y)}{2^k}-\frac{2k^2(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}-\frac{3k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}+

2305: \frac{4k^2(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}+\frac{8k(1-y)^2}{2^{2k}}+

2306: O\left(\frac{1}{2^{2k}}\right)\right]\nonumber\\

2307: &=&

2308: 1-\frac{k(w-2(1-y))+2(y-\eta_1)-(1-\eta_1)^2\alpha^k}{2^k}+\frac{k^2[w-2(1-y)]^2}{2^{2k+1}}+\nonumber\\

2309: &\phantom{\le}&

2310: \frac{k[2w^2-2w(1-y)+5(1-y)^2-4(1-y)(1-\eta_1)+2(1-y)(1-\eta_1)^2\alpha^k]}{2^{2k}}+

2311:  O\left(\frac{\log k}{2^{2k}}\right).

2312: \end{eqnarray}

2313: Moreover:

2314: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:gammapart}

2315: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\left(\frac{\gamma_0}{\gamma_1}\right)^{2k}=\nonumber\\&=&

2316: \left[\frac{1-\frac{1-y}{2^{k-1}}}{1-\frac{w}{2^k}}\right]^k\nonumber\\

2317: &=& 1+\frac{k[w-2(1-y)]}{2^k}+\frac{k^2[w-2(1-y)]^2}{2^{2k+1}}+\nonumber\\

2318: &\phantom{\le}& \frac{k[2w^2-2w(1-y)-(w-2(1-y))^2]}{2^{2k+1}}+

2319: O\left(\frac{1}{2^{2k}}\right).

2320: \end{eqnarray}

2321: 

2322: Multiplying (\ref{eq:fpart}) and (\ref{eq:gammapart}) we get a lot

2323: of cancellation:

2324: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:cancellation}

2325: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{\eta_1^u2^{2k}\gamma_1^{2k}

2326: f\left(\alpha,\gamma_1,\eta_1\right)}{\eta_0^u2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f

2327: \left(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0\right)}\cdot\left(\frac{\gamma_0}{\gamma_1}\right)^{2k}=\nonumber

2328: \\&=&1-1-\frac{2(y-\eta_1)-(1-\eta_1)^2\alpha^k}{2^k}

2329: \end{eqnarray}

2330: 

2331: 

2332: Hence, using the fact that $\eta_0\le y$,

2333: \begin{eqnarray*}

2334: \frac{f(\alpha,\gamma_1,\eta_1)}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}&=&\\

2335: &=&

2336: \left(\frac{\eta_0}{\eta_1}\right)^u\left(\frac{\gamma_0}{\gamma_1}\right)^{2k}

2337: \frac{\eta_1^u2^{2k}\gamma_1^{2k}

2338: f\left(\alpha,\gamma_1,\eta_1\right)}{\eta_0^u2^{2k}\gamma_0^{2k}f

2339: \left(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0\right)}\\

2340: &\le& \left(\frac{y}{\eta_1}\right)^{y/2^{k-1}}

2341: \left[1+\frac{k[w-2(1-y)]}{2^k}+\frac{k^2[w-2(1-y)]^2}{2^{2k+1}}+O\left(\frac{k}{2^{2k}}\right)\right]\cdot\\

2342: &\phantom{\le}&

2343: \left[1-\frac{k(w-2(1-y))+2(y-\eta_1)-(1-\eta_1)^2\alpha^k}{2^k}+\frac{k^2[w-2(1-y)]^2}{2^{2k+1}}+

2344: O\left(\frac{k}{2^{2k}}\right)\right]

2345: \end{eqnarray*}

2346: Hence, assuming that $w=2(1-y)$, we get that:

2347: \begin{eqnarray*}

2348: \frac{f(\alpha,\gamma_1,\eta_1)}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}&\le&\\

2349: &\le&

2350: \left(\frac{y}{\eta_1}\right)^{y/2^{k-1}}\left[1-\frac{2(y-\eta_1)-(1-\eta_1)^2\alpha^k}{2^k}+

2351: O\left(\frac{k^2}{2^{2k}}\right)\right].

2352: \end{eqnarray*}

2353: 

2354: Now, we must show that for $\alpha \ge 1-\frac{3\log k}{k}$,

2355: $$

2356: r\log

2357: \left[\frac{f(\alpha,\gamma_1,\eta_1)}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}\right]\le

2358: \log2+\alpha\log\alpha+(1-\alpha)\log(1-\alpha).

2359: $$

2360: Observe that for $1\ge \alpha \ge 1-\frac{3\log k}{k}$,

2361: $$

2362: \log2+\alpha\log\alpha+(1-\alpha)\log(1-\alpha)\ge \log

2363: 2\left[1-O\left(\frac{(\log k)^2}{k}\right)\right].

2364: $$

2365: By the above estimate, writing $r=2^kd$ we get that:

2366: \begin{eqnarray*}

2367: r\log

2368: \left[\frac{f(\alpha,\gamma_1,\eta_1)}{f(1/2,\gamma_0,\eta_0)}\right]&\le&\\

2369: &\le&

2370: d\left[2y\log\left(\frac{y}{\eta_1}\right)+(1-\eta_1)^2\alpha^k-2(y-\eta_1)+O\left(\frac{k^2}{2^{k}}\right)\right]\\

2371: &\le&d\left[2y\log\left(\frac{y}{\eta_1}\right)+(1-\eta_1)^2-2(y-\eta_1)+O\left(\frac{k^2}{2^{k}}\right)\right].

2372: \end{eqnarray*}

2373: Minimizing the function in the brackets we see that we should

2374: choose $\eta_1=\sqrt{y}$, which gives that we should find the

2375: largest $d$ such that

2376: $$

2377: d\left[1-y+y\log y+O\left(\frac{k^2}{2^{k}}\right)\right]\le \log

2378: 2\left[1-O\left(\frac{(\log k)^2}{k}\right)\right].

2379: $$

2380: 

2381: Which gives:

2382: $$

2383: d=\frac{\log 2}{1-y+y\log y}-O\left(\frac{(\log k)^2}{k}\right).

2384: $$

2385: 

2386: \medskip

2387: 

2388: We now show how to improve the estimates on $d$. Set

2389: $h(\alpha)=-\alpha\log \alpha-(1-\alpha)\log(1-\alpha)$. Fix

2390: $\eta_1$. We know that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that we

2391: can take:

2392: $$

2393: d\le \min\left\{ \frac{\log

2394: 2-h(\alpha)}{2y\log\left(\frac{y}{\eta_1}\right)+(1-\eta_1)^2\alpha^k-2(y-\eta_1)+\frac{Ck^2}{2^{k}}};\

2395: \frac{2}{3}\le \alpha\le 1\right\}.

2396: $$

2397: For the sake of simplicity, write $A=(1-\eta_1)^2$ and

2398: $B=2y\log\left(\frac{y}{\eta_1}\right)-2(y-\eta_1)+\frac{Ck^2}{2^{k}}$.

2399: Then, the function we wish to maximize is:

2400: $$

2401: \psi(\alpha)\equiv \frac{\log 2-h(\alpha)}{A\alpha^k+B}.

2402: $$

2403: Now,

2404: $$

2405: \psi'(\alpha)=\frac{(A\alpha^k+B)[\log

2406: \alpha-\log(1-\alpha)]-kA\alpha^{k-1}[\log

2407: 2-h(\alpha)]}{(A\alpha^k+B)^2}.

2408: $$

2409: Since $\psi'(1)=\infty$, the minimum cannot occur at $\alpha=1$.

2410: We therefore distinguish between two cases:

2411: 

2412: \medskip

2413: 

2414: \noindent{\bf Case 1:} The minimum of $\psi$ is at $\alpha=2/3$.

2415: In this case take $\eta_1=y$, and the condition on $d$ becomes $

2416: d\cdot O\left[\left(2/3\right)^k\right]\le \log2-h(2/3)$, i.e.

2417: $d=O\left[\left(3/2\right)^k\right]$.

2418: 

2419: \medskip

2420: 

2421: \noindent{\bf Case 2:} The minimum of $\psi$ is attained at

2422: $\alpha_0\in(2/3,1)$. We restrict ourselves to $\eta_1\ge y$, in

2423: which case it is straightforward to verify that $B>0$. Now,

2424: solving $\psi(\alpha_0)=0$ we get:

2425: $$

2426: -\log2-\log(1-\alpha_0)\le\log\alpha_0-\log(1-\alpha_0)=

2427: \frac{kA\alpha_0^{k-1}}{A\alpha_0^k+B}[\log 2-h(\alpha_0)]\le

2428: k\frac{\log 2-h(\alpha_0)}{\alpha_0}\le k\frac{3\log2}{2}.

2429: $$

2430: Hence $\log(1-\alpha_0)\le -4k$, i.e. $\alpha_0\ge 1-e^{-4k}$.

2431: 

2432: 

2433: 

2434: 

2435: 

2436: 

2437: 

2438: 

2439: 

2440: \begin{comment}

2441: \pagebreak

2442: 

2443: 

2444: 

2445: \bigskip

2446: Now,

2447: $$

2448: r\log \left[\frac{f(\alpha)}{f(1/2)}\right]\le

2449: r\left[\frac{f(\alpha)-f(1/2)}{f(1/2)}\right].

2450: $$

2451: We will need an estimate for $f(1/2)$:

2452: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:half}

2453: f\left(\frac12\right)&=&4(1-{\e_0})^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}\ge \nonumber\\

2454: &\ge & 4(1-2{\e_0})2^{2k-2}[1-(k-1){\e_0}]\nonumber\\

2455: &=&

2456: 2^{2k}\left(1-\frac{1-y}{2^{k-1}}\right)\left(1-\frac{(k-1)(1-y)}{2^{k-1}}\right)\nonumber\\

2457: &=& 2^{2k}-2^{k+1}k(1-y)+4(k-1)(1-y)^2.

2458: \end{eqnarray}

2459: 

2460: Now we put $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}+x$ and follow the same reasoning as

2461: in the original paper. Using the identity (\ref{eq:binom}), in

2462: which the term corresponding to $j=1$ vanishes and for $j\ge 1$,

2463: ${\e_0}^j(2-{\e_0})^{k-j}\le {\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}$, we find

2464: that:

2465: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:crude}

2466: f(\alpha)&=&\nonumber\\

2467: &=& f\left(\frac12\right)

2468: +\sum_{j=2}^k\binom{k}{j}(2x)^j[{\e_0}^j(2-{\e_0})^{k-j}-{\e_0}(2-{\e_0})^{k-1}]^2\nonumber\\

2469: &\le& f\left(\frac12\right)

2470: +{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}\sum_{j=0}^k\binom{k}{j}(2x)^j\nonumber\\

2471: &=& f\left(\frac12\right)+2^k{\e_0}^2(2-{\e_0})^{2k-2}\alpha^k.

2472: \end{eqnarray}

2473: So, since ${\e_0}\le 1/2$,

2474: \begin{eqnarray*}

2475: \frac{f(\alpha)}{f(1/2)}=1+2^{k-2}\left(\frac{{\e_0}}{1-{\e_0}}\right)^2\alpha^k\le

2476: 1+2^{k-2}({\e_0}^2+8{\e_0}^3)\alpha^k=1+\frac{(1-y)^2}{2^k}\left(1+\frac{1-y}{2^{k-4}}\right)\alpha^k.

2477: \end{eqnarray*}

2478: Now,

2479: $$

2480: r\log \left[\frac{f(\alpha)}{f(1/2)}\right]\le

2481: \frac{r(1-y)^2}{2^k}\left(1+\frac{1-y}{2^{k-4}}\right)\alpha^k,

2482: $$

2483: 

2484: 

2485: \end{comment}

2486: