Polynomial growth of Bohnenblust–Hille constants on the Hamming cube

Fix positive integers 1\le m\le n. If f=0, there is nothing to prove, so by homogeneity we may assume \|f\|_\infty=1. All empty sums and all layers above the degree of the polynomial are understood to be zero. In particular, after freezing coordinates, the degree bound m may exceed the number of remaining coordinates; the same convention applies to the resulting empty layers.

We first split the coefficient sum according to degree:

Write

Since q_r\le q_m, the coefficient norm on the r-th level is at most \mathcal{S}_{r}(f). Consequently,

The first inequality uses |\widehat f(\varnothing)|\le1 and the subadditivity of t\mapsto t^{1/q_m}, since 1/q_m\le1. The second is the comparison of normalized \ell_{q_m} and \ell_2 norms:

Thus we have reduced the problem to estimating

It remains to prove S(f)\le K m^{22}. The reason for introducing the weights r^{-10} will become apparent when we split coordinates.

We may assume m\ge12: for m<12, the low-degree estimate below already controls all of S(f). Split the weighted sum:

Estimating H(f) is strightforward and follows from a standard fact |f^{=r}(x)|\le\frac{m^{2r}}{r!} \|f\|_{\infty} We present its proof here for completeness. For a fixed vertex x, consider

Because f is multilinear, its absolute value on [-1,1]^n is bounded by its maximum on the vertices. Indeed, with all other coordinates fixed, t\mapsto|A+Bt| is convex, so its maximum on [-1,1] occurs at an endpoint. Apply this successively in each coordinate. Hence

Extracting the r-th coefficient and applying the first-derivative Markov inequality repeatedly gives (see [BE95, Section 5.1])

For each of the fixed degrees 1\le r\le11, use a finite homogeneous Bohnenblust–Hille constant C_r, whose existence follows from [DMP19]:

Therefore, with a constant independent of m,n,

We now need to estimate the high-degree part T(f).

Keep m,n fixed and let

where g ranges over polynomials on the same n-dimensional cube; at this stage, M may depend on m,n.

We will show that, for every f with \|f\|_\infty=1,

Together with (?) and (?), this will give

For 0<\|g\|_\infty\le1, apply this to f=g/\|g\|_\infty and use S(g)=\|g\|_\infty S(f). Thus the same bound holds for every g, such that \|g\|_{\infty}\leq 1 and \mathrm{deg}(g) \leq m. Taking the supremum over all such g’s gives

and hence M\le4Km^{22}.

The class of polynomials of degree at most m is stable under freezing coordinates. Every resulting function still has degree at most m and supremum norm at most 1. A function of fewer coordinates can be regarded as a function on the original cube, independent of the unused coordinates. Its weighted coefficient norm S, the quantity on the left-hand side of (1.2), is therefore bounded by the same M.

Return to the sum

Split the coordinate indices [n]=\{1,\ldots,n\} randomly into two disjoint sets I and J, with I\cup J=[n], assigning each index to either set with probability 1/2, independently. Denote the resulting random partition by \omega=(I,J); \mathbb E_\omega denotes averaging over these choices. For a fixed partition, write x=(x_i)_{i\in I} and y=(y_j)_{j\in J}; thus x now denotes only the coordinates in I, rather than the full n-dimensional vector. With this notation,

Each original coefficient \widehat f(S) occurs exactly once, with A=S\cap I and B=S\cap J.

For a fixed set S of size r, the number of its coordinates landing in I is

The indicators are independent Bernoulli variables with parameter 1/2, so N_S has distribution \operatorname{Bin}(r,1/2) and mean r/2. Hoeffding’s inequality [Hoeffding63] therefore gives

The probability p_r depends only on r, and p is a common lower bound for all r\ge12.

For a fixed partition \omega=(I,J) and r\ge12, define C_r(\omega)\ge0 by

Averaging the last identity gives

Since q_r\le2, we obtain

For r\ge12, we also have q_r\ge q_{12}=24/13, so p^{-1/q_r}\le p^{-13/24} because 0<p<1. Consequently,

For a fixed partition \omega=(I,J) and nonnegative integers d,e with d+e\ge1, put

Here d and e are the degrees in the two groups of variables; the dependence of b_{d,e} on \omega is implicit. On level r\ge12, the balanced pairs are those with d+e=r and r/6\le d,e\le5r/6. Grouping the terms in C_r(\omega) by these two degrees gives

There are at most r+1 blocks b_{d,e} in C_r, since a pair of nonnegative integers with d+e=r is determined by d\in\{0,\ldots,r\}. Since 1/q_r-1/2=1/(2r), comparison of the \ell_{q_r} and \ell_2 norms of this sequence yields

For r\ge12, the prefactor satisfies (r+1)^{1/(2r)}\le\kappa:=13^{1/24}. Write

Substituting this bound for C_r into (?) and reindexing the sum by r=d+e gives

We have reached a coefficient sum over two blocks. Now comes the mixed-norm step familiar from the standard Bohnenblust–Hille argument.

For integers d,e\ge2, put r=d+e and write \vartheta=d/r. Define

Hölder and Minkowski give

This is exactly Pellegrino and Teixeira’s two-block coefficient inequality [PT26, Lemma 3.4]. We present its short proof here for completeness:

The first inequality applies Hölder in B and then in A; the exponents fit because

The second inequality uses Minkowski to bound \|c\|_{\ell_A^2(\ell_B^{q_e})} by \|c\|_{\ell_B^{q_e}(\ell_A^2)}=Y_{d,e}, since q_e\le2.

Next, insert the damping factors that hypercontractivity will need later:

Every balanced pair has d,e\ge2. Substituting these definitions into (?) gives

For the last inequality, the power-series expansion

shows that this expression decreases with k, so for k\ge2 it is at most its value 2\log3 at k=2. Taking the logarithm of the factor in (?), we obtain

We now match the weight (d+e)^{-10} in (?) to the weights d^{-10} and e^{-10}, gaining a contraction factor. Divide (?) by r^5:

The extra factor (recall that \vartheta=d/r) is

For a balanced pair, \vartheta\in[1/6,5/6], and

Indeed, the maximum occurs at the endpoints 1/6 and 5/6: the logarithm \vartheta\log\vartheta+(1-\vartheta)\log(1-\vartheta) is convex and symmetric.

Set

Then

Square and use weighted AM–GM, followed by \vartheta,1-\vartheta\le1:

In view of (?) and (?), it remains to bound the sums of U_{d,e}^2 and V_{d,e}^2 over balanced pairs, uniformly in the partition. Since all terms are nonnegative, we may bound the larger sums over all d,e\ge2.

For the first sum, the definition U_{d,e}=d^{-5}\widehat X_{d,e} gives

We first fix d\ge2 and estimate the inner sum over e; afterward we restore the weight d^{-10} and sum over d. Recall that

where \rho_d=\sqrt{(d-1)/(d+1)}. For each A\subset I with |A|=d, collect the entire row

We keep all y-degrees together here. The noise operator is T_\rho(\sum_B u_By^B)=\sum_B\rho^{|B|}u_By^B. Minkowski, Parseval, and the Bonami–Beckner hypercontractive inequality [Bonami70, Beckner75] give the following chain:

The first step uses the direction \ell_e^2(\ell_A^{q_d})\le\ell_A^{q_d}(\ell_e^2), valid since q_d\le2, and then includes the nonnegative terms of y-degrees 0 and 1. The hypercontractive step uses exactly \rho_d^2=q_d-1. It applies to the full, possibly inhomogeneous polynomial R_A.

For fixed y, the numbers R_A(y) are the degree-d coefficients of x\mapsto f(x,y). Hence the last expression in (?) equals

Square, divide by d^{10}, and sum in d:

The last step holds because f(\,\cdot\,,y) has degree at most m and supremum norm at most 1. Similarly, interchanging x and y gives

This explains why we introduced M: the coefficient sums produced by hypercontractivity are precisely the weighted coefficient sums of coordinate restrictions.

Combining (?), (?), and (?), for every partition,

Substitute this into (?):

Returning to our original split (?) we obtain

and hence M\le4Km^{22}. By scaling (restoring homogeneity in f), we obtain

Everything was proved at fixed n, and the resulting constant is independent of n. There is no need to assume in advance that the supremum over all dimensions is finite. For m<12, the same low-degree estimate, with the sum stopped at r=m, already gives the required bound.

Finally, return to the coefficient norm we started with. By (?),

because m^{1/(2m)}\le2. Thus the argument gives

This proves both theorems.

Put v_r=\sum_{|S|=r}|\widehat f(S)|^2=\binom nr a_r^2. The hypothesis gives, for every i\in[n],

Moreover, since 2/q_r=1+1/r and \binom nr\ge(n/r)^r,

Cauchy–Schwarz and Theorem 1.2 therefore yield

where the last step uses \|f\|_\infty\le1. Taking c=K^{-2} proves the corollary.