Some remarks on Petty projection of log-concave functions
Leticia Alves da Silva, Bernardo Gonz\'alez Merino, Rafael Villa

TL;DR
This paper explores the Petty projection of log-concave functions, introduces new inequalities related to this concept, and corrects some previous results in the literature.
Contribution
It provides new inequalities for the Petty projection of log-concave functions and offers corrections to earlier findings in the field.
Findings
New inequalities involving Petty projection of log-concave functions
Corrections and complements to previous results in the literature
Enhanced understanding of the geometric properties of log-concave functions
Abstract
In this note we study the Petty projection of a log-concave function, which has been recently introduced in [9]. Moreover, we present some new inequalities involving this new notion, partly complementing and correcting some results from [9].
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical Inequalities and Applications · Functional Equations Stability Results · Analytic and geometric function theory
Some remarks on Petty projection of log-concave functions
Leticia Alves da Silva, Bernardo González Merino, Rafael Villa22footnotemark: 2 Partially supported by FAPERJ, project reference 236508 Brazil.Partially supported by MICINN project PGC2018-094215-B-I00 Spain.
Abstract
In this note we study the Petty projection of a log-concave function, which has been recently introduced in [9]. The aim of this note is to report a mistake in Theorem 5.2 of [9] and to give correct new inequalities involving this new notion.
1 Introduction
Let be a convex body, i.e., a convex and compact set with non-empty interior, whose boundary is denoted by . Moreover, let be the set of all convex bodies in . For these and most of the forthcoming definitions and ideas on Convex Geometry, we recommend the books [14] and [3].
If the origin is an interior point of , the polar body of is
[TABLE]
which is also a convex body with the origin in its interior.
A convex body is uniquely defined by its support function, defined by
[TABLE]
For of affine dimension , we denote by its volume measured inside the affine hull of , and moreover we also write .
The mixed volume of two convex bodies ( times) and can be defined by
[TABLE]
There is a unique finite measure on the unit euclidean sphere , called the surface area of , so that
[TABLE]
(cf. [11]). When has a boundary with positive curvature, the density of with respect to the Lebesgue measure on is the reciprocal of the Gauss curvature of .
For any we let be the -subspace orthogonal to , and let be the orthogonal projection of onto . Then the projection body of is the centrally symmetric convex body given by its support function
[TABLE]
for every . Using standard properties of the mixed volume (cf. [14]) it is easy to see that
[TABLE]
In fact,
[TABLE]
where . Using Fubini’s formula,
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Finally, the polar projection body is the polar body of .
A function is log-concave if is concave, i.e., if
[TABLE]
for every , . Then for a convex function . Moreover, let .
Two typical embeddings of all convex bodies onto the set are given by the mappings that identify either with the characteristic function or the exponential gauge of , where
[TABLE]
Considering the definition of given by (1), we can write
[TABLE]
where, for a convex function ,
[TABLE]
is the so called Legendre transform of (cf. [10]). As
[TABLE]
it is natural to define the support function of a log-concave function as
[TABLE]
(cf. [13]). Note that for every (cf. [10]).
In order to define the polar function of a function as a log-concave function, it is natural to search for a transformation between convex functions so that . Since and if then , we have to ask for to verify to be the identity, and if , then . From [5], these properties characterize the Legendre transform, so .
As a consequence, for any log-concave with , its polar function is defined by (cf. [5]). With this definition, if with , and for some , then too (see Theorem 4.3 below). Note that .
To define the analogue definition of for a log-concave , firstly defined in [9], we take into account the equality for a convex body
[TABLE]
for (see [16], or Proposition 2.2 iii) ). We may now generalize (2) to define the Petty projection function of given its support function
[TABLE]
(see [9]). Note that, by the chain rule, if , then , and the previous definition admits the form
[TABLE]
In particular, for any , the polar projection function is given by .
2 Properties and main result
The main result here serves as a correction to [9, Thm. 5.2] and introduces a lower bound for the integral of . Let us denote by the n-dimensional Euclidean unit ball, its boundary, and let be its volume. Moreover, let be the Euclidean norm for every .
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let . Then
[TABLE]
Moreover, equality holds if there exists , , such that for every .
In the next proposition we collect some useful computations needed in this paper, refereed to characteristic functions and exponential gauges of convex bodies.
Proposition 2.2**.**
Let . Then we have that
- i)
. 2. ii)
. 3. iii)
. 4. iv)
. 5. v)
. 6. vi)
. 7. vii)
. 8. viii)
.
Let us observe that Theorem 5.2 in [9] is not correct. Indeed, using Proposition 2.2, one can verify that if , for some , then the Theorem 5.2 in [9] becomes , for some constant only depending on the dimension . Later on, we will discuss how to correct those bounds for the integral of the Petty projection function.
One can also bound from above the term by means of an entropic function under some extra assumptions; indeed, if for some and , then
[TABLE]
with equality if (cf. [1], see also [6]).
The quantity is an affine invariant, its maximum value is provided by Petty’s projection inequality [12], with equality if and only if is an ellipsoid, and its minimum value is given by Zhang’s inequality [15], with equality if and only if is a simplex:
[TABLE]
For any , , let be the Petty projection body of , which is the convex body whose support function is given by
[TABLE]
In order to avoid future confusion, here we have changed the original name also given by Fang and Zhou [9] (they used the name , and we insert the subindex to stress that it is a body). Its polar was firstly introduced in [1], and here once more we change the old naming by , and it is the unit ball of the norm given by
[TABLE]
Since , due to , we have that , as one may expect. The right-hand side of (5) was extended to functional settings by Zhang [16] and it is also known as the affine Sobolev inequality, whereas the left-hand side of (5) was recently extended to log-concave functions in [2],
[TABLE]
Moreover, equality holds on the right-hand side if and only if , for any regular , and on the left hand side if and only if , for any simplex , with . One can immediately verify that
[TABLE]
and thus, (6) can be used to give optimal bounds of the integral of for any .
Proposition 2.3**.**
Let . Then
[TABLE]
After writing this note, Fang and Zhou have told us in personal communication that they also noticed their mistake; however, it seems that they have amended it replacing it by the right-hand side of (6) and using Proposition 2.3.
3 Proofs
We start this section by proving Proposition 2.2.
Proof of Proposition 2.2.
- i)
See (3). 2. ii)
It is a direct consequence of . 3. iii)
Here we use a similar argument to the one exhibited in [16, §4]. Let us denote by the Euclidean distance from a point to a set . Let and define
[TABLE]
If for some , then there exists a unique such that . Let be the outer normal of at and let . Then
[TABLE]
from which
[TABLE]
When , we have that
[TABLE]
where is the surface area element of . Since and by (2) we can conclude that
[TABLE] 4. iv)
Since by definition , by iii) we can conclude that
[TABLE] 5. v)
Using iii) we have that , as desired. 6. vi)
See [9, Prop. 5.1]. 7. vii)
By definition, . Second,
[TABLE] 8. viii)
On the one hand, using v) and vii) we immediately get that
[TABLE]
On the other hand, using vi) and vii) and the 1-homogeneity of the support function we can conclude that
[TABLE]
∎
We now prove Theorem 2.1. The main ingredients of it are the integration by polar coordinates and the Jensen inequality [3], which states that if is a probability space, then for any convex function and any -integrable function , we have that
[TABLE]
and moreover, equality holds if and only if either is affine or is independent of . One can compare the proof below to the one in [9, Thm. 5.2], where we have detected mistakes in (5.17) at the change of variables and at the application of Jensen inequality.
Proof of Theorem 2.1.
Let . Since and using polar coordinates, we can write
[TABLE]
where is the uniform probability measure in . Since is convex, Jensen inequality implies that
[TABLE]
Using Fubini and using the fact that
[TABLE]
for any , then
[TABLE]
Letting , then and
[TABLE]
We can thus conclude that
[TABLE]
In the equality case, there must be equality in the inequality above. Hence, by Jensen’s equality case, we must have that is independent of . In particular, if for some log-concave and every , as desired. ∎
A geometrical consequence of Theorem 2.1 is the following result (cf. [16]), which relates the surface area measure of a with the volume , and can be also obtained by Hölder inequality in (5).
Corollary 3.1**.**
Let . Then
[TABLE]
Moreover, equality holds if .
Proof.
Let us particularize Theorem 2.1 taking . If we denote by the surface area element of , then
[TABLE]
This, together with viii) in Proposition 2.2, imply that
[TABLE]
as desired.
Equality holds if is independent of , for instance, if . ∎
Now we show Proposition 2.3.
Proof of Proposition 2.3.
As a consequence of (7) and vii) in Proposition 2.2, we obtain that
[TABLE]
∎
4 Integrability of log-concave functions
In this section we characterize the integrability of log-concave functions in terms of the value of over all possible rays. Other characterizations of the integrability of log-concave functions were given in [8]. Before stating the next result, we would like to remember that for any log-concave function , the function
[TABLE]
is log-concave, continuous on its support , and has (see [7, Lem. 2.1]). Thus, we can always replace by and hence we can always extend continuously to its support.
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let be log-concave with for some . Then the following are equivalent:
- (1)
* is integrable.* 2. (2)
Either or there exists no ray , , , for which .
Proof.
We first prove (1) implies (2). Let us suppose that . Hence, the function is non-zero in an open ball , for some and . By continuity of in , let us suppose that , for every and for some . Moreover, for the sake of contradiction, let us suppose that there exists a ray , , , such that . Let and . Let us observe that
[TABLE]
Furthermore, we have that
[TABLE]
and thus that
[TABLE]
Note that . Hence
[TABLE]
thus showing that is not integrable, a contradiction.
We now show (2) implies (1). If , then is integrable. Let us suppose that . After a suitable translation, let us assume that . For every , since is not constant on , then there exists such that . Now, using that is continuous implies that fulfills , for every . We now show that if is unbounded, we arrive at a contradiction. Indeed, in that case let be such that as . Since is compact, there exists a subsequence (which we can suppose w.l.o.g. to be the sequence itself) converging . For every , then
[TABLE]
Note that if is fixed, since , there exists such that if then . Hence
[TABLE]
Therefore , contradicting the hypothesis. Thus is bounded. If , then . Hence let be such that for every and some . Observe that for every and every we have that
[TABLE]
Thus, integrating in polar coordinates, we get that
[TABLE]
where is the uniform probability measure in . Since the first integral is finite as and the second one is finite as is bounded and is bounded too, hence we obtain that is integrable. ∎
Remark 4.2**.**
The existence of in Lemma 4.1 is necessary. Indeed, the function where , which is monotonically decreasing on , is log-concave, it fulfills (2) (since it is not constant over any ray) but does not fulfill (1) (simply noticing that for every ).
Theorem 4.3**.**
Let be log-concave with and for some . Then is integrable.
Proof.
Let us suppose that . We show now that (and thus ) is not constant over any ray , for any , , thus concluding by Lemma 4.1 that is integrable. Since is continuous and , let us suppose that whenever for some . Let us consider , . Then
[TABLE]
thus showing that is not constant over any ray , as desired. ∎
Remark 4.4**.**
The integrability of can be easily deduced by using some Blaschke-Santaló functional inequality
[TABLE]
but only for certain particular translations of (for instance, when the Santaló point of is the origin, see [4]). However, the comment in [10, Rmk. 2] is not correct (where the authors said that ”All of our results hold, with the same proofs, for log-concave functions that reach their maximum at the origin”), since is not necessarily integrable if . For instance, letting
[TABLE]
if , then
[TABLE]
thus having that if , and hence would not be integrable.
Acknowledgements. We would like to thank Julián Haddad for his valuable comments and pointers, and to the University of Sevilla for hosting Leticia Alves da Silva during two months, in which this work has been done. She also thanks the support of the IFMG - Campus Bambuí while conducting this work.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] D. Alonso-Gutiérrez, B. González Merino, C. H. Jiménez, and R. Villa. John’s ellipsoid and the integral ratio of a log-concave function. J. Geom. Anal. , 28(2):1182–1201, 2018.
- 2[2] D. Alonso-Gutiérrez, B. G. Merino, and J. Bernués. Zhang’s inequality for log-concave functions. In: Klartag B., Milman E. (eds) Geometric Aspects of Functional Analysis. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol 2256. Springer, Cham, 2020.
- 3[3] S. Artstein-Avidan, A. Giannopoulos, and V. D. Milman. Asymptotic Geometric Analysis, Part I , volume 202. American Mathematical Soc., 2015.
- 4[4] S. Artstein-Avidan, B. Klartag, and V. Milman. The Santaló point of a function, and a functional form of the Santaló inequality. Mathematika , 51(1-2):33–48, 2004.
- 5[5] S. Artstein-Avidan and V. D. Milman. The concept of duality in convex analysis and the characterization of the Legendre transform. Ann. of Math. , 169(2):661–674, 2009.
- 6[6] S. Bobkov and M. Madiman. Reverse Brunn–Minkowski and reverse entropy power inequalities for convex measures. J. Funct. Anal. , 262(7):3309–3339, 2012.
- 7[7] A. Colesanti. Functional inequalities related to the rogers-shephard inequality. Mathematika , 53(1):81–101, 2006.
- 8[8] D. Cordero-Erausquin and B. Klartag. Moment measures. J. Funct. Anal. , 268(12):3834–3866, 2015.
