A Bayesian Proof of the Bernoulli Theorem

Ilias Zadik; Jingbo Liu

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 23 references

A Bayesian Proof of the Bernoulli Theorem

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For every prescribed law of the index, Bernoulli-process suprema are characterized, up to universal constants, by an information-theoretic rate–distortion integral.

desk verdict A genuinely new and largely correct information-theoretic route to the Bernoulli theorem; the imported type-lifting identity is the main gap, but it does not threaten the independent set-level proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11031 v2 pith:XLLKPDVH submitted 2026-08-11 math.PR cs.ITmath.ITmath.STstat.TH

Jingbo Liu , Ilias Zadik This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PRcs.ITmath.ITmath.STstat.TH MSC 60G1546B0962F1594A3494A15

keywords BernoulliprocessesRademachersupremarate-distortiontheoryCauchychannelBayesianestimationmajorizingmeasuresinformation-estimationinequalityfixed-lawcharacterization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to prove that the maximum of a Bernoulli process over a finite set is captured by an information-theoretic quantity. For any prescribed law $\mu$ of the index, the largest expected value $B(\mu)$ attainable by coupling that index with the independent $\pm 1$ variables is, up to universal constants, the area under a rate–distortion curve $\int_0^\infty RD_\mu(t)\,dt$, and also equals a certain $\ell^1$-plus-Gaussian decomposition cost $\delta_T(\mu)$. This is a distributional, fixed-law strengthening of the Bernoulli theorem, which previously was known only in a worst-case form. The proof proceeds by translating lower bounds into Bayesian-estimation limits in a Cauchy additive channel, then comparing the resulting capped Bayes risk with the rate–distortion integral. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a new proof of a long-standing theorem and, for the first time for a non-Gaussian process, a characterization that holds for each individual index law.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Cauchy additive channel $Y_t=X+tZ$, with $Z$ having independent standard Cauchy coordinates, paired with the capped quadratic distortion $\varphi_t(x,x')=\sum_{i=1}^n (1\wedge |x_i-x'_i|^2/t^2)$. The load-bearing analytic input is a Cauchy information–estimation inequality: the mutual information of the input and the Cauchy observation is controlled by an integral of the posterior-replica capped risk, playing the role that the Gaussian I–MMSE identity plays for Gaussian channels. An interpolation potential whose endpoint is the Bernoulli width converts the width into an area under a Bayes-risk curve; a posterior-replica coupling turns that risk into the rate–distortion functional; and a multiscale distributional decomposition converts the rate–distortion integral into the $\ell^1$-plus-Gaussian form. Type lifting, comparing a law with the uniform laws on exact empirical-distribution fibers, supplies the return comparison from the set-level bound back to each prescribed-law $B(\mu)$.

What would settle it

A concrete check on the riskiest step: take a finite $T$ and a non-rational law $\mu$ (for example, weights proportional to $\sqrt{2}$ on three points), compute $B(\mu)$ by direct coupling optimization, compute the limit $\lim_{N\to\infty} b(\mathcal{T}_N(\mu))/N$ for the exact type classes $\mathcal{T}_N(\mu)$, and compare; a mismatch would contradict Eq. (51). For the theorem itself, one could compute the ratio of $B(\mu)$ to $\int_0^\infty RD_\mu(t)\,dt$ on a sequence of sets with growing dimension, such as the vertices of a cube or the $\ell^1$ ball; if that ratio tends to $0$ or $\infty$, the universal-constant claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 2.1: for every finite $T\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and every probability measure $\mu$ on $T$, one has $B(\mu)\asymp \int_0^\infty RD_\mu(t)\,dt\asymp \delta_T(\mu)$, with universal constants. Here $B(\mu)$ is the supremum of $\mathbb{E}\langle\varepsilon,X\rangle$ over couplings of $X\sim\mu$ with a Rademacher vector $\varepsilon$; $RD_\mu(t)$ is the infimum, over couplings of $\mu$ with itself, of mutual information plus the capped quadratic distortion $\sum_i (1\wedge |x_i-x'_i|^2/t^2)$; and $\delta_T(\mu)$ is the infimum, over decompositions of the identity map $a:T\to\mathbb{R}^n$, of the expected $\ell^1$ cost of $a$ plus the Gaussian functional of the residual law $(\mathrm{id}_T-a)_\#\mu$. Supremizing over $\mu$ recovers the classical Bernoulli theorem $b(T)\asymp R(T)\asymp \Lambda(T)$, where $R$ is the set-level rate–distortion area and $\Lambda$ is the $\ell^1$-plus-Gaussian width. On the paper's own terms, this is the first prescribed-law characterization of suprema of a Bernoulli process.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise that is not proved in this manuscript is the type-lifting identity: for a given index law $\mu$, the prescribed-law value $B(\mu)$ is assumed equal to the limit, as $N\to\infty$, of the normalized Bernoulli width of the set of $N$-tuples whose empirical distribution is exactly $\mu$; the paper cites this from existing work (Lemma 6.1, Eq. 51), and if that identity failed, the lower-bound direction of the main theorem would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If correct, the distributional theorem gives a previously unavailable fixed-law characterization: for any prescribed index law, the largest attainable Bernoulli-process expectation is, up to constants, an explicit rate–distortion integral.
The proof yields a new, information-theoretic route to the Bernoulli theorem, bypassing the original coordinate-dropping and adaptive-decomposition machinery and replacing it with Bayesian estimation in a Cauchy channel.
The set-level equivalence $b(T)\asymp R(T)\asymp\Lambda(T)$ means Bernoulli width can be bounded from below by computable rate–distortion areas, giving a new sufficient condition for lower bounds in empirical-process theory.
The Cauchy information–estimation inequality fills the role of the Gaussian I–MMSE identity, so the Gaussian/Bernoulli dictionary used here becomes a template for treating other additive-noise settings.
Because the two-sided comparison holds per law, any upper bound on the rate–distortion integral for a given $\mu$ immediately gives an upper bound on $B(\mu)$, and any lower bound gives a lower bound on $b(T)$ after supremizing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension the authors leave implicit is that the same Bayesian scheme should work for other symmetric stable noises whose kernels have similar harmonic and stability properties, yielding fixed-law characterizations for other subexponential processes.
The unproved type-lifting identity cited from prior work could in principle be derived within this framework; if it can be, the distributional theorem becomes self-contained and the assumption identified below can be dropped.
The rate–distortion formulation suggests an algorithmic route: for structured sets $T$, estimating $RD_\mu(t)$ by alternating optimization over couplings may be easier than computing Bernoulli width directly, and comparing the two for moderate dimension would provide a testable validation of the constant-scale equivalence.
Because $B(\mu)$ gives per-law information, the theorem may transfer the fixed-law Gaussian results to sums of independent signs, potentially feeding back into symmetrization bounds for empirical processes with prescribed weight distributions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here is my read of arXiv:2608.11031. It deserves a serious referee. The paper does two real things: it gives a new route to the Bednorz–Latała Bernoulli theorem using a Cauchy additive channel and a new Cauchy information–estimation inequality, and it proves a distributional strengthening (Theorem 2.1) that was previously available only for Gaussian processes. For a field that has lived with BL's heavy machinery, a cleaner proof plus a fixed-law characterization is a meaningful step, not a repackaging.

The skeleton is coherent. Sections 3–4 connect Bernoulli width, cMMSE, and rate–distortion; Section 5 performs the ℓ1-plus-Gaussian decomposition; Section 6 closes the loop. The Cauchy channel is the right analogue: the Poisson kernel is harmonic, and the scalar information–estimation inequality in Appendix A is a genuine calculation. The differentiation-under-the-integral step is compressed but correct in substance. The posterior-replica coupling and the kernel argument in Lemma A.3 are solid. I checked the chaining decomposition in Lemma 5.3 and the telescoping argument; it works. The proof of Theorem 2.3 avoids the BL route and uses only the Gaussian MMT as input.

Soft spots, in proportion. The main one is Eq. (51) in Lemma 6.1: the identity B(μ)=lim_N (1/N)b(T_N(μ)) is imported from [Liu25] and unpublished notes of van Handel, with no derivation in the text. It is load-bearing for the distributional lower bound ∫RD_μ ≲ B(μ). A referee should verify that this identity is proved in the cited sources without using the Bernoulli theorem. But the stress-test worry that this kills the independent proof of the Bernoulli theorem is wrong: the set-level proof uses Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 2.3 and never invokes Eq. (51). The identity is a fixed-law issue, not a set-level one.

Two smaller points. Lemma 5.2 invokes Sion's minimax theorem on the noncompact domain (R^n)^T; coercivity likely allows truncation, but as written it is a gap. The rational-to-general approximation in Lemma 6.1 is routine, and the stated continuity bounds are fine.

Bottom line: the paper is for people working on empirical processes, generic chaining, and minimax estimation. It is not a desk reject. Send it to a competent referee with instructions to check Eq. (51) and its provenance. If that identity is clean, Theorem 2.1 is a major result. I would bring it to reading group and would cite the distributional theorem if I worked in that area.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims a new information-theoretic proof of the Bernoulli theorem of Bednorz and Latała. For a finite set T and a law μ on T, it defines a rate–distortion functional RD_μ(t), a Cauchy-channel Bayes risk cMMSE_μ(t), and a decomposition functional δ_T(μ). Theorem 2.1 asserts that B(μ), the largest expected value of the Bernoulli process over couplings of the index with law μ, is, up to universal constants, equal to the integrated rate–distortion value ∫ RD_μ(t) dt and to δ_T(μ); at the set level, this gives b(T) ≍ R(T) ≍ Λ(T). The proof is organized as a cycle: Section 3 shows Bernoulli width dominates the integrated Cauchy cMMSE; Section 4, using a Cauchy information–estimation inequality proved in Appendix A, shows the cMMSE integral dominates the rate–distortion integral; Section 5 proves that the rate–distortion integral dominates δ_T(μ) and, via a minimax argument, that Λ(T) is dominated by R(T); Section 6 uses a type-lifting identity to obtain the missing fixed-law lower bound ∫ RD_μ ≲ B(μ) and a Gaussianization argument for the reverse bound. The paper also claims that this gives the first fixed-law, distributional characterization of Bernoulli-process suprema.

Significance. If the proof is correct, this is a significant result. It would provide a new proof of the Bednorz–Latała theorem that avoids their chaining machinery, introduce an information-theoretic functional for Bernoulli processes analogous to the Gaussian majorizing-measure functional, and yield a genuine distributional strengthening that existing Bernoulli proofs do not appear to give. The paper is detailed and internally consistent in its main comparisons: the Cauchy-area argument in §3, the information–estimation inequality of Appendix A, the rate–distortion comparison in §4, and the minimax step in §5 are all carefully developed with explicit constants. The central weakness is the unproved type-lifting identity (Eq. 51), which is load-bearing for the fixed-law lower bound.

major comments (2)

[§6, Lemma 6.1, Eq. (51)] The type-lifting identity B(μ) = lim_{N→∞} (1/N) b(T_N(μ)) is stated without proof and is load-bearing for the left-to-right direction of Theorem 2.1. Lemma 6.1 first derives, for compatible N, the bound ∫_0^∞ RD_μ(t) dt ≤ 80π b(T_N(μ))/N + o(1) using Theorem 2.2 and an entropy-loss estimate, and then converts this into the required fixed-law lower bound ∫ RD_μ ≲ B(μ) precisely through Eq. (51). If Eq. (51) were false, or if its proof in the cited works used the Bernoulli theorem as an input, the claimed independent proof would collapse. The manuscript cites [Liu25, Lemma 5] and [vH25, Proposition 3.1] but gives no derivation. The concern is made concrete by the acknowledgment that van Handel's notes yield the rate–distortion characterization only 'together with the Bernoulli theorem as input.' The authors state that the present proof instead uses Eq. (18) to obtain the rate–distortion characterization, but Eq. (51) is a separate identity and the text does not show that it follows from Eq. (18) or that its proof in the cited references avoids the Bernoulli theorem. The authors must either prove Eq. (51) in the present paper or provide a reference with a complete proof that does not invoke the Bernoulli theorem; without this, the fixed-law lower bound, and with it the distributional strengthening and the independent-proof claim, is not established.
[§2.4 and §6, proof of Lemma 6.1] The proof structure indicated in §2.4 says that type lifting gives ∫_0^∞ RD_μ(t) dt ≲ B(μ), but the actual proof in §6 imports the identity (51) from prior work rather than deriving it. This is not a cosmetic omission: the entropy-loss correction in Lemma 6.1 is quantitatively small (O(log N)), but the passage from b(T_N(μ)) to B(μ) is an exact asymptotic identity that must be justified. If Eq. (51) is unavailable or depends on the very theorem being proved, then the lower bound in Theorem 2.1 is unsupported and the set-level lower bound b(T) ≳ Λ(T) also loses its noncircular foundation through the chain R(T) ≲ b(T) in Theorem 2.2.

minor comments (3)

[Throughout] The typeset text contains repeated OCR-like artifacts, most notably the string '/suppress la' inside 'Bednorz and Lata/suppress la' and in several later occurrences of the name; these should be cleaned up.
[§6, Lemma 6.1, rational approximation] The Lipschitz bound for RD with respect to total-variation distance is stated without proof and is plausible, but a short derivation would help the reader: the factor 2d min{n, diam_2(T)^2/t^2} follows from a maximal coupling and the boundedness of the capped quadratic distortion.
[§5.3, Lemma 5.1] In the comparison of the dyadic sum with the integral, the monotonicity of RD_μ(t) is used; a sentence explicitly noting that the infimum in (9) is nonincreasing in t would make the step easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No demonstrated circularity: the Bernoulli-theorem proof is self-contained, with Eq. (51) an unproved imported type-lifting identity that is a completeness risk for the fixed-law lower bound, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not exhibit a circular reduction. Sections 3-4 prove Theorem 2.2 (b(T) >= c integral cMMSE >= c integral RD) from a Cauchy-channel area theorem, a leave-one-coordinate-out estimator, and a Cauchy information-estimation inequality proved in Appendix A; none of these steps imports the Bednorz-Latala theorem as an input. Section 5 proves Theorem 2.3 (R(T) >= c Lambda(T)) from the rate-distortion decomposition lemma (Lemma 5.1), a minimax lemma, and Talagrand's Gaussian majorizing-measure theorem; again the Bernoulli theorem is not an input. The reverse direction of Theorem 2.1 is an elementary Gaussianization step combined with Lemma 5.1. The only forward-direction step that relies on an imported result is Lemma 6.1's use of the type-lifting identity B(mu) = lim_N N^{-1} b(T_N(mu)) at Eq. (51), cited to [Liu25, Lemma 5] and [vH25, Prop. 3.1] and not proved in this manuscript. This is a genuine self-containedness and completeness gap for the fixed-law lower bound: if Eq. (51) or its proof in the cited works depended on the Bernoulli theorem, then that direction would be circular. But the manuscript does not state or exhibit such a dependency; it explicitly says it uses Eq. (18) rather than the 'together with the Bernoulli theorem as input' route to obtain the rate-distortion characterization. The set-level Bernoulli theorem itself is obtained from Theorem 2.2 plus Theorem 2.3 without Eq. (51). On the evidence in the paper, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard theorems and one imported self-cited identity. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical or ontological entities are introduced. The type lifting identity is the only load-bearing external result that should be verified.

assumptions (5)

standard math Type lifting identity: B(mu) = lim_{N to infinity} (1/N) b(T_N(mu)) for exact type classes.
Invoked in Lemma 6.1 to reduce prescribed-law Bernoulli supremum to Bernoulli widths of exact type classes. Cited from Liu25 Lemma 5 and vH25 Proposition 3.1; not proved in this paper. Load-bearing for the lower bound integral of RD_mu(t) dt is less than or similar to B(mu).
standard math Gaussian majorizing measure theorem: gamma_2(T, ||.||_2) is asymptotically equal to W(T).
Used in the proof of Theorem 2.3 in Section 5.2 to convert Gaussian width control into gamma_2 control for the decomposition set U. Classical result of Fernique and Talagrand.
standard math Sion's minimax theorem.
Used in Lemma 5.2 to swap inf over a and sup over mu for J(a,mu). Requires J convex in a and concave and upper semicontinuous in mu; the concavity depends on mixtures of couplings preserving the Gaussian marginal.
standard math Cauchy stability: t1 Z1 + (t2 - t1) Z2 has the same distribution as t2 Z.
Used in Lemma A.1 and Lemma A.3 to show data-processing monotonicity of mutual information and to compare mixed-scale observations.
standard math Standard information-theoretic facts: chain rule, data processing, Nishimori identity, and Gaussian mean-information inequality.
Used throughout the paper; all are classical and assumed without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Bayesian Proof of the Bernoulli Theorem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XLLKPDVH

@misc{pith2026260811031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Bayesian Proof of the Bernoulli Theorem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XLLKPDVH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11031}
}

read the original abstract

We give a new proof of the Bernoulli theorem, conjectured by Talagrand and proved in the seminal work of Bednorz and Lata{\l}a. Our approach is based on information-theoretic ideas: lower bounds on the supremum of a Bernoulli process are translated to the fundamental limits of Bayesian estimation in a Cauchy additive channel. This leads to a new information-theoretic functional that characterizes Bernoulli-process suprema and plays a role analogous to Fernique's majorizing-measure functional for Gaussian processes. The same viewpoint yields a distributional strengthening: for any prescribed law of the index, we characterize the largest expected value attainable over all couplings of that index with the Bernoulli process. This extends to Bernoulli processes a phenomenon previously understood for Gaussian processes through the work of Fernique and Talagrand.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Theory of reproducing kernels

Nachman Aronszajn. Theory of reproducing kernels. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 68(3):337--404, 1950

1950
[2]

Majorizing measures for the optimizer

Sander Borst, Daniel Dadush, Neil Olver, and Makrand Sinha. Majorizing measures for the optimizer. In 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2021) , volume 185 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs) , pages 73:1--73:20. Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f \"u r Informatik, 2021

2021
[3]

On the boundedness of Bernoulli processes

Witold Bednorz and Rafa Lata a. On the boundedness of Bernoulli processes. Annals of Mathematics , 180(3):1167--1203, 2014

2014
[4]

Equivalent comparisons of experiments

David Blackwell. Equivalent comparisons of experiments. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 24(2):265--272, 1953

1953
[5]

Lectures on Fourier integrals , volume 42

Salomon Bochner. Lectures on Fourier integrals , volume 42. Princeton University Press, 1959

1959
[6]

Majorizing measures, codes, and information

Yifeng Chu and Maxim Raginsky. Majorizing measures, codes, and information. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 2026

2026
[7]

Regularit \'e des trajectoires des fonctions al \'e atoires gaussiennes

Xavier Fernique. Regularit \'e des trajectoires des fonctions al \'e atoires gaussiennes. \'E cole d' \'E t \'e de Probabilit \'e s de Saint-Flour IV--1974 , 480:1--96, 1975

1974
[8]

\'E valuations de certaines fonctionnelles associ \'e es \`a des fonctions al \'e atoires gaussiennes

Xavier Fernique. \'E valuations de certaines fonctionnelles associ \'e es \`a des fonctions al \'e atoires gaussiennes. Probability and Mathematical Statistics , 2(1):1--29, 1981

1981

Show all 23 references

[9]

Mutual information and minimum mean-square error in Gaussian channels

Dongning Guo, Shlomo Shamai, and Sergio Verd \'u . Mutual information and minimum mean-square error in Gaussian channels. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 51(4):1261--1282, 2005

2005
[10]

Simple and sharp generalization bounds via lifting

Jingbo Liu. Simple and sharp generalization bounds via lifting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18682 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[11]

Short proof of the Bernoulli conjecture

OpenAI internal model . Short proof of the Bernoulli conjecture. https://yangpliu.github.io/repo/bernoulli/paper.pdf, 2026

2026
[12]

Gaussian width of convex sets via integral decompositions, projections, and the distribution of intrinsic volumes

Reese Pathak and Nikita Zhivotovskiy. Gaussian width of convex sets via integral decompositions, projections, and the distribution of intrinsic volumes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02714 , 2026

2026 arXiv
[13]

Regularity of Gaussian processes

Michel Talagrand. Regularity of Gaussian processes. Acta Mathematica , 159:99--149, 1987

1987
[14]

A simple proof of the majorizing measure theorem

Michel Talagrand. A simple proof of the majorizing measure theorem. Geometric and Functional Analysis , 2(1):118--125, 1992

1992
[15]

Constructions of majorizing measures, Bernoulli processes and cotype

Michel Talagrand. Constructions of majorizing measures, Bernoulli processes and cotype. Geometric and Functional Analysis , 4:660--717, 1994

1994
[16]

Majorizing measures: The generic chaining

Michel Talagrand. Majorizing measures: The generic chaining. The Annals of Probability , 24(3):1049--1103, 1996

1996
[17]

Upper and Lower Bounds for Stochastic Processes: Decomposition Theorems , volume 60 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete

Michel Talagrand. Upper and Lower Bounds for Stochastic Processes: Decomposition Theorems , volume 60 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge . Springer, Cham, second edition, 2021

2021
[18]

Chaining: A long story

Michel Talagrand. Chaining: A long story. Abel Prize Lecture, May 2024

2024
[19]

The Cauchy distribution in information theory

Sergio Verd \'u . The Cauchy distribution in information theory. Entropy , 25(2):346, 2023

2023
[20]

Chaining, interpolation and convexity II : The contraction principle

Ramon van Handel. Chaining, interpolation and convexity II : The contraction principle. The Annals of Probability , 46(3):1764--1805, 2018

2018
[21]

On the subgaussian comparison theorem

Ramon van Handel. On the subgaussian comparison theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18588 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[22]

Functional properties of minimum mean-square error and mutual information

Yihong Wu and Sergio Verd \'u . Functional properties of minimum mean-square error and mutual information. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 58(3):1289--1301, 2011

2011
[23]

A Bayesian proof and interpretation of Talagrand 's majorizing measure theorem

Ilias Zadik. A Bayesian proof and interpretation of Talagrand 's majorizing measure theorem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.30321, 2026

2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Theory of reproducing kernels

Nachman Aronszajn. Theory of reproducing kernels. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 68(3):337--404, 1950

1950

[2] [2]

Majorizing measures for the optimizer

Sander Borst, Daniel Dadush, Neil Olver, and Makrand Sinha. Majorizing measures for the optimizer. In 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2021) , volume 185 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs) , pages 73:1--73:20. Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f \"u r Informatik, 2021

2021

[3] [3]

On the boundedness of Bernoulli processes

Witold Bednorz and Rafa Lata a. On the boundedness of Bernoulli processes. Annals of Mathematics , 180(3):1167--1203, 2014

2014

[4] [4]

Equivalent comparisons of experiments

David Blackwell. Equivalent comparisons of experiments. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 24(2):265--272, 1953

1953

[5] [5]

Lectures on Fourier integrals , volume 42

Salomon Bochner. Lectures on Fourier integrals , volume 42. Princeton University Press, 1959

1959

[6] [6]

Majorizing measures, codes, and information

Yifeng Chu and Maxim Raginsky. Majorizing measures, codes, and information. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 2026

2026

[7] [7]

Regularit \'e des trajectoires des fonctions al \'e atoires gaussiennes

Xavier Fernique. Regularit \'e des trajectoires des fonctions al \'e atoires gaussiennes. \'E cole d' \'E t \'e de Probabilit \'e s de Saint-Flour IV--1974 , 480:1--96, 1975

1974

[8] [8]

\'E valuations de certaines fonctionnelles associ \'e es \`a des fonctions al \'e atoires gaussiennes

Xavier Fernique. \'E valuations de certaines fonctionnelles associ \'e es \`a des fonctions al \'e atoires gaussiennes. Probability and Mathematical Statistics , 2(1):1--29, 1981

1981