Relative to a filtration , a martingale is an adapted process of integrable random variables satisfying . With no separate filtration specified, take the natural filtration . For deterministic increment bounds , the Hoeffding-Azuma inequality states
To prove it, let . For , convexity on gives
Its conditional expectation is at most . The last inequality follows by integrating for and using evenness. If the bound is immediate. Conditional iteration now yields . The exponential Markov inequality, minimized at , bounds the upper tail by the displayed exponential without the factor two. Apply it to and use the union bound for the two-sided assertion. When every , the deviation probability is zero.
For the chromatic number of a binomial random graph, put , , and . We prove matching bounds; treating suffices. A colour class is an independent set, so . For with fixed , the expected value of the number of independent -sets is
The first moment method gives with probability tending to one. Choosing sufficiently small then gives for all sufficiently large on that event.
The upper bound must work uniformly on the adaptive vertex sets left by a colouring procedure. Set
For a specified -set , its complement graph has distribution . Let count its -cliques, count distinct ordered pairs sharing an edge, and be the maximum edge-disjoint clique packing. The allowed clique-count estimates at this value of give
The overlap quantity, if the diagonal is included, has the exact expression after division by ; the same bound holds. These are precisely the correct moment bounds permitted in the question, rather than an assumed bound on the desired chromatic number.
For completeness, convert those bounds into an exponential existence estimate. In the clique conflict graph the vertices are the existing cliques, with an edge between each conflicting pair. A random ordering keeps every vertex that precedes all its neighbours. No two retained vertices are adjacent. Their mean number is by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Thus, with a zero ratio when ,
The middle inequality follows from . Toggling one ambient edge changes by at most one: at most one member of a packing uses it. Reveal the independent edges successively and form the edge-exposure martingale for . Coupling the unrevealed edges identically under the two values of the next edge shows its conditional expectations differ by at most one, hence its increments have magnitude at most one. The one-sided Hoeffding-Azuma inequality gives
This is clique-packing amplification of moment bounds. A union bound over all -sets is now strong enough:
since . Thus every such set contains an independent set of size . Repeatedly remove and colour one whenever at least vertices remain; then colour each of the fewer than remaining vertices separately. This greedy colouring by removing independent sets uses at most
Choose so . Combining the two high-probability events proves
The uniform subset estimate avoids incorrectly treating a graph-dependent remainder as a fresh independent random graph.
Expose the independent coordinates one at a time and define the Doob exposure martingale
For a fixed exposed prefix, couple the future coordinates identically under two choices of . The coordinate-change hypothesis bounds the difference of the resulting conditional expectations by . Thus the increment has conditional mean zero and lies in a conditional interval of length at most . This range bound, rather than merely , gives the sharp constant in the McDiarmid inequality.
Here is a proof of the needed Hoeffding lemma. For a mean-zero random variable in an interval of length , let . Its second derivative is the variance under the exponentially tilted distribution. A random variable in has variance at most : the inequality gives . Hence , and imply , for either sign of .
Apply this conditionally to each increment and iterate the conditional expectation:
For , Markov's inequality bounds the upper tail by . Taking and then applying the same argument to gives
At the bound is immediate. If all vanish, is constant on the product support and the positive tails are zero, so that degenerate case is handled directly.
For a binomial random graph, let coordinate be the entire vector of edges from vertex to vertices of smaller label. The coordinates are independent finite probability spaces. Changing coordinate changes only edges incident to that one vertex. Deleting the vertex gives the same graph under both outcomes, and each outcome's chromatic number is either that graph's chromatic number or one more. Thus the coordinate range is at most one. Taking all and proves vertex exposure for chromatic number:
Using individual edges as coordinates would give a weaker scale; grouping the incident edges is what yields the required bound.
For the expectation asymptotic, take fixed , put , and write . We outline both bounds and the step that turns probability estimates into an expectation estimate. For each fixed , the expected number of independent sets of size is
Its logarithm is . Thus Markov's inequality gives with probability tending to one, and yields the corresponding lower bound on its expectation.
For the upper bound, set and , with . The key uniform fact is that every vertex subset of size at least contains an independent -set with probability tending to one. For a fixed subset of size , let count its independent -sets and let . The normalized dependency sum in Janson inequality is bounded by
The term is . The remaining overlap terms give the same order or less: use for large , and split the sum at . For the lower half the terms beyond decrease at the initial endpoint and are exponentially small at the other endpoint; for the upper half, makes every endpoint exponent negative of order . Also is exponentially small on that scale. The exponential form of Janson inequality therefore gives, uniformly for ,
for a positive constant depending only on . A union bound over at most subsets succeeds, because is of order . This is independent sets in every large subset of a dense random graph.
On that event, repeatedly remove an independent -set and assign it one new colour until fewer than vertices remain; colour the remainder individually. This gives . The failure probability is exponentially small compared with , and always , so the failure event contributes negligibly to the expectation. Combining the upper and lower bounds and then letting proves
This is the chromatic number of a binomial random graph asymptotic. The slash in the printed expression must be read with as the denominator; a multiplicative reading would eventually exceed . At the endpoint probabilities and , the chromatic numbers are respectively one and for , so this logarithmic formula is intended for .