arXiv is now an independent nonprofit! Learn more
License: arXiv.org perpetual non-exclusive license
arXiv:2608.27908v1 [math.PR] 28 Aug 2026

A Two-regime Khintchine Inequality and an Improved Bound on the Degree-1 Fourier Weight for Linear Threshold Functions

Xuan Fang Note: 26110180010@m.fudan.edu.cn    and    Tianyu Wang Note: wangtianyu@fudan.edu.cn
Abstract

The Khintchine inequality provides a lower bound on the expected absolute value of a weighted sum of independent Rademacher random variables. In the classical setting, when the weight vector has unit norm, this lower bound is a constant, with equality attained only for a simple family of extremal configurations. A refined version due to De, Diakonikolas, and Servedio (2013) – referred to as the linear Khintchine inequality – strengthens this by establishing a lower bound that depends linearly on the distance of the weight vector from the extremal set.

In this paper, we present a refined analysis of this dependence on the weight vector. Our results reveal a phase transition in the rate of improvement: when the dimension exceeds six, the lower bound undergoes an abrupt change as the weight vector deviates from the minimizer. Additionally, we improve the slope constant in linear Khintchine inequality. As a consequence, we establish an improved lower bound on the degree-1 Fourier weight for linear threshold functions 𝐖≤1​[LTF]≥0.53317\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[\mathrm{LTF}]\geq 0.53317, marking progress towards a conjecture of O’Donnell.

1 Introduction

Khintchine-type inequalities are fundamental tools for estimating random signed sums. Let ϵ1,…,ϵn\epsilon_{1},\ldots,\epsilon_{n} be independent Rademacher random variables and let ω=(ω1,…,ωn)∈ℝn\omega=(\omega_{1},\ldots,\omega_{n})\in\mathbb{R}^{n}. The quantity

Kn​(ω)=𝔼​|∑i=1nωi​ϵi|K_{n}(\omega)=\mathbb{E}\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_{i}\epsilon_{i}\right|

measures the average size of the linear form ω⋅x\omega\cdot x on the Hamming cube. The classical Khintchine inequality, going back to Khintchine [18], asserts the equivalence of the LpL_{p} and L2L_{2} norms of such sums; the sharp constants in this family were subsequently studied by Szarek, Haagerup, and others [25, 11, 19, 21]. For the endpoint of primary relevance to the present work, the sharp lower bound is

Kn​(ω)≥12​‖ω‖2.K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\|\omega\|_{2}.

After the normalization ‖ω‖2=1\|\omega\|_{2}=1, the best possible value is therefore 1/21/\sqrt{2}. The equality cases are highly rigid: equality is attained only when, up to signs and permutations, ω\omega has two nonzero coordinates, both equal to 1/21/\sqrt{2}. This rigidity naturally leads to a stability question: if ω\omega is separated from the extremal set, must Kn​(ω)K_{n}(\omega) be quantitatively deviates away from 1/21/\sqrt{2}?

A main motivation for this question comes from the Fourier analysis of Boolean functions. For a Boolean function f:{−1,1}n→{−1,1}f:\{-1,1\}^{n}\to\{-1,1\}, write

𝐖≤1​[f]=f^​(∅)2+∑i=1nf^​(i)2\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[f]=\widehat{f}(\emptyset)^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\widehat{f}(i)^{2}

for its Fourier weight on levels 00 and 11. If f⁡(x)=sgn⁡(ℓ⁡(x))f(x)=\operatorname{sgn}(\ell(x)) is a linear threshold function (LTF) with linear function ℓ\ell, then the degree-00 and degree-11 Fourier coefficients, also called Chow parameters, encode strong structural information about ff [23, 5]. O’Donnell’s book [24, Conjecture 5.3] put forward the Degree-11 Fourier Weight Conjecture, also referred to as the Benjamini–Kalai–Schramm conjecture in some contexts: every LTF ff should satisfy

𝐖≤1​[f]≥2π.\displaystyle\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[f]\geq\frac{2}{\pi}. (1)

Subsequent studies [1, 10] show asymptotic sharpness of (1). The standard proof of the weaker bound 𝐖≤1​[f]≥1/2\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[f]\geq 1/2 uses Khintchine’s inequality through the estimate

𝐖≤1​[f]≥𝔼​|ℓ⁡(x)|‖ℓ‖2\sqrt{\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[f]}\geq\frac{\mathbb{E}|\ell(x)|}{\|\ell\|_{2}}

(after the usual normalization, and with the constant term handled separately). In the works toward the Degree-11 Fourier Weight Conjecture, the linear Khintchine inequalities emerged as a crucial ingredient: they separate the near-extremal two-coordinate configurations from genuinely higher-dimensional coefficient vectors and thus provide the additional quantitative information that the classical inequality alone does not capture. This is a principal reason for studying the sharp stability profile of KnK_{n} in the present paper.

The first systematic study on the linear Khintchine inequality was developed by De, Diakonikolas, and Servedio [6]. They proved that if τ:=τ⁡(ω)\tau:=\tau(\omega) denotes the Euclidean distance from a normalized coefficient vector to the extremal set of the classical Khintchine inequality, then

Kn​(ω)≥12+c​τ​(ω)\displaystyle K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+c\tau(\omega) (2)

for a universal constant c>0c>0. Inequalities of this type is referred to as linear Khintchine inequality throughout the paper. This result yielded a strict improvement over the 1/21/2 lower bound for the degree-11 Fourier weight of LTFs and also led to algorithms for computing several optimal constants in Fourier analysis and high-dimensional geometry. Eskenazis, Nayar, and Tkocz subsequently extracted explicit constants from a quantitative stability proof [8].

More recently, Rademacher sums and Khintchine-type inequalities have been studied from several complementary viewpoints. Keller and Klein resolved Tomaszewski’s anti-concentration conjecture using local concentration inequalities and refined Berry–Esseen estimates [17]; Kalarickal, Rotunno, Singh, and Tkocz established convexity properties for Rademacher sums on the ordered chamber [16]; and a growing body of work has developed stability or deficit versions of sharp Khintchine-type inequalities for Rademacher and related distributions [7, 15, 14, 4]. These developments indicate that the geometry of near-extremizers is a useful and active perspective.

1.1 Our Results

A two-regime Khintchine inequality. Our first result is a two-regime Khintchine inequality. Following the standard convention (see, e.g.,[6]), we restrict attention to the proper chamber

ℭ:={ω:∥ω∥2=1,ω1≥ω2≥⋯≥ωn≥0},\mathfrak{C}:=\left\{\omega:\|\omega\|_{2}=1,\;\omega_{1}\geq\omega_{2}\geq\cdots\geq\omega_{n}\geq 0\right\},

which entails no loss of generality due to symmetry. Within this chamber, we show that for n≥6n\geq 6, the quantity Kn​(ω)K_{n}(\omega) undergoes an abrupt phase transition at

τ=‖ω−ω∗‖2=dmax​(4):=2−2,\tau=\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|_{2}=d_{\max}(4):=\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}},

where ω∗=(12,12,0,…,0)\omega^{*}=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0,\ldots,0\right) is the unique minimizer in ℭ\mathfrak{C}. Concretely, we establish the lower bound

Kn​(ω)≥{12+(1−τ24−τ)​τ2​2,for ​ω∈ℭ,34+3​4−2​248​τ−dmax​(4)+O⁡(τ−dmax​(4)),for ω∈ℭ and τ↘dmax​(4)\displaystyle K_{n}(\omega)\geq\begin{cases}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2}}{4}}-\tau\right)\frac{\tau}{2\sqrt{2}},&\text{for }\omega\in\mathfrak{C},\\ \frac{3}{4}+\frac{3\sqrt[4]{4-2\sqrt{2}}}{8}\sqrt{\tau-d_{\max}(4)}+O(\tau-d_{\max}(4)),&\text{for $\omega\in\mathfrak{C}$ and $\tau\searrow d_{\max}(4)$}\end{cases} (3)

with τ=‖ω−ω∗‖2\tau=\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|_{2}. In addition, the bound

Kn​(ω)≥12+(1−τ24−τ)​τ2​2K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2}}{4}}-\tau\right)\frac{\tau}{2\sqrt{2}}

is tight for τ∈[0,dmax​(4)]\tau\in[0,d_{\max}(4)].

   Remark 1.

Throughout the rest of the paper, we refer to the first inequality (Kn​(ω)≥12+(1−τ24−τ)​τ2​2K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2}}{4}}-\tau\right)\frac{\tau}{2\sqrt{2}}) in (3) as the four-coordinate or four-dimensional branch, and refer to the other inequality in (3) as the six-coordinate or six-dimensional branch. The rationale behind this naming will become apparent as we proceed. An illustration of this phase transition is in Figure 1.

An improved linear Khintchine inequality. Our second result is an improved version of the linear Khintchine inequality in (2). Specifically, we prove

Kn​(ω)≥12+136​τ​(ω),\displaystyle K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{36}\,\tau(\omega), (4)

where τ=‖ω−ω∗‖\tau=\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|. This linear lower bound improves upon the Khintchine inequalities (2) due to [6] and the more recent result of [8], which states Kn​(ω)≥12+8⋅10−5​τ​(ω)K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+8\cdot 10^{-5}\tau(\omega).

For vectors beyond the four-dimensional endpoint that is dmax​(4)d_{\max}(4) away from the local minimum, it combines the elementary estimate Kn​(ω)≥ω1K_{n}(\omega)\geq\omega_{1} with Haagerup’s refined bound

Kn​(ω)≥∑iωi2​F​(ωi−2),F⁡(s)=2π​s​Γ⁡((s+1)/2)Γ⁡(s/2),K_{n}(\omega)\geq\sum_{i}\omega_{i}^{2}F(\omega_{i}^{-2}),\qquad F(s)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi s}}\frac{\Gamma((s+1)/2)}{\Gamma(s/2)},

and reduces the remaining problem to an explicit two-variable inequality.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Illustration for the two-regime Khintchine inequality result. The blue dots correspond to 100,000 points uniformly sampled from the unit sphere 𝕊5\mathbb{S}^{5} and subsequently folded into the proper chamber via absolute values and sorting in descending order. The ”Grid-search minimum” curve is generated by a grid search over the proper chamber. The Four/Six-coordinate curves are from the theoretical predictions of our two-regime Khintchine inequality.

An improved bound on the low-degree Fourier weight of Linear Threshold Functions (LTFs). Our third result is a progress toward O’Donnell’s conjecture stated in (1). In particular, by combining the linear bound (4) with the sharp four-coordinate profile, together with a homogenization and conditioned Chow argument, we establish that every Boolean LTF ff satisfies

𝐖≤1​[f]≥(12+27712000)2>0.53317.\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[f]\geq\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{277}{12000}\right)^{2}>0.53317.

Thus the stability profile developed here leads to an improvement of more than 0.0330.033 over the classical 1/21/2 bound. This improves the best known result on this problems, which only proves the existence of a positive ϵ\epsilon such that 𝐖≤1​[LTF]≥1/2+ϵ\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[\mathrm{LTF}]\geq 1/2+\epsilon [6].

2 Refined Analysis for the Khintchine Inequality

In this section, we first establish a sharp stability estimate for Kn​(ω)K_{n}(\omega) in the regime where the coefficient vector ω\omega remains close to the extremal configuration. The analysis reveals a precise quantitative dependence on the distance from ω\omega to the minimizer. This result serves as a prerequisite for the subsequent phase-transition analysis, as it delineates the boundary beyond which the four-coordinate extremal family ceases to be globally optimal.

We begin by fixing notation and recalling the reduction to the proper chamber. For any nn-dimensional unit vector ω\omega, define

τ=τ⁡(ω):=min1≤i<j≤n⁡‖ω±12​ei±12​ej‖2,\tau=\tau(\omega):=\min_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\|\omega\pm\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e_{i}\pm\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e_{j}\|_{2}, (5)

with ei=(0,…,0,1,0,…,0)e_{i}=(0,\dots,0,1,0,\dots,0) be the ii-th axis unit vector. Owing to the invariance of Kn​(ω)K_{n}(\omega) and τ⁡(ω)\tau(\omega) under sign changes and coordinate permutations, there is no loss of generality in assuming that ω\omega is proper, i.e.,

ω∈ℭ:={ω:ω1≥ω2≥⋯≥ωn≥0,∥ω∥2=1}.\omega\in\mathfrak{C}:=\{\omega:\omega_{1}\geq\omega_{2}\geq\cdots\geq\omega_{n}\geq 0,\quad\|\omega\|_{2}=1\}.

Within this chamber, the unique minimizer of the classical Khintchine inequality is

ω∗=(12,12,0,…,0),\omega^{*}=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},0,\ldots,0\right),

and the distance to optimum is

τ⁡(ω)=‖ω−ω∗‖2.\displaystyle\tau(\omega)=\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|_{2}. (6)

For each admissible τ\tau, we denote by 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) the set of proper unit vectors at distance τ\tau from ω∗\omega^{*},

𝒞n(τ):={ω:∥ω−ω∗∥2=τ,ω∈ℭ}.\displaystyle\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau):=\{\omega:\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|_{2}=\tau,\omega\in\mathfrak{C}\}.

The first result is stated below in Theorem 1.

   Theorem 1.

For every ω∈𝒞n​(τ)\omega\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau),

Kn​(ω)≥12+(1−τ24−τ)​τ2​2.K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2}}{4}}-\tau\right)\frac{\tau}{2\sqrt{2}}.

Moreover, when n≥4n\geq 4, the estimate is optimal for 0≤τ≤2−20\leq\tau\leq\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}. In that range equality holds if and only if

ω=ωτ:=(r,r,s,s,0,…,0),\omega=\omega_{\tau}:=(r,r,s,s,0,\ldots,0),

where

r=1−τ2/22,s=τ2​1−τ24.r=\frac{1-\tau^{2}/2}{\sqrt{2}},\qquad s=\frac{\tau}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2}}{4}}.
Proof.

Write

ω1=12−a,ω2=12−b,c2=∑i=3nωi2.\omega_{1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}-a,\qquad\omega_{2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}-b,\qquad c^{2}=\sum_{i=3}^{n}\omega_{i}^{2}.

Since ‖ω‖2=1\|\omega\|_{2}=1 and τ=‖ω−ω∗‖2\tau=\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|_{2}, we have

τ2=a2+b2+c2=2​(a+b).\tau^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}=\sqrt{2}(a+b). (7)

Let

S=∑i=3nωi​ϵi.S=\sum_{i=3}^{n}\omega_{i}\epsilon_{i}.

Conditioning on SS and averaging over ϵ1,ϵ2\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2} gives

Kn​(ω)\displaystyle K_{n}(\omega) =14​𝔼​|S+ω1+ω2|+14​𝔼​|S−ω1−ω2|+14​𝔼​|S−ω1+ω2​|+14​𝔼|​S+ω1−ω2|\displaystyle=\frac{1}{4}\mathbb{E}|S+\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}|+\frac{1}{4}\mathbb{E}|S-\omega_{1}-\omega_{2}|+\frac{1}{4}\mathbb{E}|S-\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}|+\frac{1}{4}\mathbb{E}|S+\omega_{1}-\omega_{2}|
=12​𝔼​max⁡{|S|,ω1+ω2}+12​𝔼​max⁡{|S|,ω1−ω2},\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\max\{|S|,\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}\}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\max\{|S|,\omega_{1}-\omega_{2}\},

where the last line uses the fact |a+x|+|−a+x|2=max⁡{a,|x|}\frac{|a+x|+|-a+x|}{2}=\max\{a,|x|\} for any reals aa and xx. Here ω1≥ω2\omega_{1}\geq\omega_{2} because ω\omega is proper. The first maximum is bounded below by ω1+ω2\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}. For the second maximum, let ϵ\epsilon be an independent Rademacher random variable. Then

𝔼​max⁡{|S|,ω1−ω2}\displaystyle\mathbb{E}\max\{|S|,\omega_{1}-\omega_{2}\} =12​𝔼​(||S|+(ω1−ω2)|+||S|−(ω1−ω2)|)\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\left(\left||S|+(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})\right|+\left||S|-(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})\right|\right)
=𝔼​|S+(ω1−ω2)​ϵ|.\displaystyle=\mathbb{E}\left|S+(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})\epsilon\right|.

By the classic Khintchine inequality,

𝔼​|S+(ω1−ω2)​ϵ|≥12​(ω1−ω2)2+c2=12​(a−b)2+c2.\mathbb{E}\left|S+(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})\epsilon\right|\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})^{2}+c^{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{(a-b)^{2}+c^{2}}.

It remains to lower-bound the last square root in terms of τ\tau. From (7),

(a−b)2+c2\displaystyle(a-b)^{2}+c^{2} =τ2−τ42+a2+b2\displaystyle=\tau^{2}-\frac{\tau^{4}}{2}+a^{2}+b^{2}
≥τ2−τ42+12​(a+b)2\displaystyle\geq\tau^{2}-\frac{\tau^{4}}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(a+b)^{2}
=τ2−τ44.\displaystyle=\tau^{2}-\frac{\tau^{4}}{4}.

Combining these estimates yields

Kn​(ω)\displaystyle K_{n}(\omega) ≥12​(ω1+ω2+12​(a−b)2+c2)\displaystyle\geq\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{(a-b)^{2}+c^{2}}\right)
≥12​(2−τ22+12​τ2−τ44)\displaystyle\geq\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{2}-\frac{\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\tau^{2}-\frac{\tau^{4}}{4}}\right)
=12+(1−τ24−τ)​τ2​2.\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2}}{4}}-\tau\right)\frac{\tau}{2\sqrt{2}}.

The equality conditions are also transparent from the proof. Equality in a2+b2≥(a+b)2/2a^{2}+b^{2}\geq(a+b)^{2}/2 forces a=ba=b, while equality in the Khintchine step forces the remaining nonzero coordinates to form a two-coordinate extremizer. Thus equality is possible only for

ω=(r,r,s,s,0,…,0),\omega=(r,r,s,s,0,\ldots,0),

with rr and ss as above. A direct computation gives

‖ωτ‖2=1,‖ωτ−ω∗‖2=τ,\|\omega_{\tau}\|_{2}=1,\qquad\|\omega_{\tau}-\omega^{*}\|_{2}=\tau,

and ωτ\omega_{\tau} is proper exactly in the range 0≤τ≤2−20\leq\tau\leq\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}. Finally,

Kn​(ωτ)=r+s2=12+(1−τ24−τ)​τ2​2,K_{n}(\omega_{\tau})=r+\frac{s}{2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2}}{4}}-\tau\right)\frac{\tau}{2\sqrt{2}},

which proves sharpness in this range. ∎

Next we state a property on the geometry of the unit sphere, which frosters a conjecture (Conjecture 1) on the geometry of minimizers of the Khintchine inequalities.

   Proposition 1.

Let

dmax​(n)=maxω∈ℝn,‖ω‖2=1⁡τ⁡(ω).d_{\max}(n)=\max_{\omega\in\mathbb{R}^{n},\ \|\omega\|_{2}=1}\tau(\omega).

Equivalently, after reduction to the proper chamber, dmax​(n)d_{\max}(n) is the maximum of ‖ω−ω∗‖2\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|_{2} over proper unit vectors in ℝn\mathbb{R}^{n}. For n≥2n\geq 2,

dmax​(n)={2−2,2≤n≤4,2−2​2/n,n≥5.d_{\max}(n)=\begin{cases}\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}},&2\leq n\leq 4,\\[5.69054pt] \sqrt{2-2\sqrt{2/n}},&n\geq 5.\end{cases}

The two formulas agree at n=4n=4.

Proof.

For a proper unit vector, put q=ω1+ω2q=\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}. Since

τ2=‖ω−ω∗‖22=2−2​q,\tau^{2}=\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|_{2}^{2}=2-\sqrt{2}\,q,

maximizing τ\tau is the same as minimizing qq.

Fix qq and write y=ω2y=\omega_{2}. Then 0≤y≤q/20\leq y\leq q/2, ω1=q−y\omega_{1}=q-y, and all coordinates ω3,…,ωn\omega_{3},\ldots,\omega_{n} are at most yy. Hence

1=‖ω‖22≤(q−y)2+(n−1)​y2.1=\|\omega\|_{2}^{2}\leq(q-y)^{2}+(n-1)y^{2}.

Maximizing the right-hand side over 0≤y≤q/20\leq y\leq q/2 gives

1≤q2​max⁡{1,n4}.1\leq q^{2}\max\left\{1,\frac{n}{4}\right\}.

Thus q≥1q\geq 1 for 2≤n≤42\leq n\leq 4, and q≥2/nq\geq 2/\sqrt{n} for n≥4n\geq 4. These lower bounds are attained by (1,0,…,0)(1,0,\ldots,0) when n≤4n\leq 4 and by the constant vector (1/n,…,1/n)(1/\sqrt{n},\ldots,1/\sqrt{n}) when n≥4n\geq 4. Substituting the minimum value of qq into τ2=2−2​q\tau^{2}=2-\sqrt{2}q gives the stated formula. ∎

Theorem 1 suggests that, as long as the constraint allows it, the minimizer of KnK_{n} prefers to remain low-dimensional and to have coordinates grouped into equal pairs. This motivates the following conjectural continuation beyond the four-dimensional endpoint.

   Conjecture 1.

For dmax​(4)<τ≤dmax​(6)d_{\max}(4)<\tau\leq d_{\max}(6), the minimizer of Kn​(ω)K_{n}(\omega) on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) has the form

ω=(r,r,s,s,t,t,0,0,…).\omega=(r,r,s,s,t,t,0,0,\ldots).

More explicitly, the minimizer is conjectured to be

(r,r,r,r,s,s,0,…,0),dmax​(4)≤τ≤2−461107,(r,r,r,r,s,s,0,\ldots,0),\qquad d_{\max}(4)\leq\tau\leq\sqrt{2-\frac{46}{\sqrt{1107}}},

and

(r,r,t,t,t,t,0,…,0),2−461107≤τ≤dmax​(6),(r,r,t,t,t,t,0,\ldots,0),\qquad\sqrt{2-\frac{46}{\sqrt{1107}}}\leq\tau\leq d_{\max}(6),

where

r=2−τ22​2,s=12−2​r2,t=12​1−2​r2.r=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{2\sqrt{2}},\qquad s=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}-2r^{2}},\qquad t=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-2r^{2}}.

2.1 The Six-dimensional Branch and the Phase Transition

To further our study, we now present partial results that support Conjecture 1 and foreshadow the phase transition behavior discussed earlier. We next present two point-wise results (Lemmas 1 and 2). These act as stepping stones toward our main argument on the phase transition (Theorem 2), which is variational. The point-wise constructions are carefully designed to integrate smoothly with the later variational arguments, and this constitutes one of the technical ingredients.

   Definition 1.

For c∈ℝc\in\mathbb{R} and y=(y1,…,yk)y=(y_{1},\ldots,y_{k}), define

κ⁡(c,y)=𝔼​|c​ϵ0+∑j=1kyj​ϵj|,\kappa(c;y)=\mathbb{E}\left|c\epsilon_{0}+\sum_{j=1}^{k}y_{j}\epsilon_{j}\right|,

where ϵ0,ϵ1,…,ϵk\epsilon_{0},\epsilon_{1},\ldots,\epsilon_{k} are independent Rademacher random variables.

   Lemma 1 (Four-coordinate decomposition).

Let y=(ω5,…,ωn)y=(\omega_{5},\ldots,\omega_{n}) and define

q=ω1+ω2,u=ω3+ω4,d=ω1−ω2,e=ω3−ω4.q=\omega_{1}+\omega_{2},\qquad u=\omega_{3}+\omega_{4},\qquad d=\omega_{1}-\omega_{2},\qquad e=\omega_{3}-\omega_{4}.

Then

Kn​(ω)≥38​(q+u)+18​[κ⁡(q−u,y)+κ⁡(d+e,y)+κ⁡(d−e,y)].K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{3}{8}(q+u)+\frac{1}{8}\bigl[\kappa(q-u;y)+\kappa(d+e;y)+\kappa(d-e;y)\bigr].

Moreover, equality holds in a sufficiently small neighborhood of

ω0=(12,12,12,12,0,0,…),\omega_{0}=\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0,0,\ldots\right),

with the size of the neighborhood depending on nn.

Proof.

Condition on the last n−4n-4 variables and average over the first four signs. Among the 1616 sign patterns of (ϵ1,…,ϵ4)(\epsilon_{1},\ldots,\epsilon_{4}), there are 1010 unbalanced patterns, namely those with a strict majority of one sign. For such a pattern let

A=∑i=14ωi​ϵi,Y=∑i=5nωi​ϵi.A=\sum_{i=1}^{4}\omega_{i}\epsilon_{i},\qquad Y=\sum_{i=5}^{n}\omega_{i}\epsilon_{i}.

Since 𝔼​Y=0\mathbb{E}Y=0, for each fixed sign pattern (ϵ1,ϵ2,ϵ3,ϵ4)(\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2},\epsilon_{3},\epsilon_{4}), Jensen’s inequality gives

𝔼Y​|A+Y|≥|A|.\mathbb{E}_{Y}|A+Y|\geq|A|.

Summing |A||A| over the 1010 unbalanced patterns, the triangle inequality gives a lower bound 6​(q+u)6(q+u), and therefore their total contribution to Kn​(ω)K_{n}(\omega) is at least 3​(q+u)/83(q+u)/8.

The remaining 66 sign patterns are balanced. Their first-four-coordinate sums are

±(q−u),±(d+e),±(d−e).\pm(q-u),\qquad\pm(d+e),\qquad\pm(d-e).

Averaging each opposite pair gives respectively

18​κ​(q−u,y),18​κ​(d+e,y),18​κ​(d−e,y).\frac{1}{8}\kappa(q-u;y),\qquad\frac{1}{8}\kappa(d+e;y),\qquad\frac{1}{8}\kappa(d-e;y).

This proves the global lower bound.

If ω\omega is sufficiently close to ω0\omega_{0}, then for every unbalanced pattern the quantity |A||A| is strictly larger than ‖y‖1\|y\|_{1}. In that case the sign of A+YA+Y cannot change as YY varies, and hence 𝔼​|A+Y|=|A|\mathbb{E}|A+Y|=|A|. Therefore the preceding lower bound is an equality in such a neighborhood. ∎

For a proper vector, put

x=q−u,t=‖y‖2.x=q-u,\qquad t=\|y\|_{2}.

Then d,e≥0d,e\geq 0, and

x−(d+e)=2​(ω2−ω3)≥0.x-(d+e)=2(\omega_{2}-\omega_{3})\geq 0.

If ‖ω‖2=1\|\omega\|_{2}=1, then

t2=1−q2+q​x−x2+d2+e22.t^{2}=1-q^{2}+qx-\frac{x^{2}+d^{2}+e^{2}}{2}. (8)
   Lemma 2.

Let ω∈𝒞n​(τ)\omega\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) with τ>dmax​(4)\tau>d_{\max}(4). Then q<1q<1. Define

Aq​(x)=1−q2+q​x,Bq​(x)=1−q2+q​x−x2,A_{q}(x)=1-q^{2}+qx,\qquad B_{q}(x)=1-q^{2}+qx-x^{2},

and

Φq​(x)=34​q−38​x+18​2​(Aq​(x)+2​Bq​(x)).\Phi_{q}(x)=\frac{3}{4}q-\frac{3}{8}x+\frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}\left(\sqrt{A_{q}(x)}+2\sqrt{B_{q}(x)}\right).

Then

Kn​(ω)≥Φq​(x).K_{n}(\omega)\geq\Phi_{q}(x).

Let q0=0.99,δ=0.001q_{0}=0.99,\delta=0.001. For q0≤q<1q_{0}\leq q<1 and 0<x≤δ0<x\leq\delta, we have

Φq′​(x)>0.\Phi_{q}^{\prime}(x)>0.

Moreover, Φq′​(0)>0\Phi_{q}^{\prime}(0)>0 if and only if q>2​2/3q>2\sqrt{2}/3, and Φq′′​(x)≤0\Phi_{q}^{\prime\prime}(x)\leq 0 on every interval where Aq​(x)A_{q}(x) and Bq​(x)B_{q}(x) are positive.

Proof.

Since ω∈𝒞n​(τ)\omega\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau),

τ2=2−2​q.\tau^{2}=2-\sqrt{2}q.

Thus τ>dmax​(4)=2−2\tau>d_{\max}(4)=\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}} implies q<1q<1. By the classical Khintchine inequality,

κ⁡(c,y)≥12​c2+t2.\kappa(c;y)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{c^{2}+t^{2}}.

Using Lemma 1 and the relation u=q−xu=q-x, we obtain

Kn​(ω)≥34​q−38​x+18​2​(x2+t2+(d+e)2+t2+(d−e)2+t2).K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{3}{4}q-\frac{3}{8}x+\frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}\left(\sqrt{x^{2}+t^{2}}+\sqrt{(d+e)^{2}+t^{2}}+\sqrt{(d-e)^{2}+t^{2}}\right). (9)

Because d,e≥0d,e\geq 0 and d+e≤xd+e\leq x, we have

d2+e2≤(d+e)2≤x2.d^{2}+e^{2}\leq(d+e)^{2}\leq x^{2}.

Together with (8), this gives

x2+t2=Aq​(x)+x2−d2−e22≥Aq​(x)x^{2}+t^{2}=A_{q}(x)+\frac{x^{2}-d^{2}-e^{2}}{2}\geq A_{q}(x)

and

t2=Bq​(x)+x2−d2−e22≥Bq​(x).t^{2}=B_{q}(x)+\frac{x^{2}-d^{2}-e^{2}}{2}\geq B_{q}(x).

Substituting these inequalities into the previous lower bound yields

Kn​(ω)≥Φq​(x).K_{n}(\omega)\geq\Phi_{q}(x).

For the second part, since

Φq′​(x)=−38+18​2​(q2​Aq​(x)+q−2​xBq​(x)),\Phi_{q}^{\prime}(x)=-\frac{3}{8}+\frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{q}{2\sqrt{A_{q}(x)}}+\frac{q-2x}{\sqrt{B_{q}(x)}}\right),

for q0≤q<1q_{0}\leq q<1 and 0<x≤δ0<x\leq\delta, q−2​x≥0.988q-2x\geq 0.988 and Bq​(x)≤1−q02+δ=0.0209B_{q}(x)\leq 1-q_{0}^{2}+\delta=0.0209. Consequently,

Φq′​(x)≥−38+0.9888​2​0.0209>0.\Phi_{q}^{\prime}(x)\geq-\frac{3}{8}+\frac{0.988}{8\sqrt{2}\sqrt{0.0209}}>0.

Finally,

Φq′​(0)=−38+3​q16​2​1−q2,\Phi_{q}^{\prime}(0)=-\frac{3}{8}+\frac{3q}{16\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1-q^{2}}},

which is positive exactly when q>2​2/3q>2\sqrt{2}/3. The inequality Φq′′​(x)≤0\Phi_{q}^{\prime\prime}(x)\leq 0 follows from the concavity of the square-root function: AqA_{q} is affine in xx, while BqB_{q} is concave in xx on its positivity interval. ∎

   Corollary 1.

If ω∈𝒞n​(τ)\omega\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) satisfying x=0x=0 and Kn​(ω)=Φq​(x)K_{n}(\omega)=\Phi_{q}(x), then

ω=ωτ(6)=(r,r,r,r,s,s,0,…,0),\omega=\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}=(r,r,r,r,s,s,0,\ldots,0),

where r=q/2=2−τ22​2,s=τ2−τ44−12r=q/2=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{2\sqrt{2}},s=\sqrt{\tau^{2}-\frac{\tau^{4}}{4}-\frac{1}{2}}.

Proof.

Firstly, x=0x=0 implies that ω1=ω2=ω3=ω4\omega_{1}=\omega_{2}=\omega_{3}=\omega_{4}. Since Kn​(ω)=Φq​(x)K_{n}(\omega)=\Phi_{q}(x) requires the equality in (9) holds, which means that κ⁡(0,y)=t2\kappa(0;y)=\frac{t}{\sqrt{2}} with y=(ω5,ω6,…,ωn)y=(\omega_{5},\omega_{6},\dots,\omega_{n}) and t=‖y‖2t=\|y\|_{2}. By the classical Khintchine inequality, this requires ω5=ω6,ω7=⋯=ωn=0\omega_{5}=\omega_{6},\omega_{7}=\dots=\omega_{n}=0. Therefore ω=ωτ(6)\omega=\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}, where Kn​(ω)=32​r+38​s=Φq​(x)K_{n}(\omega)=\frac{3}{2}r+\frac{3}{8}s=\Phi_{q}(x) holds. ∎

   Theorem 2.

Assume n≥6n\geq 6. Let

ωτ(6)=(r,r,r,r,s,s,0,…,0),\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}=(r,r,r,r,s,s,0,\ldots,0),

where

r=2−τ22​2,s=τ2−τ44−12.r=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{2\sqrt{2}},\qquad s=\sqrt{\tau^{2}-\frac{\tau^{4}}{4}-\frac{1}{2}}.

Then ωτ(6)\omega_{\tau}^{(6)} is a local minimizer of KnK_{n} on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) for

dmax​(4)≤τ<23.d_{\max}(4)\leq\tau<\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}.

Moreover, for every fixed n≥6n\geq 6 there exists ϵ⁡(n)>0\epsilon(n)>0 such that ωτ(6)\omega_{\tau}^{(6)} is a global minimizer of KnK_{n} on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) whenever

dmax​(4)≤τ≤dmax​(4)+ϵ⁡(n).d_{\max}(4)\leq\tau\leq d_{\max}(4)+\epsilon(n).
Proof.

For the vector ωτ(6)\omega_{\tau}^{(6)} we have

q=ω1+ω2=2−τ22,x=q−(ω3+ω4)=0.q=\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}},\qquad x=q-(\omega_{3}+\omega_{4})=0.

When τ=dmax​(4)\tau=d_{\max}(4), the local and global minimality follows from Theorem 1. So let’s assume dmax​(4)<τ<2/3d_{\max}(4)<\tau<\sqrt{2/3}, then

2​23<q<1.\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}<q<1.

By Lemma 2, Φq′​(0)>0\Phi_{q}^{\prime}(0)>0. Then there exists α=α⁡(q)>0\alpha=\alpha(q)>0 such that Φq′​(x)>0\Phi_{q}^{\prime}(x)>0 for 0≤x<α0\leq x<\alpha. For proper ω\omega satisfying ‖ω−ωτ(6)‖2≤α/4\|\omega-\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}\|_{2}\leq\alpha/4, we have 0≤x≤2​‖ω−ωτ(6)‖2<α0\leq x\leq\sqrt{2}\|\omega-\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}\|_{2}<\alpha, therefore

dmax​(4)<τ<2/3,‖ω−ωτ(6)‖2≤α/4⟹Kn​(ω)≥Φq​(x)≥Φq​(0)=Kn​(ωτ(6)),d_{\max}(4)<\tau<\sqrt{2/3},\|\omega-\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}\|_{2}\leq\alpha/4\implies K_{n}(\omega)\geq\Phi_{q}(x)\geq\Phi_{q}(0)=K_{n}(\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}), (10)

with equality if and only if x=0x=0 and Kn​(ω)=Φq​(x)K_{n}(\omega)=\Phi_{q}(x). By Corollary 1, that requires ω=ωτ(6)\omega=\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}. This proves that ωτ(6)\omega_{\tau}^{(6)} is a local minimizer of Kn​(ω)K_{n}(\omega) on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) for dmax​(4)≤τ<2/3d_{\max}(4)\leq\tau<\sqrt{2/3}.

It remains to prove the global statement near dmax​(4)d_{\max}(4). Let q0,δq_{0},\delta be as in Lemma 2. There exists ρ=ρ⁡(n)>0\rho=\rho(n)>0 such that dmax​(4)≤τ≤dmax​(4)+ρ⟹q0≤q≤1d_{\max}(4)\leq\tau\leq d_{\max}(4)+\rho\implies q_{0}\leq q\leq 1. Moreover if proper ω\omega also satisfies ‖ω−ωτ(6)‖2≤δ/4\|\omega-\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}\|_{2}\leq\delta/4, we have x≤δx\leq\delta. In this case, Kn​(ω)≥Φq​(x)≥Φq​(0)=Kn​(ωτ(6))K_{n}(\omega)\geq\Phi_{q}(x)\geq\Phi_{q}(0)=K_{n}(\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}), with equality if and only if x=0x=0 and Kn​(ω)=Φq​(x)K_{n}(\omega)=\Phi_{q}(x), i.e. ω=ω(6)\omega=\omega^{(6)}. Therefore,

dmax​(4)≤τ<dmax​(4)+ρ,0<‖ω−ωτ(6)‖2≤δ/4⟹Kn​(ω)>Kn​(ωτ(6)).d_{\max}(4)\leq\tau<d_{\max}(4)+\rho,0<\|\omega-\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}\|_{2}\leq\delta/4\implies K_{n}(\omega)>K_{n}(\omega_{\tau}^{(6)}). (11)

Suppose the global statement is false: there exists {τj}j=1∞↘dmax​(4)\{\tau_{j}\}_{j=1}^{\infty}\searrow d_{\max}(4) and ω(j)∈𝒞n​(τj)\omega^{(j)}\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau_{j}) such that ω(j)≠ωτj(6)\omega^{(j)}\neq\omega_{\tau_{j}}^{(6)} and ω(j)\omega^{(j)} is a global minimizer of KnK_{n} on 𝒞n​(τj)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau_{j}). Suppose every τj<dmax​(4)+ρ\tau_{j}<d_{\max}(4)+\rho. By (11), we have

‖ω(j)−ωτj(6)‖2>δ/4,∀j≥1.\|\omega^{(j)}-\omega_{\tau_{j}}^{(6)}\|_{2}>\delta/4,\quad\forall j\geq 1. (12)

We also have

Kn​(ω(j))≤Kn​(ωτj(6)),∀j≥1.K_{n}(\omega^{(j)})\leq K_{n}(\omega_{\tau_{j}}^{(6)}),\quad\forall j\geq 1. (13)

By compactness, ω(j)\omega^{(j)} contains a convergent subsequence, which we may assume to be the sequence itself. Let ω¯=limj→∞ω(j)\overline{\omega}=\lim_{j\to\infty}\omega^{(j)}. Then ω¯∈𝒞n​(dmax​(4))\overline{\omega}\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(d_{\max}(4)). Taking limit in equation (12) and (13) we get that

‖ω¯−ωdmax​(4)(6)‖≥δ/4,\|\overline{\omega}-\omega_{d_{\max}(4)}^{(6)}\|\geq\delta/4, (14)
Kn​(ω¯)≤Kn​(ωdmax​(4)(6)).K_{n}(\overline{\omega})\leq K_{n}(\omega_{d_{\max}(4)}^{(6)}). (15)

Theorem 1 gives that Kn​(ω¯)≥Kn​(ωdmax​(4)(6))K_{n}(\overline{\omega})\geq K_{n}(\omega_{d_{\max}(4)}^{(6)}), combining with (15) we have Kn​(ω¯)=Kn​(ωdmax​(4)(6))K_{n}(\overline{\omega})=K_{n}(\omega_{d_{\max}(4)}^{(6)}). By Theorem 1 we get ω¯=ωdmax​(4)(6)\overline{\omega}=\omega_{d_{\max}(4)}^{(6)}, which is a contradiction with (14).

∎

At this point, we are ready to state a clear version of the behavior near τ=dmax​(4)\tau=d_{\max}(4). This result is recorded below in Corollary 2, which, together with Theorem 1, demonstrates the phase transition behavior presented in (3) and Figure 1.

   Corollary 2.

For each fixed n≥6n\geq 6, as ϵ↓0\epsilon\downarrow 0,

minω∈𝒞n​(dmax​(4)+ϵ)⁡Kn​(ω)=34+3​4−2​248​ϵ+O⁡(ϵ).\min_{\omega\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(d_{\max}(4)+\epsilon)}K_{n}(\omega)=\frac{3}{4}+\frac{3\sqrt[4]{4-2\sqrt{2}}}{8}\sqrt{\epsilon}+O(\epsilon).
Proof.

For ωτ(6)\omega_{\tau}^{(6)},

Kn​(ωτ(6))=Φq​(0)=34​q+38​2​1−q2,q=2−τ22.K_{n}(\omega_{\tau}^{(6)})=\Phi_{q}(0)=\frac{3}{4}q+\frac{3}{8\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{1-q^{2}},\qquad q=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}.

Set d0=dmax​(4)=2−2d_{0}=d_{\max}(4)=\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}} and τ=d0+ϵ\tau=d_{0}+\epsilon. Since q=1−2​d0​ϵ+O⁡(ϵ2)q=1-\sqrt{2}d_{0}\epsilon+O(\epsilon^{2}), we have

1−q2=2​2​d0​ϵ+O⁡(ϵ3/2).\sqrt{1-q^{2}}=\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}d_{0}}\,\sqrt{\epsilon}+O(\epsilon^{3/2}).

As 2​d0=4−2​24\sqrt{\sqrt{2}d_{0}}=\sqrt[4]{4-2\sqrt{2}}, the desired expansion follows. ∎

Corollary 2 shows that the profile Mn​(d)=minω∈𝒞n​(d)⁡Kn​(ω)M_{n}(d)=\min_{\omega\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(d)}K_{n}(\omega) has a sharp transition at d=dmax​(4)d=d_{\max}(4). The left branch is governed by the four-coordinate minimizer in Theorem 1, while the right branch begins with a square-root term. Thus the derivative of Mn​(d)M_{n}(d) changes abruptly as dd passes through dmax​(4)d_{\max}(4).

The preceding theorem identifies one family of local minimizers of KnK_{n} on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) for dmax​(4)≤τ≤2/3d_{\max}(4)\leq\tau\leq\sqrt{2/3}. A natural route toward Conjecture 1 is to describe all local minimizers and then compare their values. The next section develops a directional-derivative criterion that is useful for constructing such examples.

However, the linear Khintchine inequality may not lead to settlement of O’Donnell’s conjecture 𝐖≤1​[LTF]≥2/π\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[\mathrm{LTF}]\geq 2/\pi for the following reason: the value 2/π2/\pi is attained by f⁡(x)=sgn⁡(ω⋅x)f(x)=\operatorname{sgn}(\omega\cdot x) with ω=(1n,1n,…,1n)\omega=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}},\dots,\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}) and n→∞n\to\infty, but linear Khintchine inequality can never take equality at such ω\omega.

2.1.1 Local minimizers of Kn​(ω)K_{n}(\omega) on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau)

We begin by recalling a structural lemma for KnK_{n} on the proper chamber.

   Lemma 3 ([16, Lemma 8]).

Let

Tn={ω∈ℝn:ω1≥ω2≥⋯≥ωn≥0}.T_{n}=\{\omega\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:\ \omega_{1}\geq\omega_{2}\geq\cdots\geq\omega_{n}\geq 0\}.

For every n≥1n\geq 1, there exists a finite set An⊆TnA_{n}\subseteq T_{n} such that, for all ω∈Tn\omega\in T_{n},

Kn​(ω)=maxa∈An⁡a⋅ω.K_{n}(\omega)=\max_{a\in A_{n}}a\cdot\omega.

It is also mentioned in [16] that, if

aj​(ω)=𝔼⁡[ϵj​sgn⁡(∑i=1nωi​ϵi)],1≤j≤n,a_{j}(\omega)=\mathbb{E}\left[\epsilon_{j}\operatorname{sgn}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_{i}\epsilon_{i}\right)\right],\qquad 1\leq j\leq n,

then a⁡(ω)∈Tna(\omega)\in T_{n} and Kn​(ω)=a⁡(ω)⋅ωK_{n}(\omega)=a(\omega)\cdot\omega. Here we use the convention sgn⁡(0)=0\operatorname{sgn}(0)=0.

For a nonzero direction h∈ℝnh\in\mathbb{R}^{n}, the one-sided directional derivative is defined as

D​Kn​(ω,h):=limδ→0+Kn​(ω+δ​h)−Kn​(ω)δ.DK_{n}(\omega;h):=\lim_{\delta\to 0^{+}}\frac{K_{n}(\omega+\delta h)-K_{n}(\omega)}{\delta}.
   Proposition 2.

For every direction h∈ℝnh\in\mathbb{R}^{n},

DKn(ω;h)=a(ω)⋅h+𝔼[|h⋅ϵ| 1{ω⋅ϵ=0}],DK_{n}(\omega;h)=a(\omega)\cdot h+\mathbb{E}\left[|h\cdot\epsilon|\,1_{\{\omega\cdot\epsilon=0\}}\right],

where ϵ=(ϵ1,…,ϵn)\epsilon=(\epsilon_{1},\ldots,\epsilon_{n}).

Proof.

For each fixed sign vector ϵ∈{−1,1}n\epsilon\in\{-1,1\}^{n}, the one-sided derivative of

δ↦|(ω+δ​h)⋅ϵ|\delta\mapsto|(\omega+\delta h)\cdot\epsilon|

at δ=0\delta=0 is

sgn⁡(ω⋅ϵ)​h⋅ϵif ​ω⋅ϵ≠0,\operatorname{sgn}(\omega\cdot\epsilon)h\cdot\epsilon\quad\text{if }\omega\cdot\epsilon\neq 0,

and is |h⋅ϵ||h\cdot\epsilon| if ω⋅ϵ=0\omega\cdot\epsilon=0. Averaging over all sign vectors gives

D​Kn​(ω,h)\displaystyle DK_{n}(\omega;h) =𝔼[sgn(ω⋅ϵ)h⋅ϵ 1{ω⋅ϵ≠0}]+𝔼[|h⋅ϵ| 1{ω⋅ϵ=0}]\displaystyle=\mathbb{E}\left[\operatorname{sgn}(\omega\cdot\epsilon)h\cdot\epsilon\,1_{\{\omega\cdot\epsilon\neq 0\}}\right]+\mathbb{E}\left[|h\cdot\epsilon|\,1_{\{\omega\cdot\epsilon=0\}}\right]
=a(ω)⋅h+𝔼[|h⋅ϵ| 1{ω⋅ϵ=0}].\displaystyle=a(\omega)\cdot h+\mathbb{E}\left[|h\cdot\epsilon|\,1_{\{\omega\cdot\epsilon=0\}}\right].

∎

On 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) the quantity ω1+ω2\omega_{1}+\omega_{2} is fixed, because

ω1+ω2=2−τ22.\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}.

Therefore, when studying minimizers on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau), we only need to consider first-order directions hh with

h1+h2=0.h_{1}+h_{2}=0. (16)

The normalization ‖ω‖2=1\|\omega\|_{2}=1 further gives

ω⋅h=∑i=1nωi​hi=0.\omega\cdot h=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_{i}h_{i}=0. (17)

Now we can define feasible directions hh to be vectors satisfying (16) and (17). A local minimizer must have D​Kn​(ω,h)≥0DK_{n}(\omega;h)\geq 0 for all feasible directions hh. In Proposition 2, the second term is always nonnegative. The first term, however, changes sign when hh is replaced by −h-h. A useful way to construct local minimizers is therefore to arrange that a⁡(ω)⋅h=0a(\omega)\cdot h=0 for all tangent directions and then prove strict positivity of the second term.

   Lemma 4.

Let m∈ℕ+m\in\mathbb{N}_{+} and assume n≥2​m+2n\geq 2m+2. Let

ω=(r,r,s,…,s⏟2​m​ coordinates,0,…,0),\omega=(r,r,\underbrace{s,\ldots,s}_{2m\text{ coordinates}},0,\ldots,0),

where

r=2−τ22​2,s=4​τ2−τ48​m.r=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{2\sqrt{2}},\qquad s=\sqrt{\frac{4\tau^{2}-\tau^{4}}{8m}}.

Whenever this vector is proper, it is a strict local minimizer of KnK_{n} on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau).

Proof.

Put N=2​m+2N=2m+2. The formulas for rr and ss give

2​r2+2​m​s2=1,2​r=2−τ22,2r^{2}+2ms^{2}=1,\qquad 2r=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}},

so ω∈𝒞n​(τ)\omega\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau). If τ=0\tau=0, then 𝒞n​(0)={ω∗}\mathcal{C}_{n}(0)=\{\omega^{*}\} and the conclusion is immediate. We may therefore assume that τ>0\tau>0. Since ω\omega is proper, this implies s>0s>0.

Define

L(h):=𝔼[|h⋅ϵ|1{ω⋅ϵ=0}]L(h):=\mathbb{E}\left[|h\cdot\epsilon|1_{\{\omega\cdot\epsilon=0\}}\right]

and let

V:={h∈ℝn:h1+h2=0,∑i=3Nhi=0}.V:=\left\{h\in\mathbb{R}^{n}:h_{1}+h_{2}=0,\quad\sum_{i=3}^{N}h_{i}=0\right\}.

These are exactly the tangent conditions (16) and (17) at ω\omega.

We first show that L⁡(h)>0L(h)>0 for every nonzero h∈Vh\in V. Suppose that h∈Vh\in V and L⁡(h)=0L(h)=0. Then h⋅ϵ=0h\cdot\epsilon=0 for every sign pattern satisfying

ϵ1+ϵ2=0,∑i=3Nϵi=0,\epsilon_{1}+\epsilon_{2}=0,\qquad\sum_{i=3}^{N}\epsilon_{i}=0,

because all these sign patterns belong to the event {ω⋅ϵ=0}\{\omega\cdot\epsilon=0\}. The signs in the coordinates i>Ni>N are arbitrary, so changing one of them gives hi=0h_{i}=0 for every i>Ni>N. Comparing the two choices (ϵ1,ϵ2)=(1,−1)(\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2})=(1,-1) and (−1,1)(-1,1) gives h1=h2h_{1}=h_{2}. Similarly, for any j,k∈{3,…,N}j,k\in\{3,\ldots,N\}, choose a balanced sign pattern with ϵj=1\epsilon_{j}=1 and ϵk=−1\epsilon_{k}=-1 and compare it with the pattern obtained by interchanging these two signs. This gives hj=hkh_{j}=h_{k}. Thus

h1=h2,h3=⋯=hN,hi=0(i>N).h_{1}=h_{2},\qquad h_{3}=\cdots=h_{N},\qquad h_{i}=0\quad(i>N).

The two defining equations of VV now imply h=0h=0. Hence LL has trivial kernel on VV. Since VV is finite-dimensional and LL is continuous and positively homogeneous, compactness of the unit sphere in VV gives a constant c>0c>0 such that

L⁡(h)≥c​‖h‖2for every ​h∈V.L(h)\geq c\|h\|_{2}\qquad\text{for every }h\in V. (18)

We now pass from tangent directions to nearby points of 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau). Let η=ω+v∈𝒞n​(τ)\eta=\omega+v\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) be close to ω\omega. Since the sum of the first two coordinates is fixed on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau),

v1+v2=0.v_{1}+v_{2}=0. (19)

Moreover, ‖ω+v‖2=‖ω‖2=1\|\omega+v\|_{2}=\|\omega\|_{2}=1 gives

2​ω⋅v+‖v‖22=0.2\omega\cdot v+\|v\|_{2}^{2}=0.

Using (19) and the form of ω\omega, we obtain

∑i=3Nvi=−‖v‖222​s.\sum_{i=3}^{N}v_{i}=-\frac{\|v\|_{2}^{2}}{2s}. (20)

Thus a feasible displacement satisfies the tangent equations up to an error of order ‖v‖22\|v\|_{2}^{2}.

To make this precise, let u∈ℝnu\in\mathbb{R}^{n} have value 1/(2​m)1/(2m) in the coordinates 3,…,N3,\ldots,N and value 00 elsewhere, and put

λ:=∑i=3Nvi,h:=v−λ​u.\lambda:=\sum_{i=3}^{N}v_{i},\qquad h:=v-\lambda u.

Then h∈Vh\in V, and (20) gives

‖v−h‖2=|λ|2​m=‖v‖222​s​2​m.\|v-h\|_{2}=\frac{|\lambda|}{\sqrt{2m}}=\frac{\|v\|_{2}^{2}}{2s\sqrt{2m}}. (21)

For every w∈ℝnw\in\mathbb{R}^{n}, Cauchy–Schwarz gives

L⁡(w)≤𝔼​|w⋅ϵ|≤‖w‖2.L(w)\leq\mathbb{E}|w\cdot\epsilon|\leq\|w\|_{2}.

Therefore, by (18) and (21), there is a constant C1>0C_{1}>0 such that

L⁡(v)≥L⁡(h)−L⁡(v−h)≥c​‖h‖2−‖v−h‖2≥c​‖v‖2−C1​‖v‖22.L(v)\geq L(h)-L(v-h)\geq c\|h\|_{2}-\|v-h\|_{2}\geq c\|v\|_{2}-C_{1}\|v\|_{2}^{2}. (22)

Finally, by symmetry and the definition preceding Proposition 2, there are constants α,β\alpha,\beta such that

a⁡(ω)=(α,α,β,…,β⏟2​m​ coordinates,0,…,0).a(\omega)=(\alpha,\alpha,\underbrace{\beta,\ldots,\beta}_{2m\text{ coordinates}},0,\ldots,0).

Hence (19) and (20) imply

a⁡(ω)⋅v=−β2​s​‖v‖22.a(\omega)\cdot v=-\frac{\beta}{2s}\|v\|_{2}^{2}. (23)

Because there are only finitely many sign vectors, if vv is sufficiently small, then the sign of (ω+v)⋅ϵ(\omega+v)\cdot\epsilon agrees with that of ω⋅ϵ\omega\cdot\epsilon whenever ω⋅ϵ≠0\omega\cdot\epsilon\neq 0. For such vv we have the exact identity

Kn​(ω+v)−Kn​(ω)=a⁡(ω)⋅v+L⁡(v).K_{n}(\omega+v)-K_{n}(\omega)=a(\omega)\cdot v+L(v).

Combining this identity with (22) and (23), we obtain a constant C2>0C_{2}>0 such that

Kn​(ω+v)−Kn​(ω)≥c​‖v‖2−C2​‖v‖22.K_{n}(\omega+v)-K_{n}(\omega)\geq c\|v\|_{2}-C_{2}\|v\|_{2}^{2}.

The right-hand side is strictly positive for every sufficiently small nonzero vv. Therefore ω\omega is a strict local minimizer of KnK_{n} on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau). ∎

This lemma explains why the second family in Conjecture 1 is a natural candidate: it is one of the equal-block local minimizers produced by the directional-derivative criterion. There is another type of local minimizer near τ=dmax​(4)\tau=d_{\max}(4).

   Lemma 5.

Let

q=2−τ22.q=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}.

For 1≤q<n/(n−1)1\leq q<\sqrt{n/(n-1)}, define

bn​(q)=q−n−(n−1)​q2n,an​(q)=q−bn​(q).b_{n}(q)=\frac{q-\sqrt{n-(n-1)q^{2}}}{n},\qquad a_{n}(q)=q-b_{n}(q).

Then

Dn​(q)=(an​(q),bn​(q),…,bn​(q))D_{n}(q)=(a_{n}(q),b_{n}(q),\ldots,b_{n}(q))

is a strict local minimizer of KnK_{n} on 𝒞n​(τ)\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau).

Proof.

The definitions of an​(q)a_{n}(q) and bn​(q)b_{n}(q) imply

an​(q)+bn​(q)=q,an​(q)2+(n−1)​bn​(q)2=1.a_{n}(q)+b_{n}(q)=q,\qquad a_{n}(q)^{2}+(n-1)b_{n}(q)^{2}=1.

Moreover, the condition q<n/(n−1)q<\sqrt{n/(n-1)} gives

an​(q)>(n−1)​bn​(q).a_{n}(q)>(n-1)b_{n}(q).

Hence the first coordinate dominates the sum of the remaining coordinates, and therefore

Kn​(Dn​(q))=an​(q).K_{n}(D_{n}(q))=a_{n}(q).

Now consider a proper vector ω∈𝒞n​(τ)\omega\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau) in a sufficiently small neighborhood of Dn​(q)D_{n}(q). Write y=ω2y=\omega_{2}. Since ω1=q−y\omega_{1}=q-y and ωi≤y\omega_{i}\leq y for i≥2i\geq 2, we have

1=‖ω‖22≤(q−y)2+(n−1)​y2.1=\|\omega\|_{2}^{2}\leq(q-y)^{2}+(n-1)y^{2}.

At y=bn​(q)y=b_{n}(q) the right-hand side is equal to 11, and its derivative is negative. Therefore, in a small neighborhood of bn​(q)b_{n}(q), the preceding inequality forces

y≤bn​(q).y\leq b_{n}(q).

On the other hand, conditioning on ϵ1\epsilon_{1} and using Jensen’s inequality gives

Kn​(ω)≥ω1=q−y.K_{n}(\omega)\geq\omega_{1}=q-y.

Consequently

Kn​(ω)≥q−y≥q−bn​(q)=an​(q)=Kn​(Dn​(q)).K_{n}(\omega)\geq q-y\geq q-b_{n}(q)=a_{n}(q)=K_{n}(D_{n}(q)).

Equality can hold in this neighborhood only when y=bn​(q)y=b_{n}(q) and all remaining coordinates also equal bn​(q)b_{n}(q), namely when ω=Dn​(q)\omega=D_{n}(q). Thus Dn​(q)D_{n}(q) is a strict local minimizer. ∎

2.2 Improved linear Khintchine Inequality

This section proves the dimension-free coefficient 1/361/36 in the linear Khintchine inequality. Then in Section 3, we combine it with the sharp four-coordinate profile and a conditioned-Chow estimate to obtain an explicit lower bound for the degree-00 and degree-11 Fourier weight of Boolean linear threshold functions.

   Theorem 3 (Improved linear Khintchine inequality).

For every n≥2n\geq 2 and every unit vector ω∈ℝn\omega\in\mathbb{R}^{n},

Kn​(ω)≥12+136​τ​(ω),K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{36}\tau(\omega), (24)

where τ⁡(ω)\tau(\omega) is defined in (5).

We use Haagerup’s function

F⁡(s)=2π​s​Γ⁡((s+1)/2)Γ⁡(s/2),s>0.F(s)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi s}}\frac{\Gamma((s+1)/2)}{\Gamma(s/2)},\qquad s>0. (25)

It is increasing, and Haagerup’s refined L1L_{1}-Khintchine estimate states that

Kn​(ω)≥∑i=1nωi2​F​(ωi−2)K_{n}(\omega)\geq\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_{i}^{2}F(\omega_{i}^{-2}) (26)

for every unit vector ω\omega [11]. A summand corresponding to ωi=0\omega_{i}=0 is interpreted by continuity.

We first record an elementary estimate for FF.

   Lemma 6 (Wallis-ratio estimate).

For every s≥1s\geq 1,

F⁡(s)≥2π​1−12​s.F(s)\geq\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{2s}}. (27)
Proof.

We first show that, for x>1/4x>1/4,

Γ⁡(x+1/2)Γ⁡(x)≥x−14.\frac{\Gamma(x+1/2)}{\Gamma(x)}\geq\sqrt{x-\frac{1}{4}}. (28)

Set

h⁡(x)=log⁡Γ⁡(x+1/2)−log⁡Γ⁡(x)−12​log⁡(x−14).h(x)=\log\Gamma(x+1/2)-\log\Gamma(x)-\frac{1}{2}\log\left(x-\frac{1}{4}\right).

Writing ψ=Γ′/Γ\psi=\Gamma^{\prime}/\Gamma, the integral representation of the digamma difference gives

ψ⁡(x+1/2)−ψ⁡(x)\displaystyle\psi(x+1/2)-\psi(x) =∫0∞e−x​t​1−e−t/21−e−t​𝑑t\displaystyle=\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-xt}\frac{1-e^{-t/2}}{1-e^{-t}}\,dt
=∫0∞e−x​t1+e−t/2​𝑑t.\displaystyle=\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-xt}}{1+e^{-t/2}}\,dt.

Moreover,

12​(x−1/4)=∫0∞e−x​t​et/42​𝑑t.\frac{1}{2(x-1/4)}=\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-xt}\frac{e^{t/4}}{2}\,dt.

For t≥0t\geq 0,

11+e−t/2≤et/42,\frac{1}{1+e^{-t/2}}\leq\frac{e^{t/4}}{2},

because this is equivalent to 2≤et/4+e−t/42\leq e^{t/4}+e^{-t/4}. Hence h′​(x)≤0h^{\prime}(x)\leq 0. Stirling’s formula gives h⁡(x)→0h(x)\to 0 as x→∞x\to\infty, so h⁡(x)≥0h(x)\geq 0, proving (28). Applying it with x=s/2x=s/2 in (25) gives

F⁡(s)≥2π​s​s2−14=2π​1−12​s.F(s)\geq\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi s}}\sqrt{\frac{s}{2}-\frac{1}{4}}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\sqrt{1-\frac{1}{2s}}.

∎

For 0≤q≤10\leq q\leq 1 and any number xx, put

T⁡(q)=12+136​2−2​q,C=2π,r⁡(x)=1−x22.T(q)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{36}\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}q},\qquad C=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}},\qquad r(x)=\sqrt{1-\frac{x^{2}}{2}}. (29)
   Lemma 7 (Scalar estimate).

If 0≤q≤10\leq q\leq 1 and q/2≤a≤qq/2\leq a\leq q, then

max⁡{a,C⁡[a2​r​(a)+(1−a2)​r​(q−a)]}≥T⁡(q),\max\left\{a,C\left[a^{2}r(a)+(1-a^{2})r(q-a)\right]\right\}\geq T(q), (30)

where the quantities T⁡(q),C,r⁡(x)T(q),C,r(x) are defined above in (29).

Proof.

If a≥T⁡(q)a\geq T(q), the assertion is immediate. Suppose that a<T⁡(q)a<T(q). Since

T⁡(q)≤T⁡(0)=19​236<34,T(q)\leq T(0)=\frac{19\sqrt{2}}{36}<\frac{3}{4},

we have 0≤q−a≤a<3/40\leq q-a\leq a<3/4.

The function z↦1−z/2z\mapsto\sqrt{1-z/2} is concave. Its chord between z=0z=0 and z=9/16z=9/16 yields

r⁡(x)≥1−λ​x2,0≤x≤34,λ=169​(1−2332).r(x)\geq 1-\lambda x^{2},\qquad 0\leq x\leq\frac{3}{4},\qquad\lambda=\frac{16}{9}\left(1-\sqrt{\frac{23}{32}}\right). (31)

Therefore

C⁡[a2​r​(a)+(1−a2)​r​(q−a)]≥C⁡(1−λ​Pq​(a)),C\left[a^{2}r(a)+(1-a^{2})r(q-a)\right]\geq C\left(1-\lambda P_{q}(a)\right), (32)

where

Pq​(a)=a4+(1−a2)​(q−a)2.P_{q}(a)=a^{4}+(1-a^{2})(q-a)^{2}.

A direct differentiation gives

Pq′′​(a)=2​(6​q​a+1−q2)≥2​(2​q2+1)>0.P_{q}^{\prime\prime}(a)=2\left(6qa+1-q^{2}\right)\geq 2(2q^{2}+1)>0.

This shows Pq​(a)P_{q}(a) is convex, thus it has no interior maximum on [q/2,min⁡{q,T⁡(q)}][q/2,\min\{q,T(q)\}], and

Pq​(a)≤{max⁡{q24,q4},q≤T⁡(q),max⁡{q24,T​(q)4+(1−T​(q)2)​(q−T⁡(q))2},q≥T⁡(q).P_{q}(a)\leq\begin{cases}\displaystyle\max\left\{\frac{q^{2}}{4},q^{4}\right\},&q\leq T(q),\\[8.53581pt] \displaystyle\max\left\{\frac{q^{2}}{4},T(q)^{4}+(1-T(q)^{2})(q-T(q))^{2}\right\},&q\geq T(q).\end{cases} (33)

Define

R⁡(q)=1−T⁡(q)/Cλ.R(q)=\frac{1-T(q)/C}{\lambda}. (34)

It remains to verify that the right-hand side of (33) is at most R⁡(q)R(q). The function TT is decreasing and RR is increasing. The following finite interval calculation is included to make the numerical part completely reproducible. All decimal endpoints are terminating rational numbers, and all estimates are rounded outwards. They follow by substitution from

1.4142135<2<1.4142136,3.1415926<π<3.1415927,0.8477912<23/32<0.8477913.\begin{gathered}1.4142135<\sqrt{2}<1.4142136,\qquad 3.1415926<\pi<3.1415927,\\ 0.8477912<\sqrt{23/32}<0.8477913.\end{gathered} (35)

The radical bounds are verified by squaring.

If q≤T⁡(q)q\leq T(q), then q<0.735q<0.735, since T⁡(0.735)<0.734332<0.735T(0.735)<0.734332<0.735. Direct evaluation using (35) gives

q​-intervalmax⁡{q2/4,q4}​ upper boundR⁡(q)​ lower bound[0,.69].22668.23850[.69,.72].26874.29025[.72,.735].29185.29297\begin{array}[]{c|c|c}q\text{-interval}&\max\{q^{2}/4,q^{4}\}\text{ upper bound}&R(q)\text{ lower bound}\\ \hline\cr[0,.69]&.22668&.23850\\ [.69,.72]&.26874&.29025\\ [.72,.735]&.29185&.29297\end{array}

Thus the first branch of (33) is at most R⁡(q)R(q).

If q≥T⁡(q)q\geq T(q), then q>0.734q>0.734, since T⁡(0.734)>0.734351>0.734T(0.734)>0.734351>0.734. Also q2/4≤1/4<R⁡(0.734)q^{2}/4\leq 1/4<R(0.734). Put

Q⁡(q)=T​(q)4+(1−T​(q)2)​(q−T⁡(q))2.Q(q)=T(q)^{4}+(1-T(q)^{2})(q-T(q))^{2}.

For q∈[ℓ,u]⊂[.734,1]q\in[\ell,u]\subset[.734,1], monotonicity of TT gives

Q⁡(q)≤T​(ℓ)4+(1−T​(u)2)​(u−T⁡(u))2.Q(q)\leq T(\ell)^{4}+\left(1-T(u)^{2}\right)\left(u-T(u)\right)^{2}. (36)

Using (35) in (36) and (34) gives

q​-intervalQ⁡(q)​ upper boundR⁡(q)​ lower bound[.734,.76].29114.29426[.76,.80].29206.29670[.80,.84].29408.30054[.84,.88].29762.30451[.88,.92].30273.30862[.92,.96].30939.31289[.96,.98].31257.31734[.98,1].31688.31963\begin{array}[]{c|c|c}q\text{-interval}&Q(q)\text{ upper bound}&R(q)\text{ lower bound}\\ \hline\cr[.734,.76]&.29114&.29426\\ [.76,.80]&.29206&.29670\\ [.80,.84]&.29408&.30054\\ [.84,.88]&.29762&.30451\\ [.88,.92]&.30273&.30862\\ [.92,.96]&.30939&.31289\\ [.96,.98]&.31257&.31734\\ [.98,1]&.31688&.31963\end{array}

Hence the second branch of (33) is also at most R⁡(q)R(q). Thus Pq​(a)≤R​(q)P_{q}(a)\leq R(q), and (32) gives

C⁡[a2​r​(a)+(1−a2)​r​(q−a)]≥C⁡(1−λ​R​(q))=T⁡(q).C\left[a^{2}r(a)+(1-a^{2})r(q-a)\right]\geq C(1-\lambda R(q))=T(q).

∎

Now we are ready to proceed to the proof of Theorem 3.

Proof of Theorem 3.

By sign changes and a permutation, assume that ω\omega is proper.

First suppose that 0≤τ≤d4:=dmax​(4)0\leq\tau\leq d_{4}:=d_{\max}(4). Theorem 1 gives

Kn​(ω)≥12+g⁡(τ)​τ,g⁡(t)=1−t2/4−t2​2.K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+g(\tau)\tau,\qquad g(t)=\frac{\sqrt{1-t^{2}/4}-t}{2\sqrt{2}}.

The function gg is decreasing, and the sharp profile equals 3/43/4 at d4d_{4}. Therefore

g⁡(τ)≥g⁡(d4)=34−122−2>0.056>136.g(\tau)\geq g(d_{4})=\frac{\frac{3}{4}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}}>0.056>\frac{1}{36}.

Now suppose that τ≥d4\tau\geq d_{4} and put

q=ω1+ω2=2−τ22,a=ω1,b=ω2=q−a.q=\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}},\qquad a=\omega_{1},\qquad b=\omega_{2}=q-a.

Then 0<q≤10<q\leq 1, q/2≤a≤qq/2\leq a\leq q, and ωi≤b\omega_{i}\leq b for every i≥2i\geq 2.

Conditioning on ϵ2,…,ϵn\epsilon_{2},\ldots,\epsilon_{n} and using

|a+x|+|−a+x|2=max⁡{a,|x|}\frac{|a+x|+|-a+x|}{2}=\max\{a,|x|\}

gives

Kn​(ω)≥a.K_{n}(\omega)\geq a. (37)

On the other hand, monotonicity of FF and (26) imply

Kn​(ω)\displaystyle K_{n}(\omega) ≥a2​F​(a−2)+∑i=2nωi2​F​(ωi−2)\displaystyle\geq a^{2}F(a^{-2})+\sum_{i=2}^{n}\omega_{i}^{2}F(\omega_{i}^{-2})
≥a2​F​(a−2)+(1−a2)​F​(b−2).\displaystyle\geq a^{2}F(a^{-2})+(1-a^{2})F(b^{-2}).

Using Lemma 6, we obtain

Kn​(ω)≥C⁡[a2​r​(a)+(1−a2)​r​(b)].K_{n}(\omega)\geq C\left[a^{2}r(a)+(1-a^{2})r(b)\right]. (38)

At b=0b=0 this follows by continuity. Combining (37), (38), and Lemma 7, and then using τ2=2−2​q\tau^{2}=2-\sqrt{2}q, gives

Kn​(ω)≥T⁡(q)=12+τ36.K_{n}(\omega)\geq T(q)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\tau}{36}.

∎

   Remark 2.

Theorem 1 shows that the optimal slope constant c∗c^{*} in the linear Khintchine inequality

Kn​(ω)≥12+c∗​τ​(ω)\displaystyle K_{n}(\omega)\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+c_{*}\tau(\omega) (39)

must satisfy c∗≤34−122−2<0.0561c_{*}\leq\frac{\frac{3}{4}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}}<0.0561, with equality attained by ω=(12,12,12,12,0,…,0)\omega=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0,\dots,0). The c=1/36>0.0277c=1/36>0.0277 we have obtained is of the same order of magnitude as c∗c_{*}. A natural conjecture is that the optimal constant in (39) is c∗=34−122−2c_{*}=\frac{\frac{3}{4}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}}. By Theorem 1, no counterexample ω\omega occurs with τ⁡(ω)≤dmax​(4)\tau(\omega)\leq d_{\max}(4). Figure 1 also implies the possibilities of its correctness, since all points are well above the line g⁡(τ)=12+c∗​τg(\tau)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+c_{*}\tau. Also, we believe M⁡(τ):=minω∈𝒞n​(τ)⁡Kn​(ω)M(\tau):=\min_{\omega\in\mathcal{C}_{n}(\tau)}K_{n}(\omega) is likely to be piecewise concave over intervals (0,dmax​(4)),(dmax​(4),dmax​(6))(0,d_{\max}(4)),(d_{\max}(4),d_{\max}(6)), (dmax​(6),dmax​(8)),…,(dmax​(2​k),dmax​(2​k+2)),…(d_{\max}(6),d_{\max}(8)),\dots,(d_{\max}(2k),d_{\max}(2k+2)),\dots, with minimizer at dmax​(2​k)d_{\max}(2k) in the proper chamber being (12​k,…,12​k⏟4​k2​ copies,0,…,0)(\underbrace{\frac{1}{2k},\dots,\frac{1}{2k}}_{4k^{2}\text{ copies}},0,\dots,0).

   Conjecture 2.

The optimal slope constant in (39) is c∗=34−122−2c_{*}=\frac{\frac{3}{4}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}}}.

2.3 Additional Properties

   Definition 2.

For σ>0\sigma>0, a proper unit vector ω∈ℝn\omega\in\mathbb{R}^{n} is called σ\sigma-regular if |ωi|≤σ|\omega_{i}|\leq\sigma for every 1≤i≤n1\leq i\leq n.

   Proposition 3 (Order chambers and regularity).

Let

𝕊+n−1=𝕊n−1∩[0,∞)n.\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_{+}=\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\cap[0,\infty)^{n}.

The coordinate orderings divide 𝕊+n−1\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_{+} into the n!n! closed chambers

ℭπ={ω∈𝕊+n−1:ωπ⁡(1)≥ωπ⁡(2)≥⋯≥ωπ⁡(n)},π∈Sn,\mathfrak{C}_{\pi}=\bigl\{\omega\in\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_{+}:\omega_{\pi(1)}\geq\omega_{\pi(2)}\geq\cdots\geq\omega_{\pi(n)}\bigr\},\qquad\pi\in S_{n},

whose relative interiors are pairwise disjoint. The proper chamber is ℭid\mathfrak{C}_{\mathrm{id}}. Equivalently, modulo independent sign changes, these are the n!n! coordinate-order chambers on 𝕊n−1\mathbb{S}^{n-1}; if signs are retained, the full signed decomposition consists of 2n​n!2^{n}n! chambers, up to their common boundaries.

Moreover, if n≥2n\geq 2, ω\omega is a proper unit vector, and τ=τ⁡(ω)\tau=\tau(\omega), then ω\omega is σ⁡(τ)\sigma(\tau)-regular, where d0=2−2d_{0}=\sqrt{2-\sqrt{2}} and

σ⁡(τ)={2−τ2+τ​4−τ22​2,0≤τ≤d0,2−τ22,d0≤τ<2.\sigma(\tau)=\begin{cases}\displaystyle\frac{2-\tau^{2}+\tau\sqrt{4-\tau^{2}}}{2\sqrt{2}},&0\leq\tau\leq d_{0},\\[8.53581pt] \displaystyle\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}},&d_{0}\leq\tau<\sqrt{2}.\end{cases} (40)

This is the smallest possible bound that is independent of the dimension. In particular, if ω(k)\omega^{(k)} is any sequence of proper unit vectors, possibly of varying dimensions, such that τ⁡(ω(k))→2\tau(\omega^{(k)})\to\sqrt{2}, then

‖ω(k)‖∞⟶0.\|\omega^{(k)}\|_{\infty}\longrightarrow 0.
Proof.

Every vector in 𝕊+n−1\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_{+} has at least one decreasing ordering of its coordinates, so the chambers ℭπ\mathfrak{C}_{\pi} cover 𝕊+n−1\mathbb{S}^{n-1}_{+}. If all coordinates are distinct, that ordering is unique; hence the relative interiors are disjoint. Permuting coordinates gives all n!n! chambers, and the identity ordering is precisely the proper chamber. Applying coordinatewise sign changes gives the stated decomposition of the whole sphere.

Now suppose that ω\omega is proper and set

q=ω1+ω2.q=\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}.

Since ω∗=(1/2,1/2,0,…,0)\omega^{*}=(1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2},0,\ldots,0) and both vectors have norm one,

τ2=‖ω−ω∗‖22=2−2​q,q=2−τ22.\tau^{2}=\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|_{2}^{2}=2-\sqrt{2}\,q,\qquad q=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}.

First suppose that q≥1q\geq 1, or equivalently 0≤τ≤d00\leq\tau\leq d_{0}. Because ∑i=3nωi2≥0\sum_{i=3}^{n}\omega_{i}^{2}\geq 0, we have ω12+ω22≤1\omega_{1}^{2}+\omega_{2}^{2}\leq 1. Therefore

(ω1−ω2)2=2​(ω12+ω22)−q2≤2−q2.(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})^{2}=2(\omega_{1}^{2}+\omega_{2}^{2})-q^{2}\leq 2-q^{2}.

Properness gives ω1≥ω2\omega_{1}\geq\omega_{2}, and consequently

ω1=q+(ω1−ω2)2≤q+2−q22=2−τ2+τ​4−τ22​2.\omega_{1}=\frac{q+(\omega_{1}-\omega_{2})}{2}\leq\frac{q+\sqrt{2-q^{2}}}{2}=\frac{2-\tau^{2}+\tau\sqrt{4-\tau^{2}}}{2\sqrt{2}}.

This bound is attained by the proper two-coordinate unit vector

(q+2−q22,q−2−q22,0,…,0).\left(\frac{q+\sqrt{2-q^{2}}}{2},\frac{q-\sqrt{2-q^{2}}}{2},0,\ldots,0\right).

Next suppose that 0<q≤10<q\leq 1, equivalently d0≤τ<2d_{0}\leq\tau<\sqrt{2}. Since ω2≥0\omega_{2}\geq 0,

ω1≤ω1+ω2=q=2−τ22.\omega_{1}\leq\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}=q=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}.

Together with 0≤ωi≤ω10\leq\omega_{i}\leq\omega_{1}, this proves the asserted σ⁡(τ)\sigma(\tau)-regularity on the whole interval.

It remains to prove that the second branch is dimension-independently sharp. Fix 0<q<10<q<1. For every sufficiently large integer mm, put

ym=q+m−(m−1)​q2m,xm=q−ym,y_{m}=\frac{q+\sqrt{m-(m-1)q^{2}}}{m},\qquad x_{m}=q-y_{m},

and define

ω(m)=(xm,ym,…,ym⏟m−1​ coordinates)∈ℝm.\omega^{(m)}=(x_{m},\underbrace{y_{m},\ldots,y_{m}}_{m-1\text{ coordinates}})\in\mathbb{R}^{m}.

For sufficiently large mm we have xm≥ym≥0x_{m}\geq y_{m}\geq 0. The defining quadratic equation for ymy_{m} gives

xm2+(m−1)​ym2=1,xm+ym=q.x_{m}^{2}+(m-1)y_{m}^{2}=1,\qquad x_{m}+y_{m}=q.

Thus ω(m)\omega^{(m)} is a proper unit vector with τ⁡(ω(m))=τ\tau(\omega^{(m)})=\tau. Moreover,

ym=1−q2m+O⁡(m−1),xm=q−1−q2m+O⁡(m−1),y_{m}=\frac{\sqrt{1-q^{2}}}{\sqrt{m}}+O(m^{-1}),\qquad x_{m}=q-\frac{\sqrt{1-q^{2}}}{\sqrt{m}}+O(m^{-1}),

so ‖ω(m)‖∞=xm→q\|\omega^{(m)}\|_{\infty}=x_{m}\to q. Hence no smaller dimension-free bound is possible on the second branch.

Finally, if τ⁡(ω(k))→2\tau(\omega^{(k)})\to\sqrt{2}, then eventually τ⁡(ω(k))≥d0\tau(\omega^{(k)})\geq d_{0}, and the second branch gives

‖ω(k)‖∞≤2−τ​(ω(k))22⟶0.\|\omega^{(k)}\|_{\infty}\leq\frac{2-\tau(\omega^{(k)})^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}\longrightarrow 0.

∎

3 Improved Bound on the Low-degree Fourier Weights of Boolean LTFs

Now we turn our attention to the low-degree Fourier weights of the Boolean Linear Threshold Functions (LTFs). Boolean functions are defined over the Hamming cube {−1,+1}n\{-1,+1\}^{n}, and acts as important tools in computational complexity and learning theory. To start with, we recall some basics of analysis of Boolean functions.

Let ℬn​(ℝ)={h:{−1,1}n→ℝ}\mathcal{B}_{n}(\mathbb{R})=\{h:\{-1,1\}^{n}\to\mathbb{R}\} be the set of boolean functions where n∈ℤ+n\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}. Endow {−1,1}n\{-1,1\}^{n} with probablity measure μn\mu_{n} such that μn​(x)=12n\mu_{n}(x)=\frac{1}{2^{n}} for every x∈{−1,1}nx\in\{-1,1\}^{n}. For every f,g∈ℬn​(ℝ)f,g\in\mathcal{B}_{n}(\mathbb{R}), define its inner product ⟨f,g⟩=∫f​g​d​μn\langle f,g\rangle=\int fgd\mu_{n}.

For every S⊆[n]:={1,2,…,n}S\subseteq[n]:=\{1,2,\dots,n\}, define xS:=∏i∈Sxix_{S}:=\prod_{i\in S}x_{i}. Then {xS}S⊆[n]\{x_{S}\}_{S\subseteq[n]} becomes an orthonormal basis for ℬn​(ℝ)\mathcal{B}_{n}(\mathbb{R}). Therefore, for every h∈ℬn​(ℝ)h\in\mathcal{B}_{n}(\mathbb{R}), we can write h=∑S⊆[n]h^​(S)​xSh=\sum_{S\subseteq[n]}\hat{h}(S)x_{S}, where h^​(S)=⟨h,xS⟩\hat{h}(S)=\langle h,x_{S}\rangle is called the Fourier coefficient of hh.

We say h∈ℬn​(ℝ)h\in\mathcal{B}_{n}(\mathbb{R}) is a linear threshold function (LTF) if hh can be represented as

h⁡(x)=sgn⁡(ω0+ω1​x1+ω2​x2+⋯+ωn​xn)h(x)=\operatorname{sgn}(\omega_{0}+\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+\dots+\omega_{n}x_{n})

for some constants ω0,ω1,…,ωn∈ℝ\omega_{0},\omega_{1},\dots,\omega_{n}\in\mathbb{R}, where sgn⁡(x):={1x≥0,−1x<0.\operatorname{sgn}(x):=\begin{cases}1&x\geq 0,\\ -1&x<0.\end{cases}

For every h∈ℬn​(ℝ)h\in\mathcal{B}_{n}(\mathbb{R}), we define

𝐖≤1​(h):=∑S⊆[n]|S|≤1h^​(S)2.\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}(h):=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}S\subseteq[n]\\ |S|\leq 1\end{subarray}}\hat{h}(S)^{2}.

We can see that 𝐖≤1​(h)=‖h≤1‖22\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}(h)=\|h^{\leq 1}\|_{2}^{2} with h≤1:=∑|S|≤1h^​(S)​xSh^{\leq 1}:=\sum_{|S|\leq 1}\hat{h}(S)x_{S}.

O’Donnell conjectured in [24][Conjecture 5.3] that

   Conjecture 3.

Let h:{−1,1}n→{−1,1}h:\{-1,1\}^{n}\to\{-1,1\} be an LTF. Then 𝐖≤1​(h)≥2π\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}(h)\geq\frac{2}{\pi}.

Throughout the years, there has been few progress towards Conjecture 3. Besides the classical result 𝐖≤1​[LTF]≥1/2\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[\mathrm{LTF}]\geq 1/2, the best result is the existence of a positive ϵ>0\epsilon>0 such that 𝐖≤1​[LTF]≥1/2+ϵ\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[\mathrm{LTF}]\geq 1/2+\epsilon stated in [6]. First we give some observations about this question.

   Observation 1.

For h⁡(x)=sgn⁡(ω0+ω1​x1+ω2​x2+⋯+ωn​xn)h(x)=\operatorname{sgn}(\omega_{0}+\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+\dots+\omega_{n}x_{n}), we may assume ω0=0\omega_{0}=0 and ω1​x1+ω2​x2+⋯+ωn​xn≠0\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+\dots+\omega_{n}x_{n}\neq 0 (which we call the tie-free property) without loss of generality for the following reason. Firstly, since ω0+ω1​x1+ω2​x2+⋯+ωn​xn\omega_{0}+\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+\dots+\omega_{n}x_{n} has only finite many values and sgn⁡(x)={1,x≥0,−1,x<0,\operatorname{sgn}(x)=\begin{cases}1,&x\geq 0,\\ -1,&x<0,\end{cases}, we can take ω0′=ω0+ϵ\omega_{0}^{\prime}=\omega_{0}+\epsilon for sufficiently small ϵ≥0\epsilon\geq 0 to make ω0′+ω1​x1+ω2​x2+⋯+ωn​xn≠0\omega_{0}^{\prime}+\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+\dots+\omega_{n}x_{n}\neq 0 for all xx, while h⁡(x)=sgn⁡(ω0′+ω1​x1+ω2​x2+⋯+ωn​xn)h(x)=\operatorname{sgn}(\omega_{0}^{\prime}+\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+\dots+\omega_{n}x_{n}) still holds. Let l⁡(x0,x)=ω0′​x0+ω1​x1+ω2​x2+⋯+ωn​xnl(x_{0},x)=\omega_{0}^{\prime}x_{0}+\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+\dots+\omega_{n}x_{n} and g⁡(x0,x)=sgn⁡(l⁡(x0,x))g(x_{0},x)=\operatorname{sgn}(l(x_{0},x)). Then

g^​({0})=𝔼⁡(g⁡(x0,x)​x0)=12​(𝔼​h​(x)+𝔼​h​(−x))=𝔼​h​(x)=h^​(∅).\hat{g}(\{0\})=\mathbb{E}(g(x_{0},x)x_{0})=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbb{E}h(x)+\mathbb{E}h(-x))=\mathbb{E}h(x)=\hat{h}(\emptyset).

Since h^​({i})=𝔼⁡(h⁡(x)​xi)=𝔼⁡(sgn⁡(ω0′​xi+ω1​x1+⋯+ωi−1​xi−1+ωi+ωi+1​xi+1+⋯+an​xn))\hat{h}(\{i\})=\mathbb{E}(h(x)x_{i})=\mathbb{E}(\operatorname{sgn}(\omega_{0}^{\prime}x_{i}+\omega_{1}x_{1}+\dots+\omega_{i-1}x_{i-1}+\omega_{i}+\omega_{i+1}x_{i+1}+\dots+a_{n}x_{n})), we know that changing the sign of any aj​(j≠i)a_{j}(j\neq i) does not change h⁡({i})h(\{i\}), therefore

g^​({i})=12​(g^​(1,⋅)​({i})+g^​(−1,⋅)​({i}))=h^​({i}).\hat{g}(\{i\})=\frac{1}{2}(\hat{g}(1,\cdot)(\{i\})+\hat{g}(-1,\cdot)(\{i\}))=\hat{h}(\{i\}).

Together with g^​(∅)=𝔼​g=0\hat{g}(\emptyset)=\mathbb{E}g=0 we have

𝐖≤1​(g)=𝐖≤1​(h).\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}(g)=\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}(h). (41)

Since gg has a representation sgn⁡(l)\operatorname{sgn}(l) such that ll has no constant term and l≠0l\neq 0 always holds, we can assume h⁡(x)=sgn⁡(ω1​x1+ω2​x2+⋯+ωn​xn)h(x)=\operatorname{sgn}(\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+\dots+\omega_{n}x_{n}) and the tie-free property.

   Observation 2.

Sign changes and coordinate permutations preserve 𝐖≤1​[h]\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[h]: they only change signs or permute the first-level Fourier coefficients. They also preserves the tie-free property. Hence we may assume that ω\omega is proper.

By the observations above, we may write

h⁡(x)=sgn⁡(∑i=1nωi​xi),‖ω‖2=1,ω1≥⋯≥ωn≥0.h(x)=\operatorname{sgn}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_{i}x_{i}\right),\qquad\|\omega\|_{2}=1,\qquad\omega_{1}\geq\cdots\geq\omega_{n}\geq 0.

Let a=(h^​(1),…,h^​(n))a=(\widehat{h}(1),\ldots,\widehat{h}(n)). Since the defining form is nonzero on the cube,

⟨a,ω⟩=𝔼⁡[h⁡(x)​∑i=1nωi​xi]=Kn​(ω).\langle a,\omega\rangle=\mathbb{E}\left[h(x)\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_{i}x_{i}\right]=K_{n}(\omega).

Orthogonal projection onto the span of ω\omega therefore yields the exact identity

𝐖≤1​[h]=Kn​(ω)2+‖a−Kn​(ω)​ω‖22≥Kn​(ω)2.\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[h]=K_{n}(\omega)^{2}+\|a-K_{n}(\omega)\omega\|_{2}^{2}\geq K_{n}(\omega)^{2}. (42)

We shall also need a stronger estimate close to the two-coordinate extremizer. Put

q=ω1+ω2,p=ω1−ω2,S=∑i=3nωi​xi.q=\omega_{1}+\omega_{2},\qquad p=\omega_{1}-\omega_{2},\qquad S=\sum_{i=3}^{n}\omega_{i}x_{i}.

For t≥0t\geq 0, define

b⁡(t)=𝔼​sgn⁡(S+t),c⁡(t)=𝔼⁡[(x3,…,xn)​sgn⁡(S+t)],b(t)=\mathbb{E}\operatorname{sgn}(S+t),\qquad c(t)=\mathbb{E}\bigl[(x_{3},\ldots,x_{n})\operatorname{sgn}(S+t)\bigr],

and set A=b⁡(q)A=b(q) and D=b⁡(p)D=b(p). By the symmetry of SS and the absence of ties,

A=ℙ⁡(|S|≤q),D=ℙ⁡(|S|≤p).A=\mathbb{P}(|S|\leq q),\qquad D=\mathbb{P}(|S|\leq p).
   Lemma 8.

Let

h⁡(x)=sgn⁡(∑i=1nωi​xi),‖ω‖2=1,ω1≥⋯≥ωn≥0,h(x)=\operatorname{sgn}\!\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_{i}x_{i}\right),\qquad\|\omega\|_{2}=1,\qquad\omega_{1}\geq\cdots\geq\omega_{n}\geq 0,

and suppose that

∑i=1nωi​xi≠0for every ​x∈{−1,1}n.\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_{i}x_{i}\neq 0\qquad\text{for every }x\in\{-1,1\}^{n}.

With q,p,S,A,Dq,p,S,A,D defined above, one has

W≤1​[h]≥A22+18.W^{\leq 1}[h]\geq\frac{A^{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{8}.
Proof.

Averaging over the four choices of (x1,x2)(x_{1},x_{2}) gives

𝐖≤1​[h]=A2+D22+14​‖c⁡(q)+c⁡(p)‖22.\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[h]=\frac{A^{2}+D^{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\|c(q)+c(p)\|_{2}^{2}. (43)

Indeed, the first two Chow parameters are

h^​({1})=𝔼​sgn⁡(ω1+ω2​x2+S)=ℙ⁡(|ω2​x2+S|≤ω1)=A+D2,\hat{h}(\{1\})=\mathbb{E}\operatorname{sgn}\left(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+S\right)=\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\omega_{2}x_{2}+S\right|\leq\omega_{1}\right)=\frac{A+D}{2},
h^​({2})=𝔼​sgn⁡(ω1​x1+ω2+S)=ℙ⁡(|ω1​x1+S|≤ω2)=A−D2,\hat{h}(\{2\})=\mathbb{E}\operatorname{sgn}\left(\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}+S\right)=\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\omega_{1}x_{1}+S\right|\leq\omega_{2}\right)=\frac{A-D}{2},

for i≥3i\geq 3,

h^​({i})=𝔼⁡[xi​sgn⁡(ω1​x1+ω2​x2+S)]=12​(𝔼⁡[xi​sgn⁡(q+S)]+𝔼⁡[xi​sgn⁡(p+S)]),\hat{h}(\{i\})=\mathbb{E}\left[x_{i}\operatorname{sgn}(\omega_{1}x_{1}+\omega_{2}x_{2}+S)\right]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbb{E}\left[x_{i}\operatorname{sgn}(q+S)\right]+\mathbb{E}\left[x_{i}\operatorname{sgn}(p+S)\right]\right),

so the remaining Chow vector is (c⁡(q)+c⁡(p))/2(c(q)+c(p))/2, and we get (43).

Each coordinate of c⁡(t)c(t) is nonnegative: for each i≥3i\geq 3, 𝔼⁡[xi​sgn⁡(S+t)]=𝔼⁡[sgn⁡(ωi+∑j≥3j≠iωj​xj+t​xi)]=ℙ⁡(‖∑j≥3j≠iωj​xj+t​xi‖≤ωi)≥0\mathbb{E}[x_{i}\operatorname{sgn}(S+t)]=\mathbb{E}[\operatorname{sgn}(\omega_{i}+\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}j\geq 3\\ j\neq i\end{subarray}}\omega_{j}x_{j}+tx_{i})]=\mathbb{P}(\|\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}j\geq 3\\ j\neq i\end{subarray}}\omega_{j}x_{j}+tx_{i}\|\leq\omega_{i})\geq 0. Hence

⟨c⁡(q),c⁡(p)⟩≥0.\langle c(q),c(p)\rangle\geq 0.

The balanced homogeneous LTF

(x0,x3,…,xn)⟼sgn⁡(p​x0+S)(x_{0},x_{3},\ldots,x_{n})\longmapsto\operatorname{sgn}(px_{0}+S)

has first-level Chow vector (D,c⁡(p))(D,c(p)). Applying the sharp Khintchine inequality and then Cauchy–Schwarz gives

12​p2+∑i=3nωi2≤𝔼​|p​x0+S|≤D2+‖c⁡(p)‖22​p2+∑i=3nωi2.\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{p^{2}+\sum_{i=3}^{n}\omega_{i}^{2}}\leq\mathbb{E}|px_{0}+S|\leq\sqrt{D^{2}+\|c(p)\|_{2}^{2}}\sqrt{p^{2}+\sum_{i=3}^{n}\omega_{i}^{2}}.

Consequently,

D2+‖c⁡(p)‖22≥12.D^{2}+\|c(p)\|_{2}^{2}\geq\frac{1}{2}.

Using this and the coordinatewise nonnegativity in (43), we obtain the useful self-contained estimate

𝐖≤1​[h]≥A22+18.\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[h]\geq\frac{A^{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{8}. (44)

∎

   Theorem 4 (Explicit low-degree Fourier weight of LTFs).

Let

𝐖≤1[LTF]=inf{𝐖≤1[f]:\displaystyle\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[\mathrm{LTF}]=\inf\bigl\{\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[f]:{} f​ is a Boolean linear threshold function\displaystyle f\text{ is a Boolean linear threshold function}
on a finite cube}.\displaystyle\text{on a finite cube}\bigr\}.

Then

𝐖≤1​[LTF]≥(12+27712000)2>0.53317.\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[\mathrm{LTF}]\geq\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{277}{12000}\right)^{2}>0.53317. (45)
Proof.

Constant LTFs have 𝐖≤1=1\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}=1, so let ff be nonconstant. Apply the homogenization above. By (41), it suffices to bound the first-level weight of the resulting balanced homogeneous LTF hh. Let ω\omega be its proper unit coefficient vector and put

τ=τ⁡(ω)=‖ω−ω∗‖2,τ1=8311000,L=(12+27712000)2.\tau=\tau(\omega)=\|\omega-\omega^{*}\|_{2},\qquad\tau_{1}=\frac{831}{1000},\qquad L=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{277}{12000}\right)^{2}.

We divide the proof into three ranges. First suppose that 0≤τ≤1/40\leq\tau\leq 1/4. Since τ2=2−2​q\tau^{2}=2-\sqrt{2}q,

q=2−τ22.q=\frac{2-\tau^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}.

Writing r2=𝔼​S2=∑i=3nωi2r^{2}=\mathbb{E}S^{2}=\sum_{i=3}^{n}\omega_{i}^{2}, we have

r2=1−ω12−ω22≤1−q22=τ2−τ44.r^{2}=1-\omega_{1}^{2}-\omega_{2}^{2}\leq 1-\frac{q^{2}}{2}=\tau^{2}-\frac{\tau^{4}}{4}.

Chebyshev’s inequality therefore gives

1−A=ℙ⁡(|S|≥q)≤r2q2≤τ2​(4−τ2)2​(2−τ2)2.1-A=\mathbb{P}(|S|\geq q)\leq\frac{r^{2}}{q^{2}}\leq\frac{\tau^{2}(4-\tau^{2})}{2(2-\tau^{2})^{2}}.

As a function of z=τ2z=\tau^{2}, the last expression is

z⁡(4−z)2​(2−z)2=2(2−z)2−12,\frac{z(4-z)}{2(2-z)^{2}}=\frac{2}{(2-z)^{2}}-\frac{1}{2},

which is increasing for 0≤z<20\leq z<2. At τ=1/4\tau=1/4 it equals

631922.\frac{63}{1922}.

Thus

A≥18591922.A\geq\frac{1859}{1922}.

Together with (44), this yields

𝐖≤1​[h]≥18+12​(18591922)2=21897013694084>0.59>L.\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[h]\geq\frac{1}{8}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1859}{1922}\right)^{2}=\frac{2189701}{3694084}>0.59>L.

Next suppose that 1/4≤τ≤τ11/4\leq\tau\leq\tau_{1}. Define

B⁡(τ)=12+(1−τ24−τ)​τ2​2.B(\tau)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau^{2}}{4}}-\tau\right)\frac{\tau}{2\sqrt{2}}.

Theorem 1 and (42) give

𝐖≤1​[h]≥Kn​(ω)2≥B​(τ)2.\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[h]\geq K_{n}(\omega)^{2}\geq B(\tau)^{2}. (46)

The function BB is concave on [0,2][0,\sqrt{2}]. Indeed, if u⁡(t)=1−t2/4u(t)=\sqrt{1-t^{2}/4}, then

d2d​t2​(t​u​(t)−t2)=t⁡(t2/2−3)4​u​(t)3−2<0(0≤t≤2).\frac{d^{2}}{dt^{2}}\bigl(tu(t)-t^{2}\bigr)=\frac{t(t^{2}/2-3)}{4u(t)^{3}}-2<0\qquad(0\leq t\leq\sqrt{2}).

Therefore the minimum of BB on [1/4,τ1][1/4,\tau_{1}] is attained at one of the endpoints. At τ=1/4\tau=1/4,

B⁡(1/4)=12+63−264​2>12+27712000.B(1/4)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\sqrt{63}-2}{64\sqrt{2}}>\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{277}{12000}.

At τ=τ1\tau=\tau_{1}, the elementary enclosures

1−τ12/4>0.90959,2<1.414214\sqrt{1-\tau_{1}^{2}/4}>0.90959,\qquad\sqrt{2}<1.414214

(which are verified by squaring) give

B⁡(τ1)−12\displaystyle B(\tau_{1})-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} =τ12​2​(1−τ124−τ1)\displaystyle=\frac{\tau_{1}}{2\sqrt{2}}\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{\tau_{1}^{2}}{4}}-\tau_{1}\right)
>0.831​(0.90959−0.831)2​(1.414214)\displaystyle>\frac{0.831(0.90959-0.831)}{2(1.414214)}
>0.0230899>27712000.\displaystyle>0.0230899>\frac{277}{12000}.

Thus (46) implies 𝐖≤1​[h]≥L\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[h]\geq L throughout the middle range.

Finally, suppose that τ≥τ1\tau\geq\tau_{1}. By Theorem 3 and (42),

𝐖≤1​[h]\displaystyle\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[h] ≥Kn​(ω)2≥(12+τ36)2≥(12+83136000)2=:L.\displaystyle\geq K_{n}(\omega)^{2}\geq\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\tau}{36}\right)^{2}\geq\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{831}{36000}\right)^{2}=:L.

Combining the three ranges with (41), and then taking the infimum over all Boolean LTFs, proves (45). Finally, 1/2>0.70710671/\sqrt{2}>0.7071067 gives L>0.53317L>0.53317. ∎

4 Conclusion

This paper establishes a refined quantitative Khintchine inequality for Rademacher sums, revealing a sharp phase transition at the four-dimensional endpoint dmax​(4)d_{\max}(4). For coefficient vectors near the extremal configuration, we identify precise four-coordinate minimizers; beyond this threshold, the lower bound exhibits a square-root growth characteristic of a six-dimensional branch. This geometric transition is supported by local minimizer analysis and directional-derivative criteria.

We further derive an improved linear Khintchine inequality with explicit constant 1/361/36, and combine it with the sharp four-coordinate profile and a conditioned Chow argument to obtain

𝐖≤1​[LTF]≥(12+27712000)2>0.53317,\mathbf{W}^{\leq 1}[\mathrm{LTF}]\geq\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{277}{12000}\right)^{2}>0.53317,

advancing progress toward O’Donnell’s 2/π2/\pi conjecture.

The phase-transition phenomenon uncovered here suggests that higher-dimensional extremal configurations play a central role in the stability landscape. Resolving the optimal linear Khintchine constant and closing the remaining gap to 2/π2/\pi remain important open directions.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the use of AI tools throughout the research process, including manuscript preparation and proof development. The AI systems employed are ChatGPT and DeepSeek, supported by harness platforms Cursor, Codex, SeedProver, and a system based on the open-source framework Conjecta11 1 https://github.com/conjecta/conjecta.

References

  • [1] I. Benjamini, G. Kalai, and O. Schramm (1999) Noise sensitivity of Boolean functions and applications to percolation. Publications Mathématiques de l’IHÉS 90, pp. 5–43. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
  • [2] R. B. Boppana and R. Holzman (2017) Tomaszewski’s problem on randomly signed sums: breaking the 3/83/8 barrier. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 24 (3), pp. P3.40. External Links: Document Cited by: A Two-regime Khintchine Inequality and an Improved Bound on the Degree-1 Fourier Weight for Linear Threshold Functions.
  • [3] G. Chasapis, H. König, and T. Tkocz (2021) From Ball’s cube slicing inequality to Khinchin-type inequalities for negative moments. Journal of Functional Analysis 281 (9), pp. 109185. External Links: Document Cited by: A Two-regime Khintchine Inequality and an Improved Bound on the Degree-1 Fourier Weight for Linear Threshold Functions.
  • [4] Á. Chávez and S. Sheng (2026) Stability of Khintchine-type inequalities via log-monotonicity. External Links: 2606.19313 Cited by: §1.
  • [5] A. De, I. Diakonikolas, V. Feldman, and R. A. Servedio (2014) Nearly optimal solutions for the Chow parameters problem and low-weight approximation of halfspaces. Journal of the ACM 61 (2), pp. 11:1–11:36. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
  • [6] A. De, I. Diakonikolas, and R. A. Servedio (2016) A robust khintchine inequality, and algorithms for computing optimal constants in fourier analysis and high-dimensional geometry. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 30 (2), pp. 1058–1094. Cited by: §1.1, §1.1, §1.1, §1, §3.
  • [7] A. Eskenazis, P. Nayar, and T. Tkocz (2024) Distributional stability of the Szarek and Ball inequalities. Mathematische Annalen 389 (2), pp. 1161–1185. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
  • [8] A. Eskenazis, P. Nayar, and T. Tkocz (2024) Resilience of cube slicing in ℓp\ell_{p}. Duke Mathematical Journal 173 (17), pp. 3377–3412. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §1.
  • [9] T. Figiel, P. Hitczenko, W. B. Johnson, G. Schechtman, and J. Zinn (1997) Extremal properties of Rademacher functions with applications to the Khintchine and Rosenthal inequalities. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 349 (3), pp. 997–1027. External Links: Document Cited by: A Two-regime Khintchine Inequality and an Improved Bound on the Degree-1 Fourier Weight for Linear Threshold Functions.
  • [10] C. Gotsman and N. Linial (1994) Spectral properties of threshold functions. Combinatorica 14 (1), pp. 35–50. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
  • [11] U. Haagerup (1981) The best constants in the Khintchine inequality. Studia Mathematica 70 (3), pp. 231–283. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §2.2.
  • [12] A. Havrilla, P. Nayar, and T. Tkocz (2023) Khinchin-type inequalities via Hadamard’s factorisation. International Mathematics Research Notices 2023 (3), pp. 2429–2445. External Links: Document Cited by: A Two-regime Khintchine Inequality and an Improved Bound on the Degree-1 Fourier Weight for Linear Threshold Functions.
  • [13] A. Havrilla and T. Tkocz (2021) Sharp Khinchin-type inequalities for symmetric discrete uniform random variables. Israel Journal of Mathematics 246 (1), pp. 281–297. External Links: Document Cited by: A Two-regime Khintchine Inequality and an Improved Bound on the Degree-1 Fourier Weight for Linear Threshold Functions.
  • [14] J. Jakimiuk, C. Tang, and T. Tkocz (2026) Khinchin inequalities for uniforms on spheres with a deficit. Mathematische Zeitschrift 313 (11). External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
  • [15] J. Jakimiuk (2026) Stability of Khintchine inequalities with optimal constants between the second and the pp-th moment for p≥3p\geq 3. Bernoulli 32 (3), pp. 2524–2542. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
  • [16] J. Kalarickal, D. Rotunno, S. Singh, and T. Tkocz (2025) Convexity properties of sections of 1-symmetric bodies and rademacher sums. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, Series B 12 (15), pp. 187–196. Cited by: §1, §2.1.1,   Lemma 3.
  • [17] N. Keller and O. Klein (2022) Proof of Tomaszewski’s conjecture on randomly signed sums. Advances in Mathematics 407, pp. 108558. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
  • [18] A. Khintchine (1923) Über dyadische Brüche. Mathematische Zeitschrift 18 (1), pp. 109–116. Cited by: §1.
  • [19] R. Latała and K. Oleszkiewicz (1994) On the best constant in the Khinchin–Kahane inequality. Studia Mathematica 109 (1), pp. 101–104. Cited by: §1.
  • [20] J. Melbourne and C. Roberto (2022) Quantitative form of Ball’s cube slicing in ℝn\mathbb{R}^{n} and equality cases in the min-entropy power inequality. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 150 (8), pp. 3595–3611. External Links: Document Cited by: A Two-regime Khintchine Inequality and an Improved Bound on the Degree-1 Fourier Weight for Linear Threshold Functions.
  • [21] P. Nayar and K. Oleszkiewicz (2012) Khintchine-type inequalities with optimal constants via ultra-log-concavity. Positivity 16 (2), pp. 359–371. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
  • [22] P. Nayar and T. Tkocz (2023) Extremal sections and projections of certain convex bodies: a survey. In Harmonic Analysis and Convexity, A. Koldobsky and A. Volberg (Eds.), pp. 343–390. External Links: Document Cited by: A Two-regime Khintchine Inequality and an Improved Bound on the Degree-1 Fourier Weight for Linear Threshold Functions.
  • [23] R. O’Donnell and R. A. Servedio (2011) The Chow parameters problem. SIAM Journal on Computing 40 (1), pp. 165–199. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
  • [24] R. O’Donnell (2014) Analysis of Boolean functions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. External Links: Document, ISBN 9781107038325 Cited by: §1, §3.
  • [25] S. J. Szarek (1976) On the best constant in the Khintchine inequality. Studia Mathematica 58, pp. 197–208. Cited by: §1.
  • [26] B. Tomaszewski (1987) A simple and elementary proof of the Khintchine inequality with the best constant. Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques 111 (1), pp. 103–109. Cited by: A Two-regime Khintchine Inequality and an Improved Bound on the Degree-1 Fourier Weight for Linear Threshold Functions.

26, 9, 2, 3, 13, 12, 22, 20