Use the uniform probability measure on the symmetric group and the unnormalized Hamming distanceLet have Lipschitz constant for this distance. We will prove the one-sided concentration inequalitiesConsequently for . A zero Lipschitz constant makes constant, so that case is immediate.
Let be a uniform permutation, reveal successively, and define the Doob exposure martingaleFix the first images. For an available value , let be the conditional mean when . Given two available values , left-composition with the transposition exchanging is a bijection from completions with next image to completions with next image . It fixes the previously exposed images and changes exactly two coordinates of each complete permutation. Since conditional completions are uniform, averaging the Lipschitz condition over this pairing gives .
Thus, conditionally on the first images, has mean zero and takes values in an interval of length at most . We need the range-length version of the Hoeffding lemma: if a real random variable has mean zero and lies in an interval of length , thenHere is a proof. For , differentiation gives under the exponentially tilted probability distribution. Any distribution on an interval of length has variance at most , because its squared distance from the interval midpoint is at most . Since , integrating this second-derivative bound gives the lemma for both signs of . The same argument holds for every conditional distribution.
Apply it conditionally to each martingale difference and use the tower property of conditional expectation repeatedly:The exponential Markov bound now gives, for ,Choose to obtain the upper tail in the box, and apply the argument to for the lower tail. This proves concentration of Lipschitz functions on the symmetric group. Using only the bound in the absolute-increment Azuma-Hoeffding inequality would lose a factor four in the exponent; the conditional range length is what yields the constant needed in part (ii).
Put , and define . The triangle inequality shows that is Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant one. It vanishes on , and on . Let for a uniform permutation.
If , apply the lower-tail bound proved in part (i):If , apply its upper-tail bound:For the desired inequality is simply . Hence in all casesThis uses only the precise one-sided concentration inequality from part (i) and the Hamming distance triangle inequality. The normalization of the distance matters: it counts mismatching coordinates, rather than dividing their number by .
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.