The L\log L-Luxemburg Discrepancy for Nonnegative Weights Suffers from the Curse of Dimensionality

Fix \varepsilon\in(0,1) and choose \delta and \tau satisfying (4.2). Let an N-point set \mathcal{P} and corresponding nonnegative weights \mathcal{A} satisfy \left\lVert \Delta_{\mathcal{P},\mathcal{A}}\right\rVert_{\Phi}\leq\varepsilon \left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{\Phi}.

By Lemma 4.2, there are constants b>0 and d_1 such that

and by Lemma 4.4 and (4.1),

Combining these two estimates, we obtain the explicit bound

By (Proof), \alpha_d/d\to c_0. Therefore, after increasing d_1 if necessary, we may assume that \alpha_d\leq2c_0d. Since d\geq1, we have 1+\kappa\varepsilon \alpha_d \leq (1+2\kappa\varepsilon c_0)d. Thus (?) implies

where one may take c_{\varepsilon} :=b^2 (1+2\kappa\varepsilon c_0)^{-1}>0. This lower bound holds for every N-point set \mathcal{P} with corresponding nonnegative weights \mathcal{A} whose normalized L\log L-Luxemburg discrepancy is at most \varepsilon.

If the infimum defining \operatorname{disc}_{\Phi,+}(N,d) is not attained we proceed as follows. Fix \varepsilon\in(0,1), put \varepsilon':=(1+\varepsilon)/2\in(\varepsilon,1), and choose \delta and \tau satisfying (4.2) with \varepsilon' in place of \varepsilon. Let N:=N_{\Phi,+}(\varepsilon,d). Since \operatorname{disc}_{\Phi,+}(N,d)\le\varepsilon\,\operatorname{disc}_{\Phi}(0,d)<\varepsilon'\operatorname{disc}_{\Phi}(0,d), there exist an N-point set \mathcal{P} and nonnegative weights \mathcal{A} with \left\lVert \Delta_{\mathcal{P},\mathcal{A}}\right\rVert_{\Phi}\le\varepsilon'\left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{\Phi}. The theorem follows.

The function \Phi is continuous and strictly increasing on [0,\infty). Hence, for every point at which |f|>0, the quantity \Phi(|f|/K) is strictly decreasing in K. Since f is bounded, dominated convergence shows that K\mapsto\rho_\Phi(f/K) is continuous on every compact subinterval of (0,\infty). The limit as K\to\infty is zero by dominated convergence. Since f is not zero almost everywhere, there are numbers c>0 and m>0 such that the set \{|f|\geq c\} has measure at least m. Therefore

Thus there is a unique K_0>0 for which \rho_\Phi(f/K_0)=1. By the definition of the Luxemburg norm, this K_0 equals \left\lVert f\right\rVert_{\Phi}. The last assertion follows from monotonicity.

The assertion is trivial if f=0 almost everywhere or \left\lVert f\right\rVert_{\Phi}=\infty. Otherwise, let K>\left\lVert f\right\rVert_{\Phi}. By the definition of the infimum, there exists K_0<K such that \rho_\Phi(f/K_0)\leq1; hence monotonicity gives

Since the unit cube has Lebesgue measure one and \Phi is convex, Jensen’s inequality gives

The function \Phi is increasing, so \left\lVert f\right\rVert_{L_1}\leq\kappa K. Letting K\downarrow\left\lVert f\right\rVert_{\Phi} proves Lemma 3.2.

We prove the equivalent assertion

By Lemma 3.1 with f(\boldsymbol{t})=v_d(\boldsymbol{t}), the defining modular equals one at K =\left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{\Phi}, i.e.,

Using (?) and \left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{\Phi}=\alpha_d 2^{-d}, we obtain

where \boldsymbol T=(T_1,\ldots,T_d) has distribution \nu_d.

We first establish crude bounds on \alpha_d. By Lemma 3.2, 2^{-d}=\left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{L_1}\leq\kappa \, \left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{\Phi}, and hence

On the other hand, the concavity of x\mapsto\log(1+x), followed by Jensen’s inequality in (?), gives

A direct product calculation yields

Therefore,

It follows from (?) and (?) that

Under \mu from (?), the random variable Y:=-\log T is exponentially distributed with rate two. Indeed, for y\geq0,

Consequently, if

then

We rewrite Eq. (?) as

Dividing by d and using the elementary estimate x_+\leq\ell(x)\leq x_+ +\log2 for every x\in\mathbb{R}, where x_+:=\max\{x,0\}, we obtain

The map x\mapsto x_+ is 1-Lipschitz. Hence, by (?) and Cauchy-Schwarz,

The right-hand side tends to zero by (?). Combining this with (?) proves (Proof), and the final result follows from \left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{\Phi}=\alpha_d2^{-d}.

The case \Delta_{\mathcal{P},\mathcal{A}}=0 a.e. is trivial. If \Delta_{\mathcal{P},\mathcal{A}} is not a.e. zero, then Lemma 3.1 and (4.1) give

Since |\Delta_{\mathcal{P},\mathcal{A}}|=v_dX, the definition of \Phi, the identity \left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{\Phi}=\alpha_d2^{-d}, and the change of measure (?) give

This implies the first estimate in (4.1). Furthermore, Lemma 3.2 and (4.1) imply \left\lVert \Delta_{\mathcal{P},\mathcal{A}}\right\rVert_{L_1} \leq\kappa\varepsilon \left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{\Phi}. Using \,\mathrm{d}\nu_d=(v_d/2^{-d})\,\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol t, we obtain

which is the second estimate in (4.1). Finally, Z\leq1+|Z-1|=1+X, which proves (4.1).

Let S_d be as in (?) and define A_{d,\delta} :=\{S_d\leq (\frac12+\delta)d\}. We first estimate the probability of its complement. If Y is exponential with rate two, then, for \lambda \in (0,2),

Therefore, by the exponential Markov inequality,

Choosing \lambda=2-(1/2+\delta)^{-1}=\frac{4\delta}{1+2\delta}\in(0,2) yields

The number I_\delta is positive because x-\log(1+x)>0 for every x>0.

On A_{d,\delta},

Since \left\lVert v_d\right\rVert_{\Phi}=\alpha_d2^{-d}, it follows that

For every x\geq0, (?) implies, pointwise on A_{d,\delta},

Indeed, if x<\tau, then the right-hand side is at least \tau>x. If x\geq\tau, then

so the second term on the right-hand side of (?) is at least x.

Apply (?) with x=X, multiply by \mathbf{1}_{A_{d,\delta}}, take expectations, and use (4.1). We obtain

For z\geq0 we have z^{1/2}\geq1-|z-1|. Indeed, for 0\leq z\leq1, the right-hand side equals z \le z^{1/2}; for z \ge 1 it equals 2-z\leq1\leq z^{1/2}. Applying our estimate to Z on A_{d,\delta} gives

The probability estimate and (?) prove (4.2).

It remains to show that the right-hand side of (4.2) is eventually positive. By (Proof), \lim_{d \rightarrow \infty} \alpha_d/d = c_0 and by (?), \lim_{d \rightarrow \infty} \log \alpha_d/d = 0. Writing

we have \lim_{d \rightarrow \infty} q_d/d = c_0-\delta>0, and hence \lim_{d \rightarrow \infty} L_d/d = c_0-\delta. Therefore,

By (4.2),

The right-hand side of (4.2) converges to b_\infty. Thus it is at least, for example, b=b_\infty/2>0 for all sufficiently large d, proving (4.2).

Because of the product structure it suffices to prove the result in the one-dimensional case for x \in [0,1). (Note that if some x_j=1, both sides of (4.3) vanish.) With respect to \mu from (?), direct integration gives

Thus for x \in [0,1),

where the last inequality follows from a one-variable maximization (equality holds for x=\tfrac12(2-\sqrt{3})).

For \theta \in (0,1) and z_1,\ldots,z_N\geq0 we will use the estimates

Here the left inequality is well known (see, e.g., [LP26, Eq. (4.26)] for a proof) and the right inequality follows from Jensen’s inequality for the concave function x\mapsto x^\theta, applied to the uniform probability measure on \{1,\ldots,N\}.

By (4.3), Z=\sum_{k=1}^Na_kY_{\boldsymbol x_k} \nu_d-almost surely and all summands are nonnegative. Using (Proof) with \theta=1/2 and (4.3), we get

as claimed.

For f \not=0 we have

This proves (5.1). It remains to prove the sharpness of the bound.

On the one hand we have

On the other hand, choose any function h with \|h\|_{\Phi}\le 1. Then for any K>1\ge \|h\|_{\Phi} we have \rho_{\Phi}(h/K) \le 1, and monotone convergence for K \downarrow 1 gives \int_{[0,1]^d}\Phi(|h(\boldsymbol{t})|) \,\mathrm{d} \boldsymbol{t} \le 1. Using Young’s inequality v w \le \Phi(v)+\Phi^{\ast}(w) with v=|h(\boldsymbol{t})| and w=\Phi'(|f(\boldsymbol{t})|/\|f\|_{\Phi}) pointwise and integration over [0,1]^d yields

where we used (?). Since \int_{[0,1]^d} \Phi(|h(\boldsymbol{t})|) \,\mathrm{d} \boldsymbol{t} \le 1 and \int_{[0,1]^d} \Phi\left(\frac{|f(\boldsymbol{t})|}{\|f\|_{\Phi}}\right) \,\mathrm{d} \boldsymbol{t}=1 it follows that

Thus, for every function h with \|h\|_{\Phi}\le 1 we have

and this implies that \|g_f\|_{\Phi,\ast} \le 1. Together with the lower bound we deduce \|g_f\|_{\Phi,\ast}=1.

Finally, it is obvious that

This finishes the proof.