Upper Bounds on the Relative Entropy and Rényi Divergence as a Function of Total Variation Distance for Finite Alphabets

Abstract: A new upper bound on the relative entropy is derived as a function of the total variation distance for probability measures defined on a common finite alphabet. The bound improves a previously reported bound by Csiszár and Talata. It is further extended to an upper bound on the Rényi divergence of an arbitrary non-negative order (including $\infty$) as a function of the total variation distance.

\section{Introduction}
Consider two probability distributions $P$ and $Q$ defined on a common
measurable space $(\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}, \mathscr{F})$.
The Csisz\'{a}r-Kemperman-Kullback-Pinsker inequality (a.k.a. Pinsker's inequality)
states that
\begin{align}
\label{eq: Pinsker}
\tfrac12 \, |P-Q|^2 \, \log e \leq D(P \| Q)
\end{align}
where
\begin{align} \label{eq: relative entropy}
D(P \| Q) = \ensuremath{\mathbb{E}}_P\left[ \log \frac{\text{d}P}{\text{d}Q} \right]
= \int_{\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \text{d}P(a) \, \log \frac{\text{d}P}{\text{d}Q} \, (a)
\end{align}
designates the relative entropy (a.k.a. the Kullback-Leibler divergence)
from $P$ to $Q$, and
\begin{align} \label{eq: TV distance}
|P-Q| = 2 \, \sup_{\mathcal{F} \in \mathscr{F}} |P(\mathcal{F}) - Q(\mathcal{F})|
\end{align}
is the total variation distance between $P$ and $Q$.

A ``reverse Pinsker inequality" providing an upper bound on the relative
entropy in terms of the total variation distance does not exist in general
since we can find distributions that are arbitrarily close in total variation
but with arbitrarily high relative entropy.
Nevertheless, it is possible to introduce constraints under which such
reverse Pinsker inequalities can be obtained.
In the case where the probability measures $P$ and $Q$ are defined
on a common discrete (i.e., finite or countable) set~$\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}$,
\begin{align}
\label{eq: relative entropy - discrete}
& D(P \| Q) = \sum_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} P(a) \, \log \frac{P(a)}{Q(a)}, \\
\label{eq: total variation - discrete}
& |P-Q| = \sum_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \bigl|P(a) - Q(a)\bigr|.
\end{align}

One of the implications of \eqref{eq: Pinsker} is that convergence
in relative entropy implies convergence in total variation distance. The total
variation distance is bounded $|P-Q| \leq 2$, whereas the relative
entropy is an unbounded information measure.

Improved versions of Pinsker's inequality were studied, e.g., in \cite{FedotovHT_IT03},
\cite{Gilardoni10}, \cite{OrdentlichW_IT2005}, \cite{ReidW11}, \cite{Vajda_IT1970}.

A ``reverse Pinsker inequality" providing an upper bound on the relative
entropy in terms of the total variation distance does not exist in general
since we can find distributions that are arbitrarily close in total variation
but with arbitrarily high relative entropy.
Nevertheless, it is possible to introduce constraints under which such
reverse Pinsker inequalities can be obtained.
In the case of a finite alphabet $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}$, Csisz\'ar and Talata
\cite[p.~1012]{CsiszarT_IT06} show that
\begin{align}  \label{eq: CsTa}
D(P \| Q) \leq \left(\frac{\log e}{Q_{\min}} \right)
\cdot |P-Q|^2,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align} \label{eq: Q_min}
Q_{\min} \triangleq \min_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} Q(a).
\end{align}

Recent applications of \eqref{eq: CsTa} can be found in \cite[Appendix~D]{KostinaV15} and
\cite[Lemma~7]{TomamichelT_IT13} for the analysis of the third-order asymptotics
of the discrete memoryless channel with or without cost constraints.

In addition to $Q_{\min}$ in \eqref{eq: Q_min}, the bounds in this paper involve
\begin{align}
\label{eq: beta1}
& \beta_1 = \min_{a\in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \frac{Q(a)}{P(a)}, \\
\label{eq: beta2}
& \beta_2 = \min_{a\in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \frac{P(a)}{Q(a)}
\end{align}
so, $\beta_1, \beta_2 \in [0,1]$.

In this paper, Section~\ref{section: Reksnip} derives a reverse Pinsker inequality
for probability measures defined on a common finite set, improving the bound in \eqref{eq: CsTa}.
The utility of this inequality is studied in Section~\ref{sec: applications}, and it
is extended in Section~\ref{section: RD} to R\'{e}nyi divergences
of an arbitrary non-negative order.

\section{A New Reverse Pinsker Inequality for Distributions on a Finite Set}
\label{section: Reksnip}
The present section introduces a strengthened version of \eqref{eq: CsTa},
followed by some remarks and an example.

\subsection{Main Result and Proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm: reksnip - improved}
{\em Let $P$ and $Q$ be probability measures defined on a common finite set $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}$, and assume
that $Q$ is strictly positive on $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}$. Then, the following inequality holds:
\begin{align}
\label{eq: UB-RE-FS1}
D(P \| Q) & \leq \log \left(1 + \frac{|P-Q|^2}{2 Q_{\min}} \right) - \frac{\beta_2 \log e}{2} \cdot |P-Q|^2 \\
\label{eq: UB-RE-FS2}
& \leq \log \left(1 + \frac{|P-Q|^2}{2 Q_{\min}} \right)
\end{align}
where $Q_{\min}$ and $\beta_2$ are given in \eqref{eq: Q_min} and
\eqref{eq: beta2}, respectively.}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Theorem~\ref{thm: reksnip - improved} is proved by obtaining upper and lower bounds on
the $\chi^2$-divergence from $P$ to~$Q$
\begin{align} \label{eq: chi-square}
\chi^2(P\|Q) \triangleq \sum_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \frac{(P(a)-Q(a))^2}{Q(a)}.
\end{align}
A lower bound follows by invoking Jensen's inequality
\begin{align}
\label{eq1: lb chi-square divergence}
\chi^2(P\|Q) & = \sum_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \frac{P(a)^2}{Q(a)} - 1 \\
\label{eq2: lb chi-square divergence}
& = \sum_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} P(a) \, \exp\left( \log \frac{P(a)}{Q(a)} \right) - 1 \\
\label{eq3: lb chi-square divergence}
& \geq \exp\left(\sum_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} P(a) \, \log \frac{P(a)}{Q(a)} \right) - 1 \\[0.1cm]
\label{eq4: lb chi-square divergence}
& = \exp\bigl( D(P \| Q) \bigr) - 1.
\end{align}
Alternatively, \eqref{eq4: lb chi-square divergence} can be obtained by combining the equality
\begin{align}
\chi^2(P\|Q) = \exp\bigl(D_2(P\|Q)\bigr) - 1
\end{align}
with the monotonicity of the R\'{e}nyi divergence $D_{\alpha}(P\|Q)$ in $\alpha$, which implies
that $D_2(P\|Q) \geq D(P\|Q)$.

A refined version of \eqref{eq4: lb chi-square divergence} is derived in the following. The starting
point is a refined version of Jensen's inequality in \cite[Lemma~1]{ISSV15}, generalizing a result from
\cite[Theorem~1]{Dragomir06}), which leads to (see \cite[Theorem~7]{ISSV15})
\begin{align}
& \min_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \frac{P(a)}{Q(a)} \cdot D(Q\|P) \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
\label{eq0: re and chi^2}
& \leq \log \bigl( 1 + \chi^2(P\|Q) \bigr) - D(P\|Q) \\[0.1cm]
\label{eq: re and chi^2}
& \leq \max_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \frac{P(a)}{Q(a)} \cdot D(Q\|P).
\end{align}
From \eqref{eq: re and chi^2}
and the definition of $\beta_2$ in \eqref{eq: beta2}, we have
\begin{align}
& \chi^2(P\|Q) \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
\label{eq1: refined lb chi^2 divergence}
& \geq \exp \Bigl( D(P\|Q) + \beta_2 \, D(Q \|P) \Bigr) - 1 \\[0.1cm]
\label{eq2: refined lb chi^2 divergence}
& \geq \exp \left( D(P \|Q) + \frac{\beta_2 \, \log e}{2} \cdot |P-Q|^2 \right) - 1
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq1: refined lb chi^2 divergence} follows from
\eqref{eq0: re and chi^2} and the definition of $\beta_2$ in \eqref{eq: beta2},
and \eqref{eq2: refined lb chi^2 divergence} follows from Pinsker's inequality
\eqref{eq: Pinsker}. Note that the lower bound in
\eqref{eq2: refined lb chi^2 divergence} refines the lower bound in
\eqref{eq4: lb chi-square divergence} since $\beta_2 \in [0,1]$.

An upper bound on $\chi^2(P\|Q)$ is derived as follows:
\begin{align}
\chi^2(P\|Q) & = \sum_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \frac{(P(a)-Q(a))^2}{Q(a)} \nonumber \\[0.1cm]
\label{eq1: ub1}
& \leq \frac{\sum_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \bigl(P(a)-Q(a)\bigr)^2}{Q_{\min}} \\[0.1cm]
\label{eq2: ub1}
& = \frac{|P-Q|}{Q_{\min}} \cdot \max_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} |P(a)-Q(a)|
\end{align}
and, from \eqref{eq: TV distance},
\begin{align}
|P-Q| \geq 2 \max_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} |P(a)-Q(a)|.
\label{eq: ub2}
\end{align}
Combining \eqref{eq2: ub1} and \eqref{eq: ub2} yields
\begin{align}
\chi^2(P\|Q) \leq \frac{|P-Q|^2}{2Q_{\min}}.
\label{eq: ub chi-square divergence}
\end{align}
Finally, \eqref{eq: UB-RE-FS1} follows by combining the upper and lower bounds
on the $\chi^2$-divergence in \eqref{eq2: refined lb chi^2 divergence} and
\eqref{eq: ub chi-square divergence}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
{\em It is easy to check that Theorem~\ref{thm: reksnip - improved} strengthens the
bound by Csisz\'ar and Talata in \eqref{eq: CsTa} by at least a factor of~2
since upper bounding the logarithm in \eqref{eq: UB-RE-FS1} gives
\begin{align} \label{betterthanCT}
D(P \| Q) \leq \frac{(1-\beta_2 \, Q_{\min}) \log e}{2 Q_{\min}} \cdot {|P-Q|^2}.
\end{align}}
\end{remark}

\vspace*{0.2cm}
In the finite-alphabet case, we can obtain another upper bound on $D(P\|Q)$ as a function of the $\ell_2$ norm
$\| P - Q \|_2$:
\begin{align}  \label{eq: UB-RE-FS}
D(P \| Q) \leq \log \left(1 + \frac{\|P-Q\|_2^2}{Q_{\min}} \right) - \frac{\beta_2 \log e}{2} \cdot \|P-Q\|_2^2
\end{align}
which follows by combining \eqref{eq2: refined lb chi^2 divergence}, \eqref{eq1: ub1}, and
$\|P-Q\|_2 \leq |P-Q|$. Using the inequality $\log (1 + x) \leq x \log e$ for $x \geq 0$
in the right side of \eqref{eq: UB-RE-FS}, and also loosening this bound by ignoring the
term $\frac{\beta_2 \log e}{2} \cdot \|P-Q\|_2^2$, we recover the bound
\begin{align}  \label{eq: UB-RE-FS-looser}
D(P \| Q) \leq \frac{\|P-Q\|_2^2 \, \log e}{Q_{\min}}
\end{align}
which appears in the proof of Property~4 of \cite[Lemma~7]{TomamichelT_IT13},
and also used in \cite[(174)]{KostinaV15}.

\vspace*{0.1cm}
\begin{remark}
{\em The lower bounds on the $\chi^2$-divergence in \eqref{eq4: lb chi-square divergence}
and \eqref{eq2: refined lb chi^2 divergence} improve the one in \cite[Lemma~6.3]{CsiszarT_IT06}
which states that $D(P \| Q) \leq \chi^2(P\|Q) \log e$.}
\end{remark}

\vspace*{0.1cm}
\begin{remark}
{\em Reverse Pinsker inequalities have been also derived in quantum information theory
(\cite{AE1, AE2}), providing upper bounds on the relative entropy of two quantum
states as a function of the trace norm distance when the minimal eigenvalues of the
states are positive (c.f. \cite[Theorem~6]{AE1} and \cite[Theorem~1]{AE2}).
These type of bounds are akin to the weakend form in \eqref{eq: UB-RE-FS2}. When the variational
distance is much smaller than the minimal eigenvalue (see \cite[Eq.~(57)]{AE1}),
the latter bounds have a quadratic scaling in this distance, similarly to
\eqref{eq: UB-RE-FS2}; they are also inversely proportional to the minimal eigenvalue,
similarly to the dependence of \eqref{eq: UB-RE-FS2} in $Q_{\min}$.}
\end{remark}

\section{Applications of Theorem~\ref{thm: reksnip - improved}}
\label{sec: applications}

\subsection{The Exponential Decay of the Probability for a Non-Typical Sequence}
\label{subsection: typicality}

To exemplify the utility of Theorem~\ref{thm: reksnip - improved}, we bound the function
\begin{align}\label{def:ldeltaq}
L_{\delta} ( Q ) = \min_{P \not \in \mathcal{T}_\delta (Q )} D(P\|Q)
\end{align}
where we have denoted the subset of probability measures on $ (\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}, \mathscr{F})$
which are $\delta$-close to $Q$ as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{T}_\delta (Q ) = \Bigl\{P
\colon \forall \, a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}, \; \; |P(a)-Q(a)| \leq \delta \, Q(a) \Bigr\}
\end{align}
Note that $(a_1, \ldots , a_n )$ is strongly $\delta$-typical according to $Q$ if its
empirical distribution belongs to $\mathcal{T}_\delta (Q )$. According to Sanov's theorem
(e.g. \cite[Theorem~11.4.1]{Cover_Thomas}), if the random variables are independent
distributed according to $Q$, then the probability that
$(Y_1, \ldots , Y_n)$,  is not $\delta$-typical
vanishes exponentially with exponent $L_{\delta} ( Q )$.
\par
To state the next result, we invoke the following notions from \cite{OrdentlichW_IT2005}.
Given a probability measure $Q$, its \textit{balance coefficient} is given by
\begin{align} \label{balanceOW}
\beta_Q = \inf_{A\in \mathscr{F}\colon Q(A) \geq \frac12} Q(A).
\end{align}
The function $\phi\colon(0, \tfrac12] \to [\tfrac12 \log e, \infty)$ is given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq: phi refined pinsker}
\phi(p) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac1{4(1-2p)} \, \log \left( \frac{1-p}{p} \right), & p \in
\bigl(0, \tfrac12 \bigr), \\[0.2cm]
\tfrac12 \log e, & p=\tfrac12 .
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
\begin{theorem}
{\em If $Q_{\min}>0$, then
\begin{align}
\label{potalo}
\phi(1 - \beta_Q) \, Q_{\min}^2 \, \delta^2
&\leq L_{\delta} ( Q ) \\
&\leq \log \left(1 + 2 Q_{\min} \, \delta^2 \right)
\label{potaup}
\end{align}
where \eqref{potaup} holds if $\delta \leq Q_{\min}^{-1} -1$.}
\end{theorem}

\vspace*{0.2cm}

\begin{proof}
Ordentlich and Weinberger \cite[Section~4]{OrdentlichW_IT2005}
show the refinement of Pinsker's inequality:
\begin{align}  \label{eq: OrdentlichW}
\phi(1-\beta_Q) \; |P-Q|^2 \leq D(P \| Q).
\end{align}
Note that if $Q_{\min} > 0$ then $\beta_Q \leq 1 - Q_{\min} < 1$, and
therefore $\phi(1-\beta_Q)$ is well defined and finite.
If $P \not\in \mathcal{T}_\delta (Q )$ the simple bound
\begin{align}
|P - Q| > \delta Q_{\min}
\end{align}
together with \eqref{eq: OrdentlichW} yields \eqref{potalo}.
\par
The upper bound \eqref{potaup} follows from \eqref{eq: UB-RE-FS2}
and the fact that if $\delta \leq Q_{\min}^{-1}-1$, then
\begin{align}
\min_{P \not\in \mathcal{T}_\delta (Q )} | P - Q | = 2 \delta Q_{\min}.
\end{align}
\end{proof}

If $\delta \leq Q_{\min}^{-1} - 1$, the ratio between the upper and lower bounds
in \eqref{potaup}, satisfies
\begin{align}  \label{eq: exponents' ratio}
 \frac1{Q_{\min}} \cdot \frac{\log e}{2 \, \phi(1-\beta_Q)} \cdot
\frac{\log \left(1 + 2 Q_{\min} \, \delta^2 \right)}{\tfrac12 \log e
\; Q_{\min} \, \delta^2} \leq \frac{4}{Q_{\min}}
\end{align}
where \eqref{eq: exponents' ratio} follows from the fact that its second
and third factors are less than or equal to~1 and~4, respectively. Note
that the bounds in \eqref{potalo} and \eqref{potaup} scale like $\delta^2$
for $\delta \approx 0$.

\subsection{Distance from Equiprobable}
\label{subs: equiprobable}

If $P$ is a distribution on a finite set $\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}$, $H ( P )$ gauges the ``distance" from
$U$, the equiprobable distribution, since
\begin{align} \label{eq: RE-equiprobable}
H ( P ) = \log | \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A} | -  D(P \| U).
\end{align}
Thus, it is of interest to explore the relationship between $H ( P ) $ and $|P-U|$.
Particularizing \eqref{eq: Pinsker},  \cite[(2.2)]{BretagnolleH79} (see also \cite[pp.~30--31]{Vapnik98}),
and \eqref{eq: UB-RE-FS2} we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq: 1st ubtv-uniform}
|P-U| &\leq \sqrt{ \frac{2}{\log e} \cdot \bigl( \log | \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A} | - H(P) \bigr) }, \\
\label{eq: 2nd ubtv-uniform}
|P-U| &\leq 2 \sqrt{1 - \frac1{|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}|} \cdot \exp\bigl( H(P) \bigr)}, \\
\label{eq: lbtv-uniform}
|P-U| &\geq \sqrt{ 2 \left( \exp\bigl( -H(P) \bigr) - \frac1{|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}|} \right) },
\end{align}
respectively.

\begin{figure}[here!]
\includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{equiprobable_alphabet_size_4-SV.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8.2cm]{equiprobable_alphabet_size_16-SV.pdf}
\caption{\label{figure:equiprobable}
Bounds on $|P-U|$ as a function of $H(P)$ for $|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}| = 4$, and
$|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}| = 16$. The point $(H(P), |P-U|)=(0, 2(1-|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}|^{-1}) )$
is depicted on the $y$-axis. In the curves of the two plots, the bounds
(a), (b) and (c) refer, respectively, to \eqref{eq: 1st ubtv-uniform},
\eqref{eq: 2nd ubtv-uniform} and \eqref{eq: lbtv-uniform}.}
\end{figure}

The bounds in \eqref{eq: 1st ubtv-uniform}--\eqref{eq: lbtv-uniform} are illustrated
for $|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}| = 4, 16$ in Figure~\ref{figure:equiprobable}.
For $H(P)=0$, $|P - U| = 2(1-|\ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}|^{-1} )$ is shown for reference in Figure~\ref{figure:equiprobable};
as the cardinality of the alphabet increases,
the gap between $|P-U|$ and its upper bound is reduced (and this gap decays
asymptotically to zero).
\par
Results on the more general problem of finding bounds on $|H( P ) - H(Q)|$ based on $|P-Q|$
can be found in \cite[Theorem~17.3.3]{Cover_Thomas}, \cite{HoY_IT2010},
\cite{Prelov_PPI2008}, \cite{Sason_IT2013}, \cite[Section~1.7]{Verdu_book} and \cite{Zhang_IT2007}.

\section{Extension of Theorem~\ref{thm: reksnip - improved} to R\'{e}nyi Divergences}
\label{section: RD}

\begin{definition}
{\em The R\'{e}nyi divergence of order $\alpha \in [0, \infty]$ from $P$ to $Q$ is defined
for $\alpha \in (0,1) \cup (1, \infty)$ as
\begin{align}
& D_{\alpha}(P || Q) \triangleq \frac{1}{\alpha-1} \; \log \left( \sum_{a \in \mathcal{A}}
P^{\alpha}(a) \, Q^{1-\alpha}(a) \right).
\label{eq: Renyi divergence}
\end{align}
Recall that $D_{1}(P\|Q) \triangleq D(P\|Q)$ is defined to be the analytic extension
of $D_{\alpha}(P || Q)$ at $\alpha=1$ (if $D(P||Q) < \infty$, L'H\^{o}pital's rule
gives that $D(P||Q) = \lim_{\alpha \uparrow 1} D_{\alpha}(P || Q)$).
The extreme cases of $\alpha = 0, \infty$ are defined as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\alpha = 0$ then $D_0(P||Q) = -\log Q(\text{Support}(P))$,
\item If $\alpha = +\infty$ then
$$D_{\infty}(P||Q) = \log \left(\sup_{a \in \ensuremath{\mathcal}{A}} \frac{P(a)}{Q(a)}\right).$$
\end{itemize}}
\end{definition}

Pinsker's inequality was extended by Gilardoni \cite{Gilardoni10}
for a R\'{e}nyi divergence of order $\alpha \in (0,1]$
(see also \cite[Theorem~30]{ErvenH14}), and it gets the form
\begin{equation*}
\tfrac{\alpha}{2} \, |P-Q|^2 \, \log e \leq D_{\alpha}(P \| Q).
\end{equation*}
A tight lower bound on the R\'{e}nyi divergence of order
$\alpha > 0$ as a function of the total variation distance
is given in \cite{Sason_ISIT15}, which is consistent with
Vajda's tight lower bound for $f$-divergences in \cite[Theorem~3]{Vajda_1972}.

Motivated by these findings, we extend the upper bound on the relative entropy
in Theorem~\ref{thm: reksnip - improved} to R\'{e}nyi divergences of an arbitrary order.

\vspace*{0.2cm}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: ub-RD-TV-FS}
{\em
Assume that $P, Q$ are strictly positive with minimum masses
denoted by $P_{\min}$ and $Q_{\min}$, respectively.
Let $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ be given in \eqref{eq: beta1} and \eqref{eq: beta2},
respectively, and abbreviate $\delta \triangleq \tfrac12 |P-Q| \in [0,1]$.
Then, the R\'{e}nyi divergence of order $\alpha \in [0,\infty]$ satisfies
\begin{align}  \label{eq: ub-RD-TV-FS}
& D_{\alpha}(P \| Q) \nonumber \\
& \leq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
f_1, & \mbox{$\alpha \in (2, \infty]$} \\[0.3cm]
f_2, & \mbox{$\alpha \in [1,2]$} \\[0.3cm]
\min \left\{ f_2, f_3, f_4 \right\},
& \mbox{$\alpha \in \bigl(\tfrac12, 1 \bigr)$} \\[0.3cm]
\min \left\{ 2 \log\left(\frac1{1-\delta} \right), f_2, f_3, f_4 \right\},
& \mbox{$\alpha \in \bigl[0, \tfrac12\bigr]$}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
where, for $\alpha \in [0, \infty]$,
\begin{align} \label{eq: f1}
& f_1(\alpha, \beta_1, \delta) \nonumber \\
& \triangleq \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{\alpha-1} \; \log\left(1 + \frac{\delta (\beta_1^{1-\alpha}-1)}{1-\beta_1}\right)
& \alpha \in [0,1) \cup (1, \infty) \\[0.3cm]
\frac{\delta}{1-\beta_1} \; \log \frac1{\beta_1}, & \alpha = 1, \\[0.3cm]
\log \frac1{\beta_1}, & \alpha = \infty \\[0.3cm]
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
for $\alpha \in [0,2]$
\begin{align}
\label{eq: f2}
& f_2(\alpha, \beta_1, Q_{\min}, \delta) \nonumber \\[0.2cm]
& \triangleq \min \left\{f_1(\alpha, \beta_1, \delta), \; \log\left(1+\frac{2\delta^2}{Q_{\min}}\right) \right\}
\end{align}
and, for $\alpha \in [0,1)$, $f_3$ and $f_4$ are given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq: f3}
&  f_3(\alpha, P_{\min}, \beta_1, \delta) \nonumber \\[0.2cm]
& \triangleq
\left(\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\right)
\left[ \log \left(1 + \frac{2 \delta^2}{P_{\min}} \right)
- 2 \beta_1 \delta^2 \, \log e  \right], \\[0.3cm]
\label{eq: f4}
&  f_4(\beta_2, Q_{\min}, \delta) \nonumber \\
& \triangleq \min\left\{ \log \left(1 + \frac{2 \delta^2}{Q_{\min}} \right)
- 2 \beta_2 \delta^2 \, \log e , \right.
\nonumber \\[0.1cm]
& \hspace*{1.2cm} \left. \log \left(1 + \frac{\min\{\delta, 2\delta^2\}}{Q_{\min}} \right) \right\}.
\end{align}}
\end{theorem}

\vspace*{0.3cm}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Section~7.C]{ISSV15}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
{\em A simple bound, albeit looser than the one in Theorem~\ref{thm: ub-RD-TV-FS} is
\begin{align} \label{eq: simple ub}
D_{\alpha}(P\|Q) \leq \log \left(1 + \frac{|P-Q|}{2 Q_{\min}} \right)
\end{align}
which is asymptotically tight as $\alpha \to \infty$ in the case of a binary alphabet
with equiprobable $Q$.}
\end{remark}

\begin{example}
{\em Figure~\ref{figure:compare_ub_RD_finite_graph1} illustrates the bound in
\eqref{eq: f1}, which is valid for all $\alpha \in [0, \infty]$ (see
\cite[Theorem~23]{ISSV15}), and the upper bounds of Theorem~\ref{thm: ub-RD-TV-FS}
in the case of binary alphabets.
\begin{figure}[here!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=9.8cm]{jagged.pdf}}
\caption{\label{figure:compare_ub_RD_finite_graph1}
The R\'{e}nyi divergence $D_{\alpha}(P\|Q)$ for $P$ and $Q$
which are defined on a binary alphabet with $P(0)=Q(1)=0.65$,
compared to (a) its upper bound in \eqref{eq: ub-RD-TV-FS},
and (b) its upper bound in \eqref{eq: f1} (see \cite[Theorem~23]{ISSV15}).
The two bounds coincide here when $\alpha \in (1, 1.291) \cup (2, \infty)$.}
\end{figure}}
\end{example}

\section{Summary}
We derive in this paper some ``reverse Pinsker inequalities" for probability measures
$P \ll Q$ defined on a common finite set, which provide lower bounds on the total
variation distance $P-Q$ as a function of the relative entropy $D(P\|Q)$ under the
assumption of a bounded relative information or $Q_{\min} > 0$. More general results
for an arbitrary alphabet are available in \cite[Section~5]{ISSV15}.

In \cite{ISSV15}, we study bounds among various $f$-divergences, dealing with arbitrary
alphabets and deriving bounds on the ratios of various distance measures.
New expressions of the R\'{e}nyi divergence in terms of the relative information
spectrum are derived, leading to upper and lower bounds on the R\'{e}nyi divergence
in terms of the variational distance.

\section*{Acknowledgment}
The work of I. Sason has been supported by the Israeli Science Foundation (ISF) under
Grant 12/12, and the work of S. Verd\'{u} has been supported by the US National Science
Foundation under Grant CCF-1016625, and in part by the Center for Science of Information,
an NSF Science and Technology Center under Grant CCF-0939370.

Information Theory (cs.IT); Probability (math.PR)


Jacobson's lemma via Groebner-Shirshov bases

Abstract: Let $R$ be a ring with identity $1$. Jacobson's lemma states that for any $a,b\in R$, if $1-ab$ is invertible then so is $1-ba$. Jacobson's lemma has suitable analogues for several types of generalized inverses, e.g., Drazin inverse, generalized Drazin inverse, and inner inverse. In this note we give a constructive way via Groebner-Shirshov basis theory to obtain the inverse of $1-ab$ in terms of $(1-ba)^{-1}$, assuming the latter exists.

\section{Introduction}
Let $R$ be a ring with identity $1$.
Recall that an element $x\in R$ is \emph{invertible (in $R$)} if there exists $y\in R$ such that $xy=yx=1$.
{Jacobson's lemma} \cite{lam2014jacobson,corach2013extensions} states that for any $a,b\in R$, if $1-ab$ is invertible then so is $1-ba$.
Jacobson's lemma has suitable analogues for several types of generalized inverses, e.g., Drazin inverse \cite{castro2010generalized, cvetkovic2010jacobson},
generalized Drazin inverse \cite{zhuang2012jacobson}, and inner inverse \cite{chen2010unit}.

Suppose $a, b\in R$ and $1-ab$ is invertible.
It is easy to verify that
\begin{align*}
(1 + b (1 - ab)^{-1}a)(1-ba)=1-b(1-(1-ab)^{-1}+(1-ab)^{-1}ab)a=1-b0a=1\\
(1-ba)(1 + b (1 - ab)^{-1}a)=1+b((1-ab)^{-1}-1-ab(1-ab)^{-1}a)a=1+b0a=1
\end{align*}
 and then Jacobson's lemma follows.
But, how is this formula constructed?
As Halmos \cite{halmos1981does} observed, $(1-ba)^{-1}$ can be ``constructed'' by using the following ``geometric series trick'',
which is ``usually ascribed to Jacobson'' \cite{lam2014jacobson},
\begin{align}\label{formula_Jacabson}
  (1-ba)^{-1}&=1 + ba + baba + bababa + \cdots\nonumber \\
  &=1 + b (1 + ab + abab + \cdots) a\nonumber \\
  &= 1 + b (1 - ab)^{-1}a.
\end{align}
Once the inverse is ``constructed'', it is easy to verify that Formula (\ref{formula_Jacabson}) works as above, despite its unlawful derivation.

Now it is natural to ask: Does there exist a legal way to construct the inverse of $1-ba$?
We shall answer this question in this note.

In this note we give a constructive way via Gr\"obner-Shirshov basis\ theory to obtain the inverse of $1-ab$ in terms of $(1-ba)^{-1}$, assuming the latter exists.
A similar method is used in \cite{herfort2014grobner} to obtain Hua's identity.

\section{Gr\"obner-Shirshov bases\ for algebras over a unitary ring}
In this section, we briefly review several properties of Gr\"obner-Shirshov basis\ for algebras over a unitary commutative ring.

Let $X\neq\emptyset$ and $k$ be a unitary ring.
Let $X^*$ be the free monoid generated by $X$ and $A=k\langle X\rangle =kX^*$ be the free algebra over $k$ with generator set $X$.
Similar to the case of associative algebras over a field (see \cite{bokut2014grobner}, c.f., \cite{cox2005using,zhangzhao2013Modules}),
we have concepts of \emph{monomial ordering},
\emph{leading term/coefficient}, \emph{composition}, and \emph{Gr\"obner-Shirshov basis}.
Particularly, a Gr\"obner-Shirshov basis\ consists of only \emph{monic polynomials} (i.e., polynomials with leading coefficient $1$).
For convenience, we define the leading term of a nonzero element from $k$ to be $1$ and the leading term of $0$ to be $0$.
Fixing a monomial ordering, we denote the leading term and leading coefficient of $f\in A$ by $\overline{f}$ and $\operatorname{lc}(f)$ respectively.

Given $f=\alpha_1u_1+\cdots\alpha_nu_n\in A$, where $n\in \mathbb{N}$, each $\alpha_i\in k$, $u_i\in X^*$, and $\alpha_i\neq0$,
the \emph{support} of $f$ is $\operatorname{Supp} (f)=\{u_1,\ldots,u_n\}$.
Let $f,h, g\in A$, where $g$ is a monic polynomial.
Then \emph{$f$ reduces to $h$ modulo $g$},
denoted by $f\rightarrow_g h$, if $\overline{f}=\overline{agb}$ for some $a,b\in X^*$,
and $h=f-\operatorname{lc}(f) agb$.
For a set $G$ consisting of monic polynomials,
we say that \emph{$f$ reduces to $h$ modulo $G$},
denoted by  $f\rightarrow_G {h}$, if there exists a finite chain of reductions
\[
f\rightarrow_{g_1} f_1\rightarrow_{g_2} f_2\rightarrow_{g_3}\cdots \rightarrow_{g_t} f_t=h,
\]
where each $g_i\in G$ and $t\in \mathbb{N}$.
Denote the set of words that are {\it irreducible} w.r.t. $G$ by $\operatorname{Irr}(G)$, i.e.,
\[
\operatorname{Irr}(G)=\{w\in X^*:w\not=a\overline{g}b \mbox{ for any }g\in G, a,b\in X^*\}.
\]
If {${\operatorname{Supp} (h)}\subseteq \operatorname{Irr}(G)$}, then we say $h$ is  \emph{irreducible} w.r.t. $G$.

The following lemma follows from the composition-diamond lemma for associative algebras over a commutative ring (\cite{bokut2014grobner}, Theorem 1 and Remark 2).
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-GSB-reduction}
  Suppose $G$ is a Gr\"obner-Shirshov basis\ for $I\unlhd A$, where $I$ is the ideal of $A$ generated by $G$.
  Then, for any $f\in A$, $f\in I$ if and only if\ $f\to_G0$.
\end{lemma}
\section{A constructive method to Jacobson's lemma}

Let $R$ be a unitary ring.
Given $a,b\in R$ with $1-ab$ invertible (say, $c=(1-ab)^{-1}$),
we give a constructive method in this section to find the inverse of $1-ba$.

Let $S$ be the $\mathbb{Z}$-algebra generated by $\{a,b,c\}$ with defining relations
$\{(1-ab)c=1, c(1-ab)=1\}$, i.e.,
\(
S=
\mathbb{Z}\langle a,b,c: (1-ab)c=1, c(1-ab)=1\rangle.
\)
We
want to solve the following system for $x$ in $S$:
\begin{align}\label{system}
 (1-ba)x=1\nonumber\\
  x(1-ba)=1.
\end{align}
It is obvious that the subring of $R$ generated by $\{a,b,c\}$ is a ring homomorphic image of $S$. Thus the image of $x$ is the inverse of $1-ba$ in $R$.

Let $<$ be the degree-lexicographic ordering on $\{a,b,c\}^*$ with $a<b<c$.
Denote $f=abc-c+1$, $g=cab-c+1$, and $G=\{abc-c+1, cab-c+1\}=\{f,g\}$.

\

The following two lemmas will be used in the proof of our main theorem.
\begin{lemma}
  The set $G$ is a Gr\"obner-Shirshov basis\ (in $\mathbb{Z}\langle a,b,c\rangle$) for $S$ w.r.t. $<$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  There exist only  two compositions (both are intersection compositions) in $G$, i.e.,
  \begin{align*}
    fab-abg=(abc-c+1)ab-ab(cab-c+1)=-cab+abc\rightarrow_G 0
  \end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
    gc-cf=(cab-c+1)c-c(abc-c+1)=0.
  \end{align*}
Hence $G$ is a Gr\"obner-Shirshov basis.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma_leading-reducible}
  Suppose $\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_i uv_i\to_G0$, where
  $1\leq n\in\mathbb{N}$,  $0\neq\alpha_i\in \mathbb{Z}$, $u, v_i\in\operatorname{Irr}(G)$ for all $1\leq i\leq n$ and
  $v_1>v_2>\cdots>v_n$.
  Then $uv_1\not\in \operatorname{Irr}(G)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  If $uv_1\in \operatorname{Irr}(G)$, then $uv_1\neq 0$ is the leading term of $\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_iuv_i$,
  contradicting the assumption that $\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_iuv_i\to_G0$.
\end{proof}

The following theorem gives a new proof for Jacobson's lemma.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm_main}
  System (\ref{system}) has a unique solution in $S$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(Uniqueness) It follows from the uniqueness of an inverse in a ring.

(Existence)
Suppose a solution $x\in S$ of the system exists and let $x=\sum_{i=1}^m\alpha_iu_i$ where $0\neq\alpha_i\in\mathbb{Z}$, $m\in \mathbb{N}$ and all $u_i\in{\operatorname{Irr}(G)}$ with $u_1>u_2>\cdots>u_m$. Then it follows from $(1-ba)x=1$ and Lemma \ref{lemma-GSB-reduction} that
\begin{align*}
  bax-x+1=\sum_{i=1}^m \alpha_ibau_i-\sum_{i=1}^m\alpha_iu_i+1\to_G0.
\end{align*}
If $bau_1\in\operatorname{Irr}(G)$ then $bau_1\neq0$ is the leading term of $bax-x+1$,
contradicting the fact that $bax-x+1\to_G0$.
Thus $bau_1\not\in\operatorname{Irr}(G)$.
Hence $u_1=bcv$ for some $v\in \{a,b,c\}^*$,
where $\{a,b,c\}^*$ denotes the free monoid generated by $\{a,b,c\}$.
Similarly, the assumption $1-x(1-ba)=0$ in $S$ implies that $u_1=wca$ for some $w\in \{a,b,c\}^*$.

Now there are two cases for $u_1$: (i) $u_1=bca$ and (ii) $u_1=bczca$ for some $z\in \{a,b,c\}^*$.
We begin with Case (i).
Suppose $u_1=bca$.
First we notice that
\[
ba(\alpha_1bca)-\alpha_1bca+1\to_f \alpha_1b(c-1)a-\alpha_1bca+1=-\alpha_1ba+1,
\]
where $-\alpha_1ba+1$ is irreducible modulo $G$.
Thus $ba(\alpha_1bca)-\alpha_1bca+1\not\to_G 0$ and $x\neq \alpha_1 bca$.
Hence $m\geq 2$.
Now we may suppose $x=\alpha_1bca+\sum_{i=2}^m\alpha_iu_i$.
Then
\begin{align}
  bax-x+1&= \alpha_1babca+\sum_{i=2}^m\alpha_ibau_i-\alpha_1bca-\sum_{i=2}^m\alpha_iu_i+1\nonumber\\
  &\rightarrow_f \alpha_1b(c-1)a+\sum_{i=2}^m\alpha_ibau_i-\alpha_1bca-\sum_{i=2}^m\alpha_iu_i+1\nonumber\\
  &= \sum_{i=2}^m\alpha_ibau_i -\alpha_1ba -\sum_{i=2}^m\alpha_iu_i+1\label{eqn_m}.
\end{align}
We claim that $m=2$.
Otherwise, suppose $m\geq 3$.
Then $u_2>u_3\geq1$, $bau_2>bau_i$, $bau_2>ba$,
and $bau_2>u_j$ for all $i\geq 3$ and $j\geq 2$.
Namely, $bau_2$ is the leading monomial of (\ref{eqn_m}).
Thus the fact $bax-x+1\to_G0$ implies $bau_2\not\in\operatorname{Irr}(G)$.
So $u_2=bcu'$ for some $u'\in \{a,b,c\}^*$.
But $u_2<u_1=bca$.
Hence $u'=1$ and $u_2=bc$.
If $bau_i\not\in\operatorname{Irr}(G)$ for some $i\geq 3$, then by the same argument we have $u_i=bc$,
which contradicts that $u_2>u_i$.
Therefore $bau_i\in\operatorname{Irr}(G)$ for $i\geq 3$.
Thus we may reduce polynomial (\ref{eqn_m}) as follows
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{i=2}^m\alpha_ibau_i -\alpha_1ba -\sum_{i=2}^m\alpha_iu_i+1\\
=&\ \alpha_2babc+\sum_{i=3}^m\alpha_ibau_i -\alpha_1ba -\alpha_2bc-\sum_{i=3}^m\alpha_iu_i+1\\
\to_f&\ \alpha_2b(c-1)+\sum_{i=3}^m\alpha_ibau_i -\alpha_1ba -\alpha_2bc-\sum_{i=3}^m\alpha_iu_i+1\\
=&\  -\alpha_2b+\sum_{i=3}^m\alpha_ibau_i -\alpha_1ba -\sum_{i=3}^m\alpha_iu_i+1.
\end{align*}
The last polynomial, denoted by $h$, is irreducible and its leading term is
(note that if $u_3=1$ then $m=3$)
\[
\overline{h}=\begin{cases}
  bau_3 &\text{ if } u_3>1\\
  ba &\text{ if } u_3=1 \text{ and } \alpha_3\neq \alpha_1\\
  b &\text{ if } u_3=1 \text{ and }  \alpha_3= \alpha_1
\end{cases}.
\]
In each of these three cases, $\overline{h}\neq0$ and thus $h\neq 0$,
which contradicts the assumption that $bax-x+1\rightarrow_G 0$.
This proves our claim that $m=2$.

Now we may write $x=\alpha_1bca+\alpha_2u_2$ and from (\ref{eqn_m}) we have
\begin{align*}
  bax-x+1\to_f\alpha_2bau_2-\alpha_1ba-\alpha_2u_2+1.
\end{align*}
If $bau_2\not\in \operatorname{Irr}(G)$, then $u_2=bc$ as we proved in the last paragraph.
Then we have
\begin{align*}
  bax-x+1&\to_f\alpha_2babc-\alpha_1ba-\alpha_2bc+1\\
  &\to_f\alpha_2b(c-1)-\alpha_1ba-\alpha_2bc+1\\
&=-\alpha_2b-\alpha_1ba+1,
\end{align*}
which is irreducible modulo $G$ and nonzero, contradicting that $bax-x+1\to_G0$.
Therefore, $bau_2\in\operatorname{Irr}(G)$.
Now the only possibility in which $\alpha_2bau_2-\alpha_1ba-\alpha_2u_2+1\to_G0$ is that $u_2=1$ and
$\alpha_1=\alpha_2=1$.
That is, $x=bca+1$.

Now we check by reduction whether $x=bca+1$ is a solution of (\ref{system}).
\begin{align*}
  bax-x+1&=ba(bca+1)-(bca+1)+1\\
  &=babca+ba-bca\\
  &\to_f b(c-1)a+ba-bca\\
  &=0\\
\end{align*}
Similarly, we have
\begin{align*}
  xba-x+1&=(bca+1)ba-(bca+1)+1\\
  &=bcaba+ba-bca\\
  &\to_g b(c-1)a+ba-bca\\
  &=0\\
\end{align*}
Thus, $x=bca+1$ is a solution of (\ref{system}) in $S$.
This implies that $x$ is an inverse of $1-ba$ in $S$.
Since an inverse is unique if it exists in $S$,
we do not need to consider Case (ii) for $x$.
\end{proof}
It is clear that Theorem \ref{thm_main} gives a new proof for Jacobson's lemma.

\

{\bf Acknowledgements.} This work was motivated by a talk by R. Padmanabhan in the Rings and Modules Seminar at the University of Manitoba.


Tutorial: Complexity analysis of Singular Value Decomposition and its variants

Abstract: We compared the regular Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), truncated SVD, Krylov method and Randomized PCA, in terms of time and space complexity. It is well-known that Krylov method and Randomized PCA only performs well when k << n, i.e. the number of eigenpair needed is far less than that of matrix size. We compared them for calculating all the eigenpairs. We also discussed the relationship between Principal Component Analysis and SVD.

\section{Introduction}
Dimensionality reduction has always been a trendy topic in machine learning. Linear subspace method for reduction, e.g., Principal Component Analysis and its variation have been widely studied\cite{Xu1995Robust, Partridge2002Robust, Zou2006Sparse}, and some pieces of literature introduce probability and randomness to realize PCA\cite{Tipping2010Probabilistic, Halko2010Finding, Halko2011An, J1989Estimating, Woolfe2008A}. However, linear subspace is not applicable when the data lies in a non-linear manifold\cite{Belkin2014Laplacian, Kai2010Clustered}. Due to the direct connection with PCA, Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) is one of the most well-known algorithms for low-rank approximation\cite{Woodruff2014Low, Frieze1998Fast}, and it has been widely used throughout the machine learning and statistics community.
Some implementations of SVD are solving least squares\cite{Golub1970Singular, Zhang2010Regularized}, latent semantic analysis\cite{deerwester1990indexing, hofmann2001unsupervised}, genetic analysis, matrix completion\cite{Recht2012Exact, Cai2008A, Candes2010Matrix, Cand2010The}, data mining\cite{Chong2016Feature, Belabbas2009On} etc. However, when it comes to a large scale matrix, the runtime of traditional SVD is intolerable and the memory usage could be enormously consuming.

$\textbf{Notations}$: we have a matrix $A$ with size $m\times n$, usually $m \gg n$. Our goal is to find the Principal Components (PCs) given the cumulative explained variance threshold $t$.

$\textbf{Assumptions}$: In this tutorial, every entry of matrix $A$ is real-valued; W.l.o.g., assume $m \gg n$ and $A$ has zero mean over each feature.

For your information, either each column or row of $A$ could represent an example, and the definition will be specified when necessary.

In the traditional approach of PCA, we need to compute the covariance matrix $S$, then perform the eigen-decomposition on $S$. By selecting the top $K$ largest eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors, we get our Principal Components (PCs). Nevertheless, if each column of $A$ is an example and the row size of $A$ is tremendously large, saving even larger covariance matrix into memory is expensive, let alone the eigen-decomposition process.

\section{Preliminary knowledge}\label{sec:pre}
\subsection{Singular Value Decomposition (SVD)}
Any real or complex matrix can be approximated over the summation of a series of rank-1 matrix. In SVD, we have
\begin{align*}
A = U\Sigma V^T
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
U &= [u_1 \cdots u_n]\in\mathbb{R}^{m \times n}\\
\Sigma &= diag(\sigma_1 \cdots \sigma_n)\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\\
V &= [v_1 \cdots v_n]\in\mathbb{R}^{n \times n}
\end{align*}
Here $U$ and $V$ are orthogonal matrices, i.e.
\begin{align*}
U^T U &= I_n\\
UU^T &= I_m\\
V^TV&=VV^T=I_n
\end{align*}
We could also rewrite SVD as following
\begin{align}\label{AV}
Av_i = \sigma_i u_i, i = 1 \cdots n
\end{align}
Geometrically speaking, the matrix $A$ rotates the unit vector $v_i$ to $u_i$ and then stretches the Euclidean norm of $u_i$ with a factor of $\sigma_i$.

The orthogonal matrices $U$ and $V$ can be obtained by eigen-decomposition of matrix $AA^T$ and $A^TA$, and the singular values $\sigma_i's$ are the square root of the eigenvalues of $AA^T$ or $AA^T$.

Proof:
\begin{align}
AA^T &= U\Sigma V^T V\Sigma^T U^T = U\Sigma^2 U^T \label{AA}\\
A^TA &= V\Sigma^T U^T U\Sigma V^T = V\Sigma^2 V^T \label{AB}
\end{align}

Set $\Lambda = \Sigma^2= diag(\sigma_1^2 \cdots \sigma_n^2)$, i.e.

\begin{align}\label{LambdaSigma}
\lambda_i = \sigma_i^2
\end{align}

We could rewrite Eq. (\ref{AA}) and Eq. (\ref{AB}) as

\begin{align}
AA^Tu_i &= \lambda_i u_i \\
A^TAv_i &= \lambda_i v_i
\end{align}

Therefore, the column vectors of $U$ and $V$ are the eigenvectors (with the unit norm) of $AA^T$ and $A^T A$, respectively. Moreover, the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ are square of singular values $\sigma_i$, as in Eq. (\ref{LambdaSigma}). In other words, the square root of eigenvalues are singular values.
\subsection{Relations with PCA}
\textbf{If each column of $A$ represents an example or data point}, set $Y=U^TA$ to our transformed data points, where $U$ is the left singular matrix in SVD. The covariance matrix of $Y$ is
\begin{align}
cov(Y) = YY^T = U^TAA^TU = U^TU\Sigma^2U^TU = \Sigma^2
\end{align}

\textbf{If each row of $A$ represents an example or data point}, set $Y=AV$ to our transformed data points, where $V$ is the right singular matrix in SVD. The covariance matrix of $Y$ is
\begin{align}
cov(Y) = Y^TY = V^TA^TAV = V^TV\Sigma^2V^TV = \Sigma^2
\end{align}
It means the transformed data $Y$ are uncorrelated. Therefore, the column vectors of orthogonal matrix $U$ in SVD are the projection bases for Principal Components.

\subsection{Truncated SVD}
Although the derivation of SVD is clear theoretically, practically speaking, however, it is unwise to do eigen-decomposition on matrix $AA^T$, as it has a tremendous size of $m \times m$, which will deplete memory and cost a great amount of time. On the contrary, the matrix $A^TA$ only has a size of $n \times n$, thus it is plausible that we compute orthogonal matrix $V$ first.
Then we can plug the Eq. (\ref{AV}) into Eq. (\ref{LambdaSigma}) and get
\begin{align}
u_i = \dfrac{Av_i}{\sqrt{\lambda_i}}, i = 1 \cdots n
\end{align}

This equation is the key to improving time and space efficiency because we do not perform eigen-decomposition on huge matrix $AA^T\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$, which takes $\mathcal{O}(m^3)$ time and $\mathcal{O}(m^2)$ space.

Then we column-wisely combine $u_i$ to get $U$, and the same for $v_i$ to form $V$. For $\Sigma$, it is $diag(\sqrt{\sigma_1} \cdots \sqrt{\sigma_n})$.

\subsection{PCA Evaluation}
In Section \ref{sec:pre}, we have proved that the column vectors of orthogonal matrix $U$ or $V$ in SVD are the projection bases for PCA. In the literature of PCA, there are many criteria for evaluating the residual error, e.g., Frobenius norm and induced $L_2$ norm of the difference matrix (original matrix minus approximated matrix), explained variance and cumulative explained variance.

Usually, we use the cumulative explained variance criterion for evaluation.

\textbf{cumulative explained variance criterion:} Given the threshold $t$, find the minimal integer $K$ such that
\begin{align}
\frac{\Sigma_{i=1}^{K} \lambda_i }{\Sigma_{i=1}^n \lambda_i}\geq t
\end{align}
where each $\lambda_i$ is the eigenvalue of matrix $A^TA$ or $AA^T$. Every $\lambda_i=\sigma_i^2$ indicates the variance in principal axis, this is why the criterion is named cumulative explained variance.

For those SVD or PCA algorithms who do not obtain all the eigenvalues or can not get accurate them accurately, it seems that the denominator term $\Sigma_{i=1}^n \lambda_i$ can not be calculated. Actually, the sum of all eigenvalues can be done by
\begin{align}\label{sumeigen}
\Sigma_{i=1}^n \lambda_i = tr(A^TA) = tr(AA^T) = \|A\|_F^2 = \Sigma_{i, j} a_{ij}^2
\end{align}
\textbf{Therefore, we do not need to implement eigen-decomposition on either large matrix $AA^T\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$ or small matrix $A^TA\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$.} Eq. (\ref{sumeigen}) saves us $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ time and $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ space.

\section{Complexity Analysis}
In this section, we compare the time complexity and space complexity of Krylov method, Randomized PCA and truncated SVD. Due to the copyrights issue, the mechanisms of MatLab and Python built-in econSVD are not available, whose complexity analysis will not be conducted.

To restate again, our matrix $A$ has size $m\times n$ and $m>n$.

\subsection{Time Complexity}
For time complexity, we use the number of FLoating-point OPerations (FLOP) as a quantification metric.

For matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ and $B \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times l}$, the time complexity of matrix multiplication $AB$ takes $mnl$ FLOP of products and $ml(n-1)$ FLOP of summations. Therefore, the multiplication of two matrices takes $\mathcal{O}(mnl+ml(n-1))=\mathcal{O}(2mnl-ml) = \mathcal{O}(mnl)$ FLOP. We could ignore the coefficient here for it will not bring bias to our analysis.

For your information, the coefficient of time complexity in Big-O notation will not be ignored when comparing different SVD algorithms as it is of importance in our analysis.
\subsubsection{Krylov method}
For the Krylov method, we discuss the time complexity of each step.
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Forming standard normal distribution matrix $G$ of size $n \times l$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nl)$ FLOP, where in practice $l=0.5n$.
	\item Forming matrix $H^{(0)}=AG \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(mnl)$ FLOP.
	\item Forming matrix $H^{(i)}=A(A^T H^{(i-1)})\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(2imnl)$ FLOP, as the matrix multiplication in bracket $A^T H^{(i-1)}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nml)$ FLOP, then multiplying by $A$ takes $\mathcal{O}(mnl)$ FLOP. In total, it takes $\mathcal{O}{(2imnl)}$ FLOP to generate $i$ matrices.
	\item Forming matrix $H=\left(H^{(0)}\left|H^{(1)}\right| \ldots\left|H^{(i-1)}\right| H^{(i)}\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times (i+1)l}$ by concatenating each $H^{(i)}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(1)$ FLOP.
	\item Performing QR decomposition on $H$ takes $\mathcal{O}(2m[(i+1)l]^2 - 2[(i+1)l]^3/3)$ FLOP.
	\item Forming $T = A^T Q \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times (i+1)l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}((i+1)mnl)$ FLOP.
	\item Performing SVD on $T=\tilde{V}\tilde{\Sigma}W^T$ takes $\mathcal{O}(n[(i+1)l]^2)$ FLOP.
	\item Forming $\tilde{U}=QW$ takes $\mathcal{O}(m[(i+1)l]^2)$ FLOP.
\end{enumerate}

In total, the time complexity of Krylov method is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(nl+(3i+2)mnl+(i+1)^2 l^2 (m^2+n^2+2m-\dfrac{2}{3}(i+1)l)) \text{ FLOP}
\end{align}

In practice, $l = 0.5n, i=1$, then the time complexity will be
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{n^2}{2}+\dfrac{5}{2}mn^2+4 (m^2 n^2 +2mn^2+n^4 -\dfrac{2}{3}n^3)) \text{ FLOP}
\end{align}

\subsubsection{Randomized PCA}
For Randomized PCA, we discuss the time complexity of each step. It is very similar to the Krylov method.
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Forming standard normal distribution matrix $G$ of size $n \times l$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nl)$ FLOP, where in practice $l=0.5n$.
	\item Forming matrix $H^{(0)}=AG \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(mnl)$ FLOP.
	\item Forming matrix $H^{(i)}=A(A^T H^{(i-1)})\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(2imnl)$ FLOP, as the matrix multiplication in bracket $A^T H^{(i-1)}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nml)$ FLOP, then multiplying by $A$ takes $\mathcal{O}(mnl)$ FLOP. In total, it takes $\mathcal{O}{(2imnl)}$ FLOP.
	\item Performing QR decomposition on $H$ takes $\mathcal{O}(2ml^2 - 2l^3/3)$ FLOP.
	\item Forming $T = A^T Q \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(mnl)$ FLOP.
	\item Performing SVD on $T=\tilde{V}\tilde{\Sigma}W^T$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nl^2)$ FLOP.
	\item Forming $\tilde{U}=QW$ takes $\mathcal{O}(ml^2)$ FLOP.
\end{enumerate}

In total, the time complexity of Randomized PCA is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(nl+(2i+2)mnl+l^2 (3m+n-\dfrac{2}{3}l)) \text{ FLOP}
\end{align}

In practice, $l = 0.5n, i = 1$, then the time complexity will be
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{n^2}{2}+\dfrac{11}{4}mn^2+\dfrac{n^3}{6}) \text{ FLOP}
\end{align}

\subsubsection{Truncated SVD}
We discuss the time complexity of Truncated SVD for each step.
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Forming matrix $A^T A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(mn^2)$ FLOP.
	\item Performing eigen-decomposition on $A^TA \in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ FLOP.
	\item Taking the square root of each eigenvalue of $A^T A$ takes $\mathcal{O}(n)$ FLOP.
	\item Forming $u_i = \dfrac{Av_i}{\sigma_i}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(n(mn+m))$ FLOP, as $Av_i$ takes $\mathcal{O}(mn)$ FLOP while divided by $\sigma_i$ takes $\mathcal{O}(m)$ FLOP. In total, we have $n$ equations like this, thus it takes $\mathcal{O}(n(mn+m))$ FLOP.
\end{enumerate}

In total, the time complexity of Truncated SVD is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(2mn^2+n^3+n+mn)
\end{align}

\subsection{Space Complexity}
We evaluate the space complexity by the number of matrix entries. For a matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$, its space complexity is $\mathcal{O}(mn)$. In MatLab or Python programming language, each entry takes 8 bytes memory.
\subsubsection{Krylov method}
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Forming standard normal distribution matrix $G$ of size $n \times l$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nl)$, where in practice $l=0.5n$.
	\item Forming matrix $H^{(0)}=AG \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(ml)$.
	\item Forming matrix $H^{(i)}=A(A^T H^{(i-1)})\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(ml)$.
	\item Forming matrix $H=\left(H^{(0)}\left|H^{(1)}\right| \ldots\left|H^{(i-1)}\right| H^{(i)}\right) \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times (i+1)l}$ by concatenating each $H^{(i)}$ takes $\mathcal{O}((i+1)ml)$.
	\item Performing QR decomposition on $H$ takes $\mathcal{O}((i+1)ml)$. Note that we discard matrix $R$, only $Q$ is saved.
	\item Forming $T = A^T Q \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times (i+1)l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}((i+1)nl)$.
	\item Performing SVD on $T=\tilde{V}\tilde{\Sigma}W^T$ takes $\mathcal{O}((i+1)nl + 2[(i+1)l]^2)$, for matrix $\tilde{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times (i+1)l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}((i+1)nl)$ and $\tilde{\Sigma}\in\mathbb{R}^{(i+1)l\times (i+1)l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}([(i+1)l]^2)$, and $W\in\mathbb{R}^{(i+1)l\times (i+1)l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}([(i+1)l]^2)$. In total, it takes $\mathcal{O}((i+1)nl + 2[(i+1)l]^2)$.
	\item Forming $\tilde{U}=QW$ takes $\mathcal{O}((i+1)ml)$.
\end{enumerate}
In total with $A$ taking $\mathcal{O}(mn)$, the space complexity of Krylov method is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(mn+(3i+4)ml + (2i+3)nl + 2[(i+1)l]^2)
\end{align}

In practice, $l = 0.5n, i = 1$, then the space complexity of Krylov method will be
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{9}{2}mn + \dfrac{9}{2}n^2)
\end{align}

\subsubsection{Randomized PCA}
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Forming standard normal distribution matrix $G$ of size $n \times l$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nl)$, where in practice $l=0.5n$.
	\item Forming matrix $H^{(0)}=AG \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(ml)$.
	\item Forming matrix $H^{(i)}=A(A^T H^{(i-1)})\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(ml)$.
	\item Performing QR decomposition on $H$ takes $\mathcal{O}(ml)$. Note that we discard matrix $R$, only $Q$ is saved.
	\item Forming $T = A^T Q \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nl)$.
	\item Performing SVD on $T=\tilde{V}\tilde{\Sigma}W^T$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nl + 2l^2)$, for matrix $\tilde{V}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(nl)$ and $\tilde{\Sigma}\in\mathbb{R}^{l\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(l^2)$, and $W\in\mathbb{R}^{l\times l}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(l^2)$. In total, it takes $\mathcal{O}(nl + 2l^2)$.
	\item Forming $\tilde{U}=QW$ takes $\mathcal{O}(ml)$.
\end{enumerate}
In total with $A$ taking $\mathcal{O}(mn)$, the space complexity of Randomized PCA is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(mn+3ml+3nl+2l^2)
\end{align}

In practice, $l = 0.5n, i = 1$, then the space complexity of Randomized PCA will be
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{9}{2}mn + 3n^2)
\end{align}

\subsubsection{Truncated SVD}
We discuss the space complexity of Truncated SVD for each step.
\begin{enumerate}
	\item Forming matrix $A^T A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$.
	\item Performing eigen-decomposition on $A^TA \in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(n^2+n)$.
	\item Taking the square root of each eigenvalue of $A^T A$ takes $\mathcal{O}(n)$.
	\item Forming $u_i = \dfrac{Av_i}{\sigma_i}$ takes $\mathcal{O}(mn)$, as each $u_i$ takes $\mathcal{O}(m)$ and we have $n$ equations like this, thus in total it takes $\mathcal{O}(mn)$.
	\item Forming $V$ takes $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$.
	\item Storing $n$ singular values takes $\mathcal{O}(n)$.
\end{enumerate}

In total with $A$ taking $\mathcal{O}(mn)$, the space complexity of Truncated SVD is
\begin{align}
\mathcal{O}(3n^2+3n+2mn)
\end{align}

\subsection{Summary of Complexity Analysis}

\begin{table}[h]
	\caption{Comparison of complexity}
	\label{table-complexity}
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{lll}
		\toprule

		Method     & Time complexity   & Space complexity  \\
		\midrule
		Krylov method &
		$\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{n^2}{2}+\dfrac{5}{2}mn^2+4 (m^2 n^2 +2mn^2+n^4 -\dfrac{2}{3}n^3))$  & $\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{9}{2}mn + \dfrac{9}{2}n^2)$ \\
		&  &  \\
		Randomized PCA & $\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{n^2}{2}+\dfrac{11}{4}mn^2+\dfrac{n^3}{6})$ & $\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{9}{2}mn + 3n^2)$       \\
		& & \\
		Truncated SVD & $\mathcal{O}(2mn^2+n^3+n+mn)$						& $\mathcal{O}(3n^2+3n+2mn)$ \\
		\bottomrule
	\end{tabular}
\end{table}

We summarized the time complexity and space complexity in Table \ref{table-complexity}.

Under the assumptions that $m \gg n$, for time complexity, by keeping the highest order term and its coefficient, we could see that for Krylov method, it takes $\mathcal{O}(4m^2n^2)$ FLOP while Randomized PCA takes $\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{11}{4}mn^2)$ FLOP and Truncated SVD only takes $\mathcal{O}(2mn^2)$ FLOP. Therefore, Truncated SVD is the fastest SVD algorithm among the aforementioned. Furthermore, Truncated SVD keeps all the eigenpairs rather than only first $k$ pairs as Krylov method and Randomized PCA do.

For space complexity, we could see that Truncated SVD needs the least memory usage as $\mathcal{O}(3n^2+3n+2mn)$ and Krylov method needs the most memory space as $\mathcal{O}(\dfrac{9}{2}mn + \dfrac{9}{2}n^2)$. Randomized PCA holds the space complexity in between.

\section{Experiments}
We generate a matrix $A$ whose entry obeys standard normal distribution, i.e., $a_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$, with 5 row sizes in list $[2000, 4000, 6000, 8000, 10000]$ and  12 column sizes in $[100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 800, 900, 1000, 1200, 1500, 2000]$, 60 matrices of $A$ in total. The experiment is repeated 10 times to get an average runtime. On evaluating the residual error, the rate of Frobenius norm is used
\begin{align}
\delta = \dfrac{\|A-U\Sigma V^T \|_F}{\|A\|_F}
\end{align}

In Fig. \ref{runtimefixcol}, we compare the runtime of 4 SVD methods: Truncated SVD (FameSVD), Krylov method, Randomized PCA, econ SVD (MatLab built-in economic SVD). The matrix column size is fixed at 2000, and we increase the row size gradually. We could observe that all 4 methods follow a linear runtime pattern when row size increases. Of these 4 methods, Truncated SVD method outperforms the other 3 approaches.

\graphicspath{{E:/LXC/Graduate2Spring/FastSVD/experiment/MatLab/Fig/}}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{runtime_columnSize_2000.png}

	\caption{Runtime comparisons between 4 methods of SVD. The matrix column size is fixed at 2000, but row size varies. Truncated SVD method outperforms the rest.}
	\label{runtimefixcol}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[hbt]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{runtime_rowSize_10000.png}

	\caption{Runtime comparisons between 4 methods of SVD. The matrix row size is fixed at 10000, but column size varies. Truncated SVD method outperforms the rest.}
	\label{runtimefixrow}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{runtimefixrow}, we fix the row size of matrix at 10000, and we increase the column size gradually. We could observe that all 4 methods behave as non-linear runtime pattern when row size increases. Out of all 4 methods, truncated SVD method takes the least runtime in every scenario.

\begin{figure}[!ht]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{memory_rowSize_10000.png}

	\caption{Memory usage between 3 methods of SVD. The matrix row size is fixed at 10000, but column size varies. Truncated SVD needs the least memory.}
	\label{memoryusagefig}
\end{figure}

In Fig. \ref{memoryusagefig}, the row size of matrix is fixed at 10000, but column size varies. We could see that truncated SVD uses the minimal amount of memory while Randomized PCA needs the most.

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{fourinone2.png}

	\caption{Left to right: Original image, Randomized PCA, Krylov method and truncated SVD. The first 392 (784/2) principal components are reserved.}
	\label{mnistfig}
\end{figure}

We also evaluate our algorithm on handwritten digit dataset MNIST\cite{Deng2012The}. We form our matrix $A$ with size $60000\times 784$ by concatenating $60000$ of vectorized $28\times 28$ intensity image. For runtime, it takes 4.54$s$ and 10.79$s$ for Randomized PCA and Krylov method respectively to obtain the first 392 (784/2) principal components. However, it only takes Truncated SVD \textbf{3.12s} to get all the 784 eigenvalues and eigenvectors; For memory usage, 1629.1MB for Randomized PCA and 1636.1MB for Krylov method. In the meanwhile, only \textbf{731.9MB} is used for truncated SVD.

Our experiments are conducted on MatLab R2013a and Python 3.7 with NumPy 1.15.4, with Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 CPU @ 3.40GHz 3.40GHz, 8.00GB RAM, and Windows 7. The truncated SVD is faster than the built-in economic SVD of both MatLab and NumPy.

\section{Conclusion}
the regular SVD performs the worst because it needs the most of memory usage and time. When all eigenpairs are needed ($k = n$), truncated SVD outperforms other SVD variants mentioned in this tutorial. The memory usage of these SVD methods grows linearly with matrix column size, but truncated SVD has the lowest growth rate. The runtime of truncated SVD grows sublinearly while Krylov method grows exponentially.

{\small
	\bibliographystyle{ieee}

Numerical Analysis (math.NA); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Machine Learning (stat.ML)


Minimal Periods for Ordinary Differential Equations in Strictly Convex Banach Spaces and Explicit Bounds for some l^p-Spaces

Abstract: Let x(t) be a non-constant T-periodic solution to the ordinary differential equation x'= f(x) in a Banach space X where f is assumed to be Lipschitz continuous with constant L. Then there exists a constant c such that T L >= c, with c only depending on X. It is known that c >= 6 in any Banach space and that c = 2{\pi} in any Hilbert space, but whereas the bound of c = 2 pi is sharp in any Hilbert space, there exists only one known example of a Banach space such that c = 6 is optimal. In this paper, we show that the inequality is in fact strict in any strictly convex Banach space. Moreover, we improve the lower bound for l^p(R^n) and L^p(M, {\mu}) for a range of p close to p = 2 by using a form of Wirtinger's inequality for functions in W^{1,p}([0, T ], L^p(M, {\mu})).

\section{Introduction}
Consider the ordinary differential equation $\dot{x}=f(x)$ in a Banach space $X$, where $f$ is Lipschitz continuous with constant $L$, that is for any $x,y\in X$
$$
\|f(x)-f(y)\|_X\leq L\|x-y\|_X.
$$
In this case one can relate the period $T$ of any non-constant periodic orbit to the Lipschitz constant $L$ via the inequality $TL\ge c$.
In 1969, Yorke \cite{yor} proved that $c=2\pi$ when $X=\mathbb{R}^n$ with its usual norm. Lasota \& Yorke \cite{lasyor} showed that the proof extends to arbitrary Hilbert spaces and they
proved the bound $c = 4$ for any Banach space. This was improved to $c=4.5$ by Busenberg \& Martelli \cite{busmar} and finally to $c=6$ by Busenberg, Fisher \& Martelli \cite{busfishmar}
who also gave another proof for $c=2\pi$ in any Hilbert space using Wirtinger's inequality. An obvious extension of the simple two-dimensional example
$$
\dot x=Ly\qquad\dot y=-Lx
$$
shows that $c=2\pi$ is sharp in any Hilbert space. Busenberg, Fisher \& Martelli \cite{busfishmar2} also constructed an example of an ODE on a periodic orbit of period $1$, which when viewed as a subset of
$L^1([0,1]^2)$ has Lipschitz constant $L=6$, showing that $c=6$ is sharp for general Banach spaces.\\

However, some interesting questions about minimal periods remain unanswered. Does there exist an ODE in a finite-dimensional Banach space such
that the lower bound of $TL=6$ is obtained? Does $TL\geq 2\pi$ characterise Hilbert spaces? Is there a (non-Hilbert) Banach space for which $c> 6$?

The results in this paper address this last question. First we show that in strictly convex Banach spaces necessarily $TL>6$. For these normed topological vector spaces the unit ball is a strictly
convex set. It is easy to see that the unit balls in $\ell^1$ and $\ell^\infty$ contain a line segment and are therefore not strictly convex
sets whereas the unit balls for all $1<p<\infty$ are strictly convex. This result nicely complements the current theory because the only example
for a Banach space with $c=6$ is $L^1$.\\

However, we prove not only that the inequality is strict in any strictly convex Banach space but we are also able to push the bound a little further
for the simplest family of interesting finite-dimensional Banach spaces, namely $\ell^p({\mathbb R}^n)$, that is $\mathbb{R}^n$ equipped with the $\ell^p$-norm,
$$
\|(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\|_{\ell^p}=\left(\sum_{j=1}^n|x_j|^p\right)^{1/p}.
$$

It is remarkable that even for Euclidean spaces with the family of $\ell^p$-norms the optimal constant is not known\footnote{Unfortunately there appears to be an error in one of the integral calculations in the paper by Zevin \cite{zev} which claims to show that $c=2\pi$ in $\ell^\infty({\mathbb R}^n$).} for $p\neq 2$.
Our second contribution in this paper is to point out that by using a generalised form of Wirtinger's inequality, one can find explicit bounds on $c$ which are strictly larger than $6$ in a range of $\ell^p$-spaces near $p=2$ ($1.43\lesssim p\lesssim 3.35$). A similar argument also works in the infinite-dimensional Lebesgue spaces $L^p(M,\mu)$.

 We should mention the interesting related result, due to Zevin \cite{zev2}, that if $X$ is a finite-dimensional Banach space and one considers the second order equation $\ddot x=f(x)$ with $f:X\to X$ Lipschitz with constant $L^2$, then $TL\ge 2\pi$ independent of the space $X$. (The paper \cite{zev2} claims a similar result for the first order equation $\dot x=f(x)$, but there is a small error in the proof of equation (11). Nevertheless, Zevin's argument readily yields the result we have stated for $\ddot x=f(x)$.)

\section{Minimal periods in strictly convex Banach spaces}
Let us start this section by stating the main result of this paper:
\begin{thm}\label{main result}
Let $X$ be a strictly convex Banach space. Then
$$ TL > 6.$$
\end{thm}

In fact the proof of this statement is a refinement of an integral inequality originally introduced by Busenberg, Martelli \& Fisher \cite{busfishmar}. The revised
version of the result is summarised in the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{BanachLemma}
Let $X$ be a normed space and $y:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow X$ be a continuous, $T$-periodic function such that $ \left\Vert\dot{y}(t)\right\Vert$ is integrable. Then $$\int_0^T \int_0^T \left\Vert y(t)-y(s) \right\Vert {\rm d} s\; {\rm d} t \leq \frac{T}{6} \int_0^T \int_0^T  \left\Vert\dot{y}(t)-\dot{y}(s)\right\Vert {\rm d} s \;{\rm d} t.$$
If $X$ is a strictly convex Banach space, then the above inequality is in fact strict.
\end{lem}

Before we go into details of the proof, we show how Busenberg, Fisher \& Martelli used it to establish $TL\geq 6$ for any Banach space.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main result}]
Applying Lemma \ref{BanachLemma} and using the Lipschitz continuity of $f$, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^T\int_0^T || x(t)- x(s)||{\rm d} s\;{\rm d} t &\leq & \frac{T}{6} \int_0^T\int_0^T ||\dot{ x}(t)-\dot{ x}(s)||{\rm d} s\;{\rm d} t\\
&=& \frac{T}{6}\int_0^T\int_0^T ||f( x(t))-f( x(s))||{\rm d} s\;{\rm d} t\\ &\leq & \frac{LT}{6}\int_0^T \int_0^T || x(t)- x(s)||{\rm d} s\;{\rm d} t.
\end{eqnarray*}
Dividing both sides of the inequality by $\int_0^T\int_0^T || x(t)- x(s)||{\rm d} s\;{\rm d} t$ yields the result.
\end{proof}

We now turn to the main proof of this section.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{BanachLemma}]\label{Integral Lemma Martelli}
We know that $y$ is periodic with period $T$. Hence its integral over one period is shift invariant and thus $$\int_0^T \int_0^T \left\Vert y(t+s)-y(s)\right\Vert {\rm d} s{\rm d} t=\int_0^T \int_0^T \left\Vert  y(t)-y(s)\right\Vert {\rm d} s{\rm d} t.$$
Using the above observation, we can derive the following integral expression

\begin{eqnarray}\label{inequality martelli}
\int_0^T \hspace{-0.2cm} \int_0^T  \hspace{-0.1cm}\left\Vert y(t)-y(s)\right\Vert {\rm d} s\;{\rm d} t \hspace{-0.2cm} \nonumber
&=&\hspace{-0.3cm}\int_0^T \hspace{-0.2cm} \int_0^T  \hspace{-0.05cm}\left\Vert y(t+s)-y(s)\right\Vert {\rm d} s\; {\rm d} t\nonumber\\
&=&\hspace{-0.3cm}\int_0^T \hspace{-0.2cm}\int_0^T \hspace{-0.05cm}\frac{(T-t)t}{T} \left\Vert\frac{y(t+s)-y(s)}{t}-\frac{y(s)-y(s+t-T)}{T-t}\right\Vert {\rm d} s\; {\rm d} t\nonumber\\
&=&\hspace{-0.3cm}\int_0^T \hspace{-0.2cm}\int_0^T \frac{(T-t)t}{T^2}\left\Vert \int_0^{T} \dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right)- \dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right){\rm d} r\right\Vert {\rm d} s\; {\rm d} t\nonumber\\
&\leq &\hspace{-0.3cm}\int_0^T \hspace{-0.2cm} \int_0^T \frac{(T-t)t}{T^2}\int_0^T \left\Vert \dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right)-\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right)\right\Vert {\rm d} r\;{\rm d} s\; {\rm d} t\\
&= &\hspace{-0.3cm}\int_0^T \hspace{-0.05cm} \frac{(T-t)t}{T^2}\int_0^T \hspace{-0.2cm}\int_0^T \left\Vert \dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right)-\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right)\right\Vert {\rm d} s\; {\rm d} r\; {\rm d} t\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The last inner integral has been taken over one period, so we may shift it by $tr/T$ in order to obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^T\int_0^T \left\Vert y(r)-y(s)\right\Vert {\rm d} r\;{\rm d} s &\leq & \int_0^T \frac{(T-t)t}{T^2}dt \int_0^T \int_0^T \left \Vert \dot{y}(s+r)-\dot{y}(s)\right \Vert {\rm d} s\; {\rm d} r\\
&=& \frac{T}{6} \int_0^T \int_0^T \left \Vert \dot{y}(r)-\dot{y}(s)\right \Vert {\rm d} s\; {\rm d} r
\end{eqnarray*}
giving us the desired inequality for arbitrary Banach spaces.\\

From now on we consider the case when $X$ is in fact a strictly convex Banach space. The only actual inequality in the above argument occurs in line (\ref{inequality martelli})
where we use the triangle inequality for the Banach space $X$. Note that in doing so, we have a weight
$$\frac{(T-t)t}{T^2}$$
in front of the inner integral which vanishes at $t = 0,T$. In particular, if we show that this inequality actually has to be strict for some $s$ and some $0 < t < T$, our statement follows. Additionally, because of the weight, these conditions are tight as the triangle inequality could fail to be strict at $t = 0,T$ without causing the chain of inequalities to become strict. Note that from the continuity of $\dot{y}(t)$ we obtain that the functions
$$ (s,t) \rightarrow \left\|\int_{0}^{T}\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) -\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right){\rm d} r\right\|$$
$$ (s,t) \rightarrow \int_{0}^{T}\left\|\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) -\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right)\right\| {\rm d} r$$
are continuous as well. Fix $s$ and $0 < t < T$, fix an arbitrarily fine decomposition $0 = a_0 < a_1 < \dots < a_n = T$ and abbreviate
$$ b_i := \int_{a_i}^{a_{i+1}}\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad c_i := \int_{a_i}^{a_{i+1}}\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right).$$

If there is in fact equality in (1), then we need to have equality in every step of iteratively applying the triangle inequality and thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\|\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{b_i-c_i}\right\| &=& \left\|b_0 - c_0\right\| + \left\|\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}{b_i-c_i}\right\| \\
&=& \left\|b_0 - c_0\right\| + \left\|b_1 - c_1\right\| + \left\|\sum_{i=2}^{n-1}{b_i-c_i}\right\| \\
&=& \dots \\
&=& \sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{\left\|b_i-c_i\right\|}.
\end{eqnarray*}
W.l.o.g. we assume that all the terms satisfy $b_{i}-c_{i} \neq \textbf{0}$. Strict convexity implies in the last line of this argument that
$b_{n-2} - c_{n-2}$ and $b_{n-1} - c_{n-1}$ are collinear. By the same reasoning $b_{n-3} - c_{n-3}$ and $(b_{n-2} - c_{n-2}) + (b_{n-1} - c_{n-1})$
are collinear, however, the last expression itself is collinear to $b_{n-2}-c_{n-2}$ as well as $b_{n-1}- c_{n-1}$. Iterating this argument shows
that all $b_{i}-c_{i}$ are necessarily collinear. Using the continuity of $\dot{y}(t)$, making the partition sufficiently small and applying the
fundamental theorem of calculus, we can deduce that for every fixed $s$ and $0 < t < T$ there exists a vector $\textbf{v} \in X$ and a function
$g:[0,T] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that for all $0 \leq r \leq T$
\begin{equation}\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) - \dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right) = g(r)\textbf{v}. \label{fund}\end{equation}
 Note, however, that both $g$ and $\textbf{v}$ depend on the previously fixed $s,t$. Since $y$ is not constant, it is possible to find and fix an $s$ such that
$$ \dot y(s) \neq \textbf{0}.$$
We now claim that this already implies that for all $0\leq r\leq T$
$$\dot{y}(s+r)  = \tilde{g}(r)\textbf{v} + \dot{y}(s).$$
Suppose this was false, then there is an $r$ such that
$$ \dot{y}(s+r) \notin \left\{\dot y(s) + \lambda \textbf{v}| \lambda \in \mathbb{R}\right\}.$$
In particular,
$$ \min_{\lambda \in \mathbb{R}}{\|\dot{y}(s+r) - \dot y(s) + \lambda \textbf{v}\|} > 0.$$
This, however, can be seen to contradict (\ref{fund}) by taking $t$ sufficiently small.\\

\noindent Since $y$ is periodic with period $T$,
$$ \int_{0}^{T}{\dot{y}(s+r){\rm d} r} = \textbf{0} = \left(\int_{0}^{T}{\tilde{g}(r){\rm d} r}\right)\textbf{v} + T\dot{y}(s).$$
This implies that $\dot{y}(s)$ is a scalar multiple of $\textbf{v}$, in which case
$$ \dot{y}(s+r) = \left(\tilde{g}(r) - \frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}{\tilde{g}(r){\rm d} r}\right)\textbf{v}.$$
This establishes that $\dot y(t)$ is one-dimensional, that is
$$ \dot y(t) = h(t) \textbf{v}$$
for some $\textbf{v} \neq \textbf{0}$ and a continuous, $T-$periodic function $h:[0,T] \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.\\

Going back to an earlier stage of the argument, we had that for any fixed $s$ and $0<t<T$ the application of
the triangle inequality needs to be strict, that is
$$ \left\|\int_{0}^{T}\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) -\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right){\rm d} r\right\| = \int_{0}^{T}\left\|\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) -\dot{y}\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right)\right\| {\rm d} r.$$
Plugging in the relation $ \dot y(t) = h(t) \textbf{v}$,
we require that for any fixed $s,t$ with $0 < t < T$
$$ \left| \int_{0}^{T}{h\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) - h\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right){\rm d} r} \right| = \int_{0}^{T}{\left| h\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) - h\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right)\right| {\rm d} r}.$$
However, since $h$ is continuous and
$$ \int_{0}^{T}{h(z){\rm d} z} = 0,$$
$h$ has to vanish in a point, say $h(s) = 0$. For $t$ very small, we have
$$ \lim_{t \rightarrow 0}\left| \int_{0}^{T}{h\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) - h\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right){\rm d} r} \right| = \left| \int_{0}^{T}{ h(s-r){\rm d} r} \right| = 0$$
while
$$ \lim_{t \rightarrow 0}\int_{0}^{T}{\left| h\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}\right) - h\left(s+\frac{tr}{T}-r\right)\right| {\rm d} r} = \int_{0}^{T}{\left| h(s-r)\right| {\rm d} r},$$
proving that $h \equiv 0.$
\end{proof}

\section{A generalised form of Wirtinger's inequality}
The second part of this paper is devoted to establishing explicit bounds for a certain class of $\ell^p$-spaces. The idea of our approach goes back to the proof
that $TL\geq 2\pi$ in any Hilbert space which is based on an analogue of Wirtinger's inequality for Hilbert spaces. In the following we adapt
 this idea by using the work of Croce \& Dacorogna \cite{crocedac} who found the optimal constant in a generalised
set of Wirtinger inequalities, including the case of interest to us here. They showed that for
$$
u\in \left\{W^{1,p}_{\rm per}(0,1) \mbox{ with }\int_0^1 u(t)\,{\rm d} t=0  \mbox{ and } u(0)=u(1)\right\},
$$
where $W^{1,p}_{\rm per}$ is the space of $L^p$-functions $u$ whose weak first derivative lies in $L^p$, one has
$$
\left(\int_0^1|u(t)|^p\right)^{1/p}\leq C_p\left(\int_0^1|\dot{u}(t)|^p\,{\rm d} t\right)^{1/p},
$$
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Cpis}
C_p=\frac{p}{4(p-1)^{1/p}\int_0^1 t^{-\frac{1}{p}}(1-t)^{\frac{1}{p}-1}\,{\rm d} t}
\end{eqnarray}
is sharp. (Note that the integral appearing in the denominator is in fact the beta function $B(1/p',1/p)$ where $p'$ is the H\"older conjugate of $p$. Croce and Dacorogna consider functions defined on $(-1,1)$ but the form of the inequality here is more suitable for us in what follows.)

\begin{cor}
\label{WirtingersInequality}
Let $u\in W^{1,p}_{\rm per}([0,T], X)$ where $X$ is either $\ell^p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ or $L^p(M,\mu)$ and assume that $\int_0^T u(t)\,{\rm d} t=0$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{inLp}
\int_0^T\|u(t)\|^p_{X}\,{\rm d} t\leq C_p^p T^p\int_0^T\|\dot{u}(t)\|^p_{X}\,{\rm d} t,
\end{equation}
where $C_p$ is given in (\ref{Cpis}) and is optimal.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
By a simple change of variables it suffices to prove the result for $T=1$. When $X=\ell^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
    \int_{0}^1\sum_{j=1}^n|u_j(t)|^p\,{\rm d} t&=&\sum_{j=1}^n \int_{0}^1|u_j(t)|^p\,{\rm d} t\le C_p^p\sum_{j=1}^n\int_{0}^1|\dot u_j(t)|^p\,{\rm d} t,
\end{eqnarray*}
from which (\ref{inLp}) is immediate. One can see that the constant is optimal by considering $u=(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ with $u_1\in W^{1,p}_{per}(0,1)$ and $u_j=0$ for $j=2,\ldots,n$.

Similarly, for $X=L^p(M,\mu)$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{0}^1\int_U|u(x,t)|^p\,{\rm d}\mu\,{\rm d} t&=&\int_U\int_{0}^1|u(x,t)|^p\,{\rm d} t\,{\rm d}\mu\\
&\le& C_p^p\int_U\int_{0}^1|\dot u(x,t)|^p\,{\rm d} t\,{\rm d}\mu=C_p^p\int_{0}^1\int_U|\dot u(x,t)|^p\,{\rm d}\mu\,{\rm d} t,
\end{eqnarray*}
and (\ref{inLp}) follows once more. Optimality of the constant follows by taking $f(t,x)=f(t){\bf 1}_A$ for some $f\in W^{1,p}_{per}(0,1)$ and $A\subset U$ with $\mu(A)>0$.
\end{proof}

\section{Improved lower bounds in $\ell^p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $L^p(M,\mu)$}
\label{Better Bounds for lp}

Having established Wirtinger's inequality for $W^{1,p}_{\rm per}([0,T],X)$ where $X$ is either $\ell^p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ or $L^p(M,\mu)$, we can now prove
 the second contribution of this paper. The simple proof is essentially that for $p=2$ due to \cite{busfishmar} which is a particular case of this result if one notes that $C_2^{-1}=2\pi$.

\begin{thm}\label{Minimal bound for L^p using Poincare}
Let $x$ be a non-constant $T$-periodic solution to $\dot{ x}=f( x)$ in either $X=\ell^p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ or $X=L^p(M,\mu)$. Further, suppose that $f$ is Lipschitz continuous from $X$ into $X$ with Lipschitz constant $L$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{TLC}
TL\ge C_p^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
As the function $x$ is a solution to the ODE, it is differentiable by definition. Moreover, a simple calculation shows that
$$
\int_0^Tx(t+h)-x(t)\,{\rm d} t=0.
$$
Hence Wirtinger's inequality for $W^{1,p}_{per}((0,T),X)$ is applicable to $x(t+h)-x(t)$ and thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_0^T\| x(t+h)- x(t)\|^p_X\,{\rm d} t&\le& C_p^pT^p \int_0^T \|\dot{ x}(t+h)-\dot{ x}(t)\|^p_X\,{\rm d} t\\
&=& C_p^p T^p\int_0^T \|f( x(t+h))-f( x(t))\|^p_X\,{\rm d} t\\
&\le& L^pC_p^pT^p \int_0^T \| x(t+h)- x(t)\|^p_X\,{\rm d} t.
\end{eqnarray*}
Dividing both sides by $\int_0^T \| x(t+h)- x(t)\|^p_X\,{\rm d} t$, which is non-zero as $x$ is non-constant, yields (\ref{TLC}).
\end{proof}

 Theorem \ref{Minimal bound for L^p using Poincare} gives an improved lower bound on the product of Lipschitz constant $L$ and period $T$ for the spaces $\ell^p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $L^p(M,\mu)$ for a range of $p$ around $p=2$. Figure \ref{fig:BestConstant from generalised Wirtinger} plots $C_p^{-1}$ against $p$ for $1\leq p\leq 4$, and shows that $C_p^{-1}>6$ for $1.43 \leq p\leq 3.35$.\\

\begin{figure}[h!]
  \begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{bestconstant2.png}
\caption{Improved lower bound near $p=2$ using Wirtinger's inequality}
\label{fig:BestConstant from generalised Wirtinger}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Remark 1.} For $1\leq p<\infty$ one can construct an example of an ODE in $L^{p}(M,\mu)$ satisfying Lipschitz conditions on its derivative with period $2\pi$.
Suppose there are two sets $A\cap B= \emptyset$ such that
\[
0 < \mu(A) =\mu(B).
\]
and consider the ODE
$$\dot{z}=f(z)$$
with $f:L^{p}(M,\mu) \rightarrow L^{p}(M,\mu)$ given by
\[
f(z)= -\frac{\chi_{B}}{\mu(A)}\int_{A}{z d\mu} + \frac{\chi_{A}}{\mu(B)}\int_{B}{z d\mu}.
\]
Then H\"older's inequality gives that for $L=1$ the quantity
$$ I = \|f(z)-f(w)\|^p_{L^{p}(M,\mu)}$$
satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
\hspace{-1cm} I   \hspace{-0.2cm}&=&\hspace{-0.2cm} \left\| - \chi_B \frac{1}{\mu(A)}\int_{A}{z-w d\mu} + \chi_{A}\frac{1}{\mu(A)}\int_{B}{z-w d\mu} \right\|_{L^p}^p \\
\hspace{-0.2cm}&=&\hspace{-0.2cm} \left(\frac{1}{\mu(A)}\int_{A}{z-w d\mu}\right)^p \mu(B) + \left(\frac{1}{\mu(B)}\int_{B}{z-w d\mu}\right)^p \mu(A) \\
\hspace{-0.2cm}&\leq&\hspace{-0.2cm} \frac{1}{\mu(A)^p} \left(\int_{A}{|z-w|^p d\mu}\right) \mu(A)^{p-1}\mu(B) + \frac{1}{\mu(B)^p}\left(\int_{B}{|z-w|^p d\mu}\right) \mu(B)^{p-1}\mu(A) \\
\hspace{-0.2cm}&\leq&\hspace{-0.2cm} \|z-w\|_{L^p}^{p}
\end{eqnarray*}
and one explicit $2\pi-$periodic solution is given by
$$ z(t) = -(\cos{t})\chi_A + (\sin{t})\chi_B.$$
Notice that this example can be generalised further to the case when $0 < \mu(A) \neq \mu(B)$.\\

\textbf{Remark 2.} Let $X$ be a Banach space which obeys `almost' a Hilbert space structure in the sense of the norm, that is there exists a $\varepsilon>0$ such that
$$(1-\varepsilon) \| x \|_H \leq \| x \|_X \leq (1+\varepsilon) \| x \|_H.$$
Let $x:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow X$ be a $T$-periodic solution to the ODE $\dot{x}=f(x)$ with $f$ being Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant $L$. Since \begin{eqnarray*}
\|f(x) - f(y)\|_H \leq \frac{1}{1-\varepsilon} \| f(x) - f(y) \|_X \leq \frac{1}{1 - \varepsilon} L \| x - y\|_X \leq \frac{1+\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon} L \|x - y\|_H,
\end{eqnarray*}
it follows that $f$ is also Lipschitz continuous with respect to the Euclidean norm with Lipschitz constant $L'=\frac{1+\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}L$. At the same time,
the length of the curve $x$ as measured in the Hilbert space is smaller than $(1+\varepsilon)T$ and using the fact that $c=2\pi$ in any Hilbert space we may conclude
that $$TL\geq 2\pi\frac{1-\varepsilon}{(1+\varepsilon)^2}.$$
However, this approximation lags behind the numerical results for $\ell^p$ obtained at the beginning of this section, especially for high dimensions.\\

\textbf{Remark 3.} Dvoretzky's theorem in \cite{dvor} guarantees that for any $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ sufficiently large such that any Banach space
with $\dim X \geq n$ contains a two-dimensional subspace with Banach-Mazur distance to $\ell_2^2$ at most $1+\varepsilon$. The example of a simple circle in $\ell^2_2$ realizes
$TL = 2\pi$. This means that in any Banach space $X$ it is possible to construct an ODE satisfying $TL \leq 2\pi + \varepsilon$, where $\varepsilon$ depends only on
the dimension of $X$. We do not know whether there is always an ODE for which $TL \leq 2\pi$.

\section{Conclusion}
As discussed in the introduction, the key question is what intrinsic property of a space $X$ determines the largest (and hence best) constant $C_X$ such that $LT\ge C_X$. One of
 these intrinsic properties is strict convexity for which we have shown that the constant must be strictly larger than $6$. A natural question that arises is whether there exists
 a Banach space in which the optimal constant is neither $6$ nor $2\pi$.\\

However, explicit bounds are difficult to obtain. Even in the simple case $X=\ell^p({\mathbb R}^n)$ this is not known, although our simple argument gives an explicit lower bound for
$p$ around $p=2$. It is interesting that a simple calculation shows that $C_p=C_{p'}$ when $p$ and $p'$ are conjugates; but it is not known whether the optimal constants
 in $\ell^p$ and $\ell^{p'}$ do in fact coincide (this interesting question was suggested to one of us in a personal communication from Mario Martelli).\\

While the use of an $L^p$-based Wirtinger inequality suits the $\ell^p$-spaces, there is no reason why these exponents should match. Given a Banach space $X$ it would be interesting to determine the optimal constants in the family of inequalities
$$
\left(\int_0^1 \| u(t)\|^p_X\,{\rm d} t\right)^{1/p}\leq C_p(X)\left(\int_0^T \|\dot{ u}(t)\|^p_X\,{\rm d} t\right)^{1/p},
$$
noting that as a consequence of such a family of inequalities and the argument of Theorem \ref{Minimal bound for L^p using Poincare} one would obtain
$$
TL\ge\sup_p C_p(X)^{-1}.
$$

\section*{Acknowledgement}
JCR is supported by an EPSRC Leadership Fellowship, grant number EP/G007470/1. MACN gratefully acknowledges funding from the European Research Council under the European
Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement n$^{\circ}$ 291053. SS is supported by a Hausdorff scholarship of the Bonn International
Graduate School.


Demystifying a divisibility property of the Kostant partition function

Abstract: We study a family of identities regarding a divisibility property of the Kostant partition function which first appeared in a paper of Baldoni and Vergne. To prove the identities, Baldoni and Vergne used techniques of residues and called the resulting divisibility property "mysterious." We prove these identities entirely combinatorially and provide a natural explanation of why the divisibility occurs. We also point out several ways to generalize the identities.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:in}

The objective of this paper is to provide a natural combinatorial explanation of a  divisibility property of the Kostant partition function. The question of evaluating Kostant partition functions has been subject of much interest, without a satisfactory combinatorial answer. To mention perhaps the most famous such case: it is known that $$K_{A_n^+}(1, 2, \ldots, n, -{n+1 \choose 2})=\prod_{k=1}^{n}C_k,$$ where  $C_k=\frac{1}{k+1}{2k \choose k}$ is the Catalan number, yet there is no combinatorial proof of the above identity!

Given such lack of understanding of the evaluation of the Kostant partition function, it seems a worthy proposition to  provide a simple explanation for its certain divisibility properties.
We  explore divisibility properties of Kostant partition functions of types $A_n$ and $C_{n+1}$,  noting that such properties in  types $B_{n+1}$ and $D_{n+1}$ are easy consequences of the type $C_{n+1}$ case. The type $A_n$ family of identities we study  first appeared in a paper by Baldoni and Vergne \cite{BV}, where the authors prove the identities using residues, and where they call the divisibility property ``mysterious."  It is our hope that the combinatorial argument we provide   successfully demystifies the divisibility property of the Kostant partition function and provides a natural explanation why things happen the way they do.

The outline of the paper is as follows.
In Section \ref{sec:bv} we define Kostant partition functions of type $A_n$ and prove the Baldoni-Vergne identities combinatorially. Our proof also yields an affirmative answer to a  question of Stanley \cite{S} regarding a possible bijective proof of a  special case of the Baldoni-Vergne identities.
In Section \ref{sec:c} we define Kostant partition functions of type $C_{n+1}$, relate them to flows, and show  how to modify our proof for the Baldoni-Vergne identities to obtain their analogues for type $C_{n+1}$. We also point out other possible variations of these identities in the type $C_{n+1}$ case.

\section{The Baldoni-Vergne identities}
\label{sec:bv}

Before stating  the Baldoni-Vergne identities, we need a few definitions. Throughout this section  the graphs $G$ we consider are on the vertex set $[n+1]$ with possible multiple edges, but no loops. Denote by $m_{ij}$ the multiplicity of edge $(i, j)$, $i<j$, in $G$. To each edge $(i, j)$, $i<j$,  of $G$,  associate the positive type $A_n$ root $e_i-e_j$, where $e_i$ is the $i^{th}$ standard basis vector. Let $\{\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_N\}\}$ be the multiset of vectors corresponding to the multiset of edges of $G$ as described above. Note that $N=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n+1} m_{ij}$.

 The {\bf Kostant partition function}  $K_G$ evaluated at the vector ${\bf a} \in \mathbb{Z}^{n+1}$ is defined as

\begin{equation} \label{kost} K_G({\bf a})= \# \{ (b_{i})_{i \in [N]} \mid \sum_{i \in [N]} b_{i}  \alpha_i ={\bf a} \textrm{ and } b_{i} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\}.\end{equation}

That is, $K_G({\bf a})$ is the number of ways to write the vector ${\bf a}$ as a nonnegative linear combination of the positive type $A_n$ roots corresponding to the edges of $G$, without regard to order.  Note that in order for $K_G({\bf a})$ to be nonzero, the partial sums of the coordinates of ${\bf a}$ have to satisfy $v_1+\ldots+v_i \geq 0$, $i\in [n]$, and $v_1+\ldots+v_{n+1}=0$.

We now proceed to state and prove Theorem \ref{thm:bv} which first appeared in  \cite{BV}.   Baldoni and Vergne  gave a proof of it using residues, and called the result ``mysterious."  We provide a natural combinatorial explanation of the result. Our explanation also answers a question of Stanley in affirmative, which he posed in \cite{S}, regarding a possible bijective proof of a  special case of the Baldoni-Vergne identities.

For brevity, we write $G-e$, or $G-\{e_1, \ldots, e_k\}$, to mean a graph obtained from  $G$ with edge $e$, or edges $e_1, \ldots, e_k$, deleted.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:bv} (\cite{BV})
Given a connected graph $G$ on the vertex set $[n+1]$ with $m_{n-1, n}=m_{n-1, n+1}=m_{n, n+1}=1$ and such that $$\frac{m_{j, n-1}+m_{j, n}+m_{j, n+1}}{m_{j, n-1}}=c,$$

\noindent for some constant $c$ independent of $j$ for $j \in [n-2]$, we have that for any ${\bf a}=(a_1, \ldots, a_n, -\sum_{i=1}^n a_i) \in \mathbb{Z}^{n+1}$

\begin{equation} \label{c} K_G({\bf a})=(\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1)   K_{G- (n-1, n)}({\bf a}).\end{equation
\end{theorem}

\bigskip

Before proceeding to the formal proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bv} we outline it, to fully expose the underlying combinatorics. Rephrasing equation \eqref{kost}, $K_G({\bf a})$  counts the number of {\bf flows} ${\bf f}_G=(b_i)_{i\in N}$ on graph $G$ satisfying $$\sum_{i \in [N]} b_{i}   \alpha_i ={\bf a} \textrm{ and } b_{i} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}.$$ In the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bv} we introduce the concept of {\bf partial flows} ${\bf f}_H$   and the following are the key statements we prove:
\begin{itemize}
\item The elements of the set of  partial flows are in bijection with the flows on $G-(n-1, n)$ that the Kostant partition function $K_{G-(n-1, n)}({\bf a})$ counts. That is, $$\#\text{ partial flows}=K_{G-(n-1, n)}({\bf a}).$$

\item The elements of the  multiset of partial flows  ${\bf f}_H$, where the cardinality of the multiset is  $\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1$ times the cardinality of the set of partial flows, are  in bijection with the flows on $G$ that the Kostant partition function $K_{G}({\bf a})$ counts. That is, $$(\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1)  \#\text{ partial flows}=K_{G}({\bf a}).$$

\end{itemize}

The above two statements imply a bijection between the elements of the multiset of  flows on $G-(n-1, n)$ that the Kostant partition function $K_{G-(n-1, n)}({\bf a})$ counts,  where the cardinality of the multiset is  $\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1$ times the cardinality of the set of  flows counted by  $K_{G-(n-1, n)}({\bf a})$, and  the flows on $G$ that the Kostant partition function $K_{G}({\bf a})$  counts, yielding

$$K_G({\bf a})=(\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1)   K_{G- (n-1, n)}({\bf a}).$$
\bigskip

We now proceed to the formal proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bv}.

\bigskip

\noindent \textit{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bv}}.
Let $\{\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_N\}\}$ be the multiset of vectors corresponding to the edges of $G$. Let $\alpha_N=e_{n-1}-e_n, \alpha_{N-1}=e_{n-1}-e_{n+1},$ and $\alpha_{N-2}=e_{n}-e_{n+1}.$ Then equation \eqref{c} can be rewritten as

\begin{align} \label{c1} & \# \{ (b_i)_{i \in [N]} \mid \sum_{i=1}^N b_i   \alpha_i ={\bf a}\} = \nonumber \\
&(\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1)     \# \{ (b_i)_{i \in [N-1]} \mid \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} b_i   \alpha_i ={\bf a}\}.
\end{align}

Consider a flow ${\bf f}_H=(b_i)_{i \in [N-3]}$, $b_i \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$,  of the edges of the graph $H:=G-\{(n-1, n), (n-1, n+1), (n, n+1)\}$. We call ${\bf f}_H$ {\bf partial} if  $$\sum_{i=1}^{N-3} b_i   \alpha_i =(a_1, \ldots, a_{n-2}, x_1, x_2, x_3),$$ \noindent for some $x_1, x_2, x_3 \in \mathbb{Z}$.

Notice that given a partial flow ${\bf f}_H=(b_i)_{i \in [N-3]}$, it can be extended uniquely to a flow ${\bf f}_{G-\{(n-1, n)\}}=(b_i)_{i \in [N-1]}$,  $b_i \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$, on $G-\{(n-1, n)\}$ such that
$\sum_{i=1}^{N-1} b_i   \alpha_i ={\bf a}$. Furthermore, this correspondence is a bijection. Therefore,

\begin{equation} \label{H} \# \{ (b_i)_{i \in [N-1]} \mid \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} b_i   \alpha_i ={\bf a}\}=\sum_{{\bf f}_H} 1,\end{equation}

\noindent where the summation runs over all partial flows ${\bf f}_H$.

Also,  given a partial flow ${\bf f}_H$ with  $Y_{i}({\bf f}_H)$, $i \in \{n-1, n, n+1\}$, denoting the total {\bf inflow} into vertex $i \in \{n-1, n, n+1\}$ in $H$, that is the sum of all the flows $b_i$ on edges of $H$ incident to $i  \in \{n-1, n, n+1\}$,  the partial flow ${\bf f}_H$ can be extended in $Y_{n-1}({\bf f}_H)+a_{n-1}+1$ ways to a flow ${\bf f}_{G}=(b_i)_{i \in [N]}$,  $b_i \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$, of $G$ such that
$\sum_{i=1}^{N} b_i   \alpha_i ={\bf a}$. Furthermore, given a flow ${\bf f}_G=(b_i)_{i \in [N]}$,  $b_i \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ such that  $\sum_{i=1}^{N} b_i   \alpha_i ={\bf a}$, there is a unique partial flow ${\bf f}_H=(b_i)_{i \in [N-3]}$ from which it can be obtained.  Therefore,

\begin{equation} \label{G}  \# \{ (b_i)_{i \in [N]} \mid \sum_{i=1}^N b_i   \alpha_i ={\bf a} \} =\sum_{{\bf f}_H} (Y_{n-1}({\bf f}_H)+a_{n-1}+1),\end{equation}

\noindent where the summation runs over all partial flows ${\bf f}_H$.

Note that since $$\frac{m_{j, n-1}+m_{j, r}+m_{j, n+1}}{m_{j, n-1}}=c,$$

\noindent for some constant $c$ independent of $j$ for $j \in [n-2]$, it follows that

$$c   \sum_{{\bf f}_H} Y_{n-1}({\bf f}_H)=\sum_{{\bf f}_H} (Y_{n-1}({\bf f}_H)+Y_{n}({\bf f}_H)+Y_{ n+1}({\bf f}_H))=\sum_{{\bf f}_H} (a_1+\cdots+a_{n-2}),$$

that is

\begin{equation}\label{eq:y} \sum_{{\bf f}_H} Y_{n-1}({\bf f}_H)=\sum_{{\bf f}_H} \frac{(a_1+\cdots+a_{n-2})}{c}.\end{equation}

Thus, equation \eqref{G} can be rewritten as

\begin{align} \label{G1} &  \# \{ (b_i)_{i \in [N]} \mid \sum_{i=1}^N b_i   \alpha_i ={\bf a} \} =\sum_{{\bf f}_H} (\frac{(a_1+\cdots+a_{n-2})}{c}+a_{n-1}+1) \\ &=(\frac{(a_1+\cdots+a_{n-2})}{c}+a_{n-1}+1)    \sum_{{\bf f}_H}  1\\ &=(\frac{(a_1+\cdots+a_{n-2})}{c}+a_{n-1}+1)   \# \{ (b_i)_{i \in [N-1]} \mid \sum_{i=1}^{N-1} b_i   \alpha_i ={\bf a}\}, \end{align}

\noindent where the first equality uses equations \eqref{G} and \eqref{eq:y}, and the third equality uses equation \eqref{H}.
\qed

 \section{Type $C_{n+1}$ Kostant partition functions and the Baldoni-Vergne identities}
\label{sec:c}

We now show two generalizations of Theorem \ref{thm:bv} in the type $C_{n+1}$ case. We first  give the necessary definitions and explain the notion of flow in the context of signed graphs.
Throughout this section  the graphs $G$ on the vertex set $[n+1]$ we consider are signed, that is there is a sign $\epsilon \in \{+, -\}$ assigned to each of its edges, with possible multiple edges, and all loops labeled positive. Denote by $(i, j, -)$ and $(i, j, +)$, $i \leq j$, a negative and a positive edge, respectively. Denote by $m_{ij}^\epsilon$ the multiplicity of edge $(i, j, \epsilon)$ in $G$, $i\leq j$, $\epsilon \in \{+, -\}$.
To each edge $(i, j, \epsilon)$, $i\leq j$,  of $G$,  associate the positive type $C_{n+1}$ root ${\rm v}(i,j, \epsilon)$, where ${\rm v}(i,j, -)=e_i-e_j$ and ${\rm v}(i,j, +)=e_i+e_j$. Let $\{\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_N\}\}$ be the multiset of vectors corresponding to the multiset of edges of $G$ as described above. Note that $N=\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n+1} (m_{ij}^-+m_{ij}^+)$.

 The {\bf Kostant partition function}  $K_G$ evaluated at the vector ${\bf a} \in \mathbb{Z}^{n+1}$ is defined as

$$K_G({\bf a})= \# \{ (b_{i})_{i \in [N]} \mid \sum_{i \in [N]} b_{i}   \alpha_i ={\bf a} \textrm{ and } b_{i} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\}.$$

That is, $K_G({\bf a})$ is the number of ways to write the vector ${\bf a}$ as a nonnegative linear combination of the positive type $C_{n+1}$ roots corresponding to the edges of $G$, without regard to order.

Just like in the type $A_n$ case, we would like to think of the vector $(b_{i})_{i \in [N]} $ as a {\bf flow}. For this we here give a precise definition of flows in the type $C_{n+1}$ case, of which type $A_{n}$ is of course a special case.

Let $G$ be a signed graph on the vertex set $[n+1]$. Let $\{\{e_1, \ldots, e_N\}\}$ be the multiset of edges of $G$, and $\{\{\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_N\}\}$  the multiset of vectors corresponding to the multiset of edges of $G$. Fix an integer  vector ${\bf a}=(a_1, \ldots, a_n, a_{n+1}) \in \mathbb{Z}^{n+1}$.  A {\bf nonnegative integer} \textbf{${\bf a}$-flow} ${\bf f}_G$ on $G$ is a vector ${\bf f}_G=(b_i)_{i \in [N]}$, $b_i \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$  such that for all $1\leq i \leq n+1$, we have

 \begin{equation} \label{eqn:flow}
 \sum_{e \in E, \textrm{inc}(e, v )=-} b(e)+a_v= \sum_{e \in E, \textrm{inc}(e, v)=+} b(e)+\sum_{e=(v, v, + )} b(e),
  \end{equation}

\noindent   where $b(e_i)=b_i$, $\textrm{inc}(e, v)=-$ if edge $e=(g, v, -)$, $g <v$, and $\textrm{inc}(e, v)=+$ if $e=(g, v, +)$, $g <v$, or $e=( v, j, \epsilon)$, $v <j,$ and $\epsilon \in \{+, -\}$.

  Call $b(e)$  the \textbf{flow} assigned to edge $e$ of $G$. If the edge $e$ is negative, one can think of $b(e)$ units of fluid flowing on $e$ from its smaller to its bigger vertex. If the edge $e$ is positive, then one can think of $b(e)$ units of fluid flowing away both from $e$'s smaller and bigger vertex to infinity. Edge $e$ is then a ``leak" taking away $2b(e)$ units of fluid.

From the above explanation it is clear that if we are given an ${\bf a}$-flow ${\bf f}_G$ such that  $\sum_{e=(i, j, +), i \leq j}b(e)=y$, then ${\bf a}=(a_1, \ldots, a_n, 2y-\sum_{i=1}^n a_i)$.   It is then a matter of checking the defintions to see that for a signed graph $G$ on the vertex set $[n+1]$ and vector  ${\bf a}=(a_1, \ldots, a_n, 2y-\sum_{i=1}^n a_i) \in \mathbb{Z}^{n+1}$,  the number of nonnegative integer ${\bf a}$-flows on $G$ is equal to $K_G( {\bf a})$.

Thinking of $K_G({\bf a})$ as the number of nonnegative integer ${\bf a}$-flows on $G$, there is a straightforward generalization of Theorem \ref{thm:bv} in the type $C_{n+1}$ case:

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:bv2}
Given a connected signed graph $G$ on the vertex set $[n+1]$ with $m_{n-1, n}^-=m_{n-1, n+1}^-=m_{n, n+1}^-=1$, $m_{j, n-1}^+=m_{j, n}^+=m_{j, n+1}^+=0$, for $j \in [n+1]$,  and such that $$\frac{m_{j, n-1}^-+m_{j, n}^-+m_{j, n+1}^-}{m_{j, n-1}^-}=c,$$

\noindent for some constant $c$ independent of $j$ for $j \in [n-2]$, we have that for any ${\bf a}=(a_1, \ldots, a_n, 2y-\sum_{i=1}^n a_i) \in \mathbb{Z}^{n+1}$,

\begin{equation} \label{cC} K_G({\bf a})=(\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}-2y}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1)   K_{G- (n-1, n)}({\bf a}).\end{equation
\end{theorem}

\bigskip

The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bv2} proceeds analogously to that of Theorem \ref{thm:bv}. Namely,  define \textbf{partial flows} ${\bf f}_H=(b_i)_{i\in [N-3]}$ on $H:=G-\{(n-1, n, -), (n-1, n+1, -), (n, n+1, -)\}$ such that  $$\sum_{i=1}^{N-3} b_i   \alpha_i =(a_1, \ldots, a_{n-2}, x_1, x_2, x_3),$$ \noindent for some $x_1, x_2, x_3 \in \mathbb{Z}$ and the sum of flows on positive edges is $y$.

Then, one can prove:
\begin{itemize}
\item The elements of the set partial flows are in bijection with the nonnegative integer ${\bf a}$-flows on $G-(n-1, n)$. That is, $$\#\text{ partial flows}=K_{G-(n-1, n)}({\bf a}).$$

\item The elements of the  multiset of partial flows  ${\bf f}_H$, where the cardinality of the multiset is  $\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}-2y}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1$ times the cardinality of the set of partial flows, are  in bijection with the nonnegative integer ${\bf a}$-flows on $G$ . That is, $$(\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}-2y}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1)  \#\text{ partial flows}=K_{G}({\bf a}).$$

\end{itemize}

The above two statements imply a bijection between the elements of the multiset of  nonnegative integer ${\bf a}$-flows on $G-(n-1, n)$, where the cardinality of the multiset is   $\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}-2y}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1$ times the cardinality of the set of nonnegative integer ${\bf a}$-flows on $G-(n-1, n)$, and  the nonnegative integer ${\bf a}$-flows on $G$, yielding

$$K_G({\bf a})=(\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}-2y}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1)   K_{G- (n-1, n)}({\bf a}).$$
\bigskip

Note that the requirement that only negative edges are incident to the vertices $n-1, n, n+1$ in $G$ stems from the fact that we need to make sure, in order for our counting  arguments from the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bv} to work, that we can always assign nonnegative flows to the edges $(n-1, n, -), (n-1, n+1, -), (n, n+1, -)$ and also, that in case we are extending a partial flow ${\bf f}_H$ to a flow on $G$, we can extend it in $Y_{n-1}({\bf f}_H)+a_{n-1}+1$ ways. These properties will be satisfied, if we insure that ``inflows" at the vertices
$n-1$ and $n$ are at least $-a_{n-1}$ and $-a_n$, respectively. To simplify the formulation, we will assume that there are no loops at the vertices $n-1, n, n+1$, though the following theorem could also be adopted to a somewhat more general setting.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:bv3}
Given a connected signed graph $G$ on the vertex set $[n+1]$ with $m_{n-1, n}^-=m_{n-1, n+1}^-=m_{n, n+1}^-=1$, $m_{i,j}^+=0$, for $i, j \in \{n-1, n, n+1\}$,  and such that $$\frac{m_{j, n-1}^\epsilon+m_{j, r}^\epsilon+m_{j, n+1}^\epsilon}{m_{j, n-1}^\epsilon}=c,$$

\noindent for $\epsilon \in \{+, -\}$ and for some constant $c$ independent of $j$ for $j \in [n-2]$, we have that for any ${\bf a}=(a_1, \ldots, a_n, 2y-\sum_{i=1}^n a_i) \in \mathbb{Z}^{n+1}$,  $y \leq a_{n-1}+1, a_n+1$,

\begin{equation} \label{cC} K_G({\bf a})=(\frac{a_1+ \cdots+ a_{n-2}-2y}{c}+ a_{n-1}+1)   K_{G- (n-1, n)}({\bf a}).\end{equation
\end{theorem}

The proof technique of Theorem \ref{thm:bv3} is analogous to that of Theorem \ref{thm:bv}. We invite the reader to check each step of the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bv} and see how they can be adapted to prove Theorem \ref{thm:bv3}.

\section*{Acknowledgement} I  thank Richard Stanley for his intriguing slides and for pointing out the work of Baldoni and Vergne. I also thank   Alejandro Morales for numerous conversations about flows and the Kostant partition function.