3
$\begingroup$

While reading through the proof, I realized that one part of the proof I took for granted was that Hoeffding's lemma expanded on the exponent portion of the inequality after the reparametrization of the bounds:

Note, I will use different variable names. $a$ is the $\theta$, and $x$ is the $u$: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoeffding%27s_lemma

They took the function $e^{-ax}(1-a+ae^x)$, and redefined it in terms of $e^{f(x)}$ where $f(x) = -ax + log(1-a+ae^x)$, and did a taylor expansion on the top, around $x = 0$, to get $e^{1/2(a(1-a))x^2}$, which translated to the final result after some trivial observations.

However, I don't understand what prompted the expansion on $f(x)$, rather than the entire function itself. Can someone elaborate on this?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ To be clear: you're asking why they chose this approach to get the proof? $\endgroup$ – πr8 Aug 6 '17 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ @πr8 yes. It's clear to me how doing a taylor expansion on the entire function, rather than $f(x)$ will not yield a very tight bound(i.e. we won't get an exponentially decaying, but rather polynomial). In an ad hoc sense, I can see what they're doing is "legal", but don't know why they used this approach. $\endgroup$ – OneRaynyDay Aug 6 '17 at 21:31
1
$\begingroup$

Part of the motivation for this approach is the more general Chernoff approach to large deviation bounds, where, by Markov's inequality, one has (for $t>0$):

$$\mathbb{P}(X>x) = \mathbb{P}(e^{tX}>e^{tx}) = \le \frac{\mathbb{E}[e^{tX}]}{e^{tx}} = \exp(-[tx-C(t)])$$

with $C(t)=\log \mathbb{E}[e^{tX}]$, the cumulant-generating function of $X$.

To proceed, one then calculates the convex conjugate of $C$:

$$r(x) = \sup_{t>0}[tx-C(t)]$$

to deduce that $\mathbb{P}(X>x) \le \exp(-r(x))$ (by taking the $t$ which attains the supremum above).

The idea of this standard proof of Hoeffding's inequality is to:

  • upper bound $\mathbb{P}(X>x)$, by ...
  • lower bounding $r(x)$, by ...
  • upper bounding $C(t)$ - which is what the proof does.

The choice to do this by a Taylor expansion is partially motivated by the fact that $C(t)$ is convex (this is true for all cumulant-generating functions), and as such, we have information about its derivatives and curvature.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I see. So we want to upperbound $C(t)$, in this case $-ax + log(1-a+ae^x)$, so that we can keep our exponential bound? $\endgroup$ – OneRaynyDay Aug 6 '17 at 22:17
  • $\begingroup$ yep! precisely. $\endgroup$ – πr8 Aug 7 '17 at 10:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.