2

I have been looking at discrete Gaussian distributions and arrived at the following conjecture. I would greatly appreciate a proof (or disproof).

Conjecture. Let $\mu \in [0,1]$ and $\sigma^2 > 0$. Then $$\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} e^{-(n-\mu)^2/2\sigma^2} \le \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} e^{-n^2/2\sigma^2}.$$

Numerical evidence supports this conjecture.

In the continuous analog (i.e., replacing $\sum_{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $\int_{\mathbb{R}}$), this is an equality. Indeed, as $\sigma^2 \to \infty$, the discrete sum becomes a closer approximation of the continuous integral and the inequality almost becomes an equality. (Even for $\sigma^2=1$, the difference is only $2.7 \times 10^{-8}$.)

On the other hand, if we take $\sigma^2 \to 0$, then the infinite sum is dominated by a single term. The inequality becomes, roughly, $$\forall \mu ~~~~~ e^{-\mu^2/2\sigma^2} \le e^0,$$ which is trivially true.

Thus we see that in both extremes ($\sigma^2 \to 0$ and $\sigma^2 \to \infty$) the conjecture holds. This is further evidence that it holds for all values of $\sigma^2$.

These sums can be expressed in terms of Jacobi Theta Functions. However, I don't see how this is helpful.

Thomas
  • 895
  • 3
    Without working it out, I think this follows from the Poisson summation formula. Basically, because the Fourier transform of the Gaussian is itself up to normalization, and the Fourier transform of the shifted version adds a complex phase. Applying Poisson summation on both sides of your inequality, they are the same except the left has complex phases term by term, and so the result should hold by the triangle inequality. – J.G Mar 25 '20 at 18:34
  • By the way, for more info, check out Noah Stephens-Davidowitz recent PhD thesis on the discrete Gaussian. I think his interests are more focused on the algorithmic side especially with respect to lattices in theoretical computer science, but it looks to be an excellent exposition (though I know relatively little about these things...). – J.G Mar 25 '20 at 18:54
  • @J.G Thanks for the pointers. I will investigate. – Thomas Mar 25 '20 at 19:57

1 Answers1

3

Just to close the lid on this from my comment, define $f(x)=e^{-x^2/2\sigma^2}$ and $g(x)=f(x-\mu)$. Then Poisson summation implies that \begin{equation} \sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}} e^{-n^2/2\sigma^2}=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}} \hat{f}(n), \end{equation} while \begin{equation} \sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}} e^{-(n-\mu)^2/2\sigma^2}=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}} \hat{g}(n)=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}} \hat{f}(n)e^{-2\pi in\mu}. \end{equation}

The last thing to note is the well-known fact that $\hat{f}(\xi)=C_1e^{-C_2\xi^2}$ for some some constants $C_1,C_2>0$ depending on $\sigma^2$, so in particular $\hat{f}(\xi)>0$. The claim then follows by the triangle inequality.

J.G
  • 5,084
  • Thank you for this beautifully simple proof. It ended up becoming Lemma 6 in https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.00010 – Thomas Apr 02 '20 at 03:57
  • @Thomas I’m glad you appreciate it! But as a matter of a reference, chasing through that thesis, I think this is known even in the form you have here; for instance, the exact result here is an example in https://cims.nyu.edu/~regev/teaching/lattices_fall_2004/ln/transference.pdf, and I think (but haven’t checked) that this all traces back to a result of Banaszczyk in “New Bounds in Some Transference Theorems...” – J.G Apr 02 '20 at 11:36