Moments of the Cramér transform of log-concave probability measures

As we observed in the beginning of this section, we may assume that \mu is isotropic. Let t_n:=n\ln n. From Lemma 3.5 and Proposition 2.8 we know that if t\geqslant t_n then

Moreover, Proposition 2.1 shows that \mu(R_t(\mu ))\geqslant 1-e^{-t/4}. Combining these facts with Lemma 3.1 we get

which finally gives

if n\geqslant n_0 for some fixed n_0\in\mathbb{N}. Now, we write

Therefore, we have the assertion of the theorem with c=\frac{1}{16}.

We may assume that \mu is centered. The theorem follows immediately if we combine Theorem 1.1 with the inequality

for every x\in {\rm supp}(\mu) and any \varepsilon\in (0,1) (this is a result of Brazitikos and Chasapis from [Brazitikos-Chasapis-2024] that we have already used in the proof of Proposition 2.8). Choosing \varepsilon=1/2 we get

and hence

if 2p\leqslant c/n where c>0 is the absolute constant from Theorem 1.1.

Let \mu be a log-concave probability measure on \mathbb{R}^n. We may also assume that \mu is centered. In the proof of Theorem 1.1 we saw that if t\geqslant n\ln n then R_t(\mu)\subseteq (1+2e^{-t/2})T_{nt}(\mu), which implies that \mu(T_{nt}(\mu))\geqslant 1-e^{-t/8}. Equivalently, if s\geqslant n^2\ln n then

which shows that e^{s/(8n)}(1-\mu(T_s(\mu)))\leqslant 1. It follows that

and the theorem follows with c=1/8 and c_n=\exp(n\ln n/8).

Fix \xi\in S^{n-1} and consider the log-concave integrable function g:[0,\infty)\to[0,\infty) defined by g(r)=f_{\mu}(r\xi). Applying Lemma 2.2 with m=n-1 and \alpha=t/m we see that

Then, integration in polar coordinates shows that

which is the assertion of the proposition.

We may assume that \int_0^{\infty}r^{m}g(r)\,dr=1. For r>0 we define

Note that \varphi is a log-concave function with \int_0^{\infty}\varphi(r)\,dr=1. Define r_m as the unique solution of (\ln g)^{\prime}(r)=-m/r. Then, equivalently, we have that \varphi^{\prime}(r_m)=0 and since \varphi is log-concave and \varphi(r_m)>0 we conclude that \varphi(r_m)=\max(\varphi). From (?) we know that

for all 0\leqslant r\leqslant r_m. It follows that if M:=g(r_m) then, for every r>0 that satisfies g(r)\geqslant e^{-(\alpha-1)m}M we have that g(r)\geqslant e^{-\alpha m}g(0), and hence

From the definition of r^{\prime} it is clear that r_m\leqslant r^{\prime}. Also, since g(r^{\prime})=e^{-(\alpha-1)m}M, from (?) we see that r^{\prime}\leqslant\alpha r_m. It follows that

The last inequality follows from the fact that 3\alpha \geqslant 4(\ln \alpha +1) when \alpha\geqslant 5. It is not hard to check that \psi(s)=\varphi(\Phi^{-1}(s)) is concave on (0,1). Since \varphi attains its maximum at r_m, we have that \psi attains its maximum at \Phi(r_m). Then, for any 0<\varepsilon\leqslant 1, using the concavity of \psi we can check that if s\geqslant \Phi(r_m) and \psi(s)\leqslant\varepsilon\cdot\max(\psi) we must have that s\geqslant 1-\varepsilon. It follows that if r\geqslant r_m and \varphi(r)\leqslant\varepsilon\cdot\max(\psi)=\varepsilon\cdot\max(\varphi) then \Phi(r)\geqslant 1-\varepsilon. Since r^{\prime}\geqslant r_m and r^{\prime} satisfies \varphi(r^{\prime})\leqslant e^{-\alpha m/4}\max(\varphi), we conclude that

The result follows from the fact that \varrho_{\alpha m}\geqslant r^{\prime}.

Let \xi\in S^{n-1} and define g:[0,\infty )\to [0,\infty ) by g(r)=f_{\mu }(r\xi ). By the definition of K_s(\mu ) we have

Since g(r)\geqslant e^{-t}f_{\mu}(0) for all 0\leqslant r\leqslant\varrho_{R_t(\mu)}(\xi) we see that

It follows that \varrho_{K_s(\mu )}(\xi )\geqslant e^{-t/s}\varrho_{R_t(\mu )}(\xi ). Since \xi\in S^{n-1} was arbitrary, this shows that R_t(\mu )\subseteq e^{t/s}K_s(\mu ).

Given any \xi\in S^{n-1} consider the log-concave function g:[0,\infty )\to [0,\infty ) defined by g(r)=f_{\mu }(r\xi ). Applying Lemma 2.2 with m=t-1 we see that

By the definition of K_t(\mu ) we have

On the other hand,

Using also the fact that \|f_{\mu}\|_{\infty }\leqslant e^nf_{\mu }(0) from (?), we get

and the result follows because

When \mu is even, the term e^n does not appear in (Proof), and thus we obtain an improved estimate.

Let v\in Z_t^+(\mu). We shall show that \Lambda^{\ast }_{\mu }(v/c_s)\leqslant s, where c_s\leqslant 1+\frac{2\ln s}{s}. To this end, we should check that

for all u\in{\mathbb R}^n. For every u\in{\mathbb R}^n we define \beta_u by the equation

Then, u/\beta_u\in M^+_t(\mu) and since Z_t^+(\mu )=(M_t^+(\mu ))^{\circ } we have that \langle u,v\rangle \leqslant \beta_u. Note that, by Hölder’s inequality, for all s\geqslant t we have that

For any 0<\delta<\beta_u, using (Proof) we see that

So, \Lambda_{\mu}(\delta u/\beta_u)\geqslant \ln\left(\frac{\delta^s}{s!}\right), and using the convexity of \Lambda_{\mu} and the fact that \Lambda_{\mu}(0)=0 we obtain

Therefore, for any c>0 we get

The function g_s(\delta)=\frac{1}{\delta}\ln\left(\frac{\delta^s}{s!}\right) attains its maximum value at \delta_s where \delta_s satisfies s=\ln\left(\frac{\delta^s}{s!}\right), i.e. \delta_s=e(s!)^{1/s}. This maximum value is equal to \max(g_s)=\frac{s}{\delta_s}=\frac{s}{e(s!)^{1/s}}. So, if we choose \delta=\delta_s and c_s=\frac{1}{\max(g_s)}, from (Proof) we see that

for all u\in\mathbb{R}^n that satisfy \beta_u>\delta_s. On the other hand, since \mu is centered, we have that \Lambda_{\mu}(u)\geqslant 0 for all u\in\mathbb{R}^n, and hence, for all u\in\mathbb{R}^n that satisfy \beta_u\leqslant\delta_s we have that

This shows that

or equivalently v\in c_sB_s. We have thus proved that Z_t^+\subseteq c_sB_s for all s\geqslant t and it remains to estimate the constant c_s. By Stirling’s formula,

as s\to\infty. It follows that if s\geqslant t\geqslant t_0 (where t_0 is a large enough constant) then c_s\leqslant 1+\frac{2\ln s}{s}.

Let \delta\in (0,1) and t\geqslant 1. If u\in M^+_s(\mu) then Hölder’s inequality shows that \|\langle u,\cdot\rangle_+\|_k\leqslant \|\langle u,\cdot\rangle_+\|_s\leqslant 1 for all k\leqslant s, and (?) implies that \|\langle u,\cdot\rangle_+\|_k\leqslant \frac{ck}{s}\|\langle u,\cdot\rangle_+\|_s\leqslant \frac{ck}{s} for all k>s, where c>0 is an absolute constant. Since \frac{k}{(k!)^{1/k}}\to e, we may choose an absolute constant \gamma>0 small enough so that \frac{c\gamma k}{(k!)^{1/k}}\leqslant\frac{1}{2} for all k\geqslant 1. It follows that

if s\geqslant s_0. Therefore, for any u\in M^+_s(\mu) we get \Lambda_{\mu}(\gamma su)\leqslant\gamma s+1.

Now, let v\notin (1+\delta)Z^+_s(\mu). We can find u\in M^+_s(\mu) such that \langle v,u\rangle> 1+\delta and then

if we assume that s\geqslant \frac{2t}{\gamma\delta}. Therefore, v\notin B_t(\mu ). This shows that B_t(\mu)\subseteq (1+\delta)Z^+_{c_1t/\delta} (\mu), where c_1=2/\gamma.

We shall use a result of Brazitikos and Chasapis from [Brazitikos-Chasapis-2024]: For every x\in {\rm supp}(\mu) and any \varepsilon\in (0,1) we have that

Let x\in B_s(\mu) and assume that \varphi_{\mu}(x)<e^{-s-3\ln s}. Then,

provided that s\geqslant 2, and hence

for every \varepsilon\in (0,1) and any s\geqslant 2. The function f(\varepsilon)=\ln\varepsilon +(1-\varepsilon)(s+2\ln s) attains its maximum at \varepsilon =\frac{1}{s+2\ln s} and we must have

It follows that \ln(s+2\ln s)+1\geqslant 2\ln s, which implies that e(s+2\ln s)\geqslant s^2, a contradiction if s\geqslant s_0 for a large enough absolute constant s_0>0.

We have thus shown that if s\geqslant s_0 and x\in B_s(\mu) then \varphi_{\mu}(x)\geqslant e^{-s-3\ln s}, i.e. B_s(\mu)\subseteq T_{s+3\ln s}(\mu). The inclusion T_s(\mu)\subseteq B_s(\mu) is (?) above.

Assume that x\notin (1+\delta)Z_t^+(\mu). Then, we may find \delta^{\prime}>\delta and \xi\in S^{n-1} such that x\in H=\{y\in\mathbb{R}^n:\langle y,\xi\rangle \geqslant (1+\delta^{\prime})h_{Z_t^+}(\xi)\}. From Markov’s inequality we see that

therefore, \varphi_{\mu}(x)\leqslant\mu(H)< e^{-t\ln(1+\delta)}, which shows that x\notin T_{t\ln(1+\delta)}(\mu). The lemma follows.

Note that if A\subset {\mathbb R}^n is a Borel set, then

Since f_{\mu} is log-concave, we see that

for every x\in {\mathbb R}^n, because f_{\mu}(x)\leqslant e^nf_{\mu}(0) by (?). It follows that

as claimed.

We may assume that \mu is isotropic. Let 0<p<q<1. Let t>1 that will be chosen appropriately large and apply Proposition 3.2 with \delta =\frac{\ln t}{ct^q}. Then, we get

provided that t\geqslant C_1(q)t^qn\ln n, or equivalently t\geqslant t_n=C_2(q)(n\ln n)^{\frac{1}{1-q}}. Now, let t\geqslant t_n. From Proposition 2.6 we see that

and applying Lemma 3.1 twice we obtain

From (Proof) and (Proof) we get

if t\geqslant s_n where s_n\geqslant t_n is large enough and depends only on n (note that \exp(t^{1-q}\ln t)\geqslant ct^q/(4n\ln t) for large enough t, independently from n). Now, we write

where the last integral converges because 1+q-p>1.

Let r:=r(R_t(\mu)) denote the inradius of R_t(\mu) with respect to the origin. Then there exists \xi\in S^{n-1} such that h_{R_t(\mu)}(\xi)\leqslant r, and consequently

We decompose this half-space as

Since \mu is centered, Grünbaum’s lemma (see [BGVV-book, Lemma 2.2.6]) yields

Let F_{\xi}=\{t\xi:t\in\mathbb{R}\} be the one-dimensional subspace spanned by \xi. Since \mu is isotropic, the one-dimensional marginal

is an isotropic log-concave density on \mathbb{R} (see [BGVV-book, Proposition 5.1.11]). Consequently,

Therefore,

Combining these estimates and using Proposition 2.1, we obtain

This implies

as claimed.

From Lemma 3.4 we know that R_t(\mu)\supseteq \frac{1}{3}B_2^n. Let x\in (1-\delta)R_t(\mu). Since (\delta/3)B_2^n\subseteq \delta R_t(\mu) we have that

Then, if H is a closed half-space such that x\in\partial(H) we have that H\cap B(x,\delta/3)\subseteq R_t(\mu), and hence f_{\mu}(y)\geqslant e^{-t}f_{\mu}(0) for all y\in H\cap B(x,\delta/3). Since H\cap B(x,\delta/3) is half of a ball of radius \delta/3, it follows that

Now, recall that f_{\mu}(0)\geqslant e^{-n}\|f_{\mu}\|_{\infty}=e^{-n}L_{\mu}^n\geqslant (c_1/e)^n because L_{\mu}\geqslant c_1 for some absolute constant c_1>0, and \frac{\omega_n}{2}\geqslant \left(\frac{c_2}{n}\right)^{n/2} for some absolute constant c_2>0. Since H was arbitrary, by the definition of \varphi_{\mu} we get

with c_3=c_1^2c_2/(9e^2), where

with c_4=1/c_3. Since t\geqslant n\ln n, we see that \frac{n}{2}\ln(c_4n)\leqslant t and the first assertion of the lemma follows. For the second assertion, note that g(t,e^{-t/2})\leqslant 2t+\frac{n}{2}t=\frac{n+4}{2}t\leqslant nt if n\geqslant 4.

As in the previous proof, we may assume that \mu is isotropic. Let t_n:=n\ln n. Applying Proposition 2.8 and Lemma 3.5 with \delta=t^{-p-2}, or more precisely using (Proof), we see that

where

because the function m(t)=\frac{t}{\ln t} is increasing on [e,\infty) and hence \frac{n}{2}\leqslant \frac{n\ln n}{\ln(n\ln n)} \leqslant \frac{t}{\ln t} for all t\geqslant t_n, which implies that n\ln t\leqslant 2t for all t\geqslant t_n. From Lemma 3.1 it follows that

for all t\geqslant t_n and all 0<p\leqslant n/8 (here we use the fact that \frac{t}{4}>(p+2)\ln t if t\geqslant t_n and p\leqslant n/8, which implies that e^{-t/4}<2n/t^{p+2}). Then, we write

It follows that \|\Lambda_{\mu}^{\ast}\|_{L^p(\mu)}\leqslant cpt_n=cpn\ln n, for some absolute constant c>0.

Proposition 2.7 shows that for any m\geqslant 1 and any \eta\in (0,1) we have that

where c>0 is an absolute constant. Now, from Lemma 3.5 and Proposition 2.8 we know that if s\geqslant n\ln n then

where g(s,\eta)\leqslant 2s+n\ln(1/\eta). Assuming that \frac{1}{n}<\eta<\frac{1}{3} we see that g(s,\eta)\leqslant 3s and hence

for every s\geqslant n\ln n, because \eta<\frac{1}{3} implies that \frac{1+\eta}{1-\eta}\leqslant 1+3\eta. Since s\geqslant 5n, we may also apply Proposition 2.1 to get \mu(R_s(\mu ))\geqslant 1-e^{-s/4}. It follows that

for every s\geqslant n\ln n and any \eta\in (1/n,1/3). Setting \delta=3\eta and t=3cs/\eta=9cs/\delta we get the assertion of the proposition.

Let \mu be a log-concave probability measure on \mathbb{R}^n. Since the expectation {\mathbb E}_{\mu^N}\big[\mu (K_N)\big] is a affinely invariant quantity, we may assume that \mu is isotropic. Let t_n:=n\ln n. In the proof of Theorem 1.2 (see (Proof) and (Proof)) we saw that

for all t\geqslant t_n. By the definition of the family \{T_t(\mu)\}_{t>0}, for any x\in T_{10t}(\mu) we have

We use the following standard lemma (which is stated in this form in [Chakraborti-Tkocz-Vritsiou-2021, Lemma 3]; for a proof see [DFM] or [Gatzouras-Giannopoulos-2009, Lemma 4.1]): For every Borel subset A of {\mathbb R}^n we have that

Therefore,

Setting A=T_{10t}(\mu) we get

This last quantity tends to 1 as n\to\infty if

and we easily check that (Proof) holds true if t\geqslant t_n and N\geqslant \exp (Ct) for a large enough absolute constant C>0. Therefore, if N\geqslant \exp (Cn\ln n) we see that

as n\to\infty.