Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 49 references

Sharp Anti-Concentration Inequalities for Extremum Statistics via Copulas

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves sharp two-sided bounds on the probability that a maximum of d identically distributed variables falls in a short interval, and shows that convexity of the copula's diagonal section converts a linear-in-d worst case into…

desk verdict A correct and genuinely useful paper: sharp worst-case anti-concentration for maxima, plus a new convex-diagonal copula condition that yields dimension-free bounds; deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07699 v2 pith:XA52PFDC submitted 2025-02-11 math.ST math.PRstat.TH

Matias D. Cattaneo , Ricardo P. Masini , William G. Underwood This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STmath.PRstat.TH MSC 60E1562H0562G32
keywords anti-concentrationconcentrationfunctionmaximumstatisticcopuladiagonalsectionconvexhigh-dimensionalprobabilityextremevaluetheory
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 asks how likely it is that the maximum of $d$ identically distributed real-valued random variables falls in a small window $(x,x+\varepsilon]$, without assuming independence or a known joint law. Its first theorem gives sharp worst-case bounds over all copulas: the probability can be as large as $d(F(x+\varepsilon)-F(x)) \wedge F(x+\varepsilon)$, so linear-in-dimension concentration is unavoidable in full generality. The second theorem introduces a new structural condition, convexity of the copula's diagonal section, under which the worst case drops to $(F(x+\varepsilon)-F(x))\min(1/(1-F(x)),d)$, a bound that is attained and therefore improvable only by stronger assumptions. From this the paper derives dimension-independent or poly-logarithmic anti-concentration inequalities for Gaussian, Weibull, reverse Gumbel, Pareto, and gamma margins, and applies them to high-dimensional testing and Gaussian mixture approximations. A sympathetic reader would care because it replaces joint Gaussianity, a standard but restrictive assumption, with a mild and checkable dependence condition that works for arbitrary common marginals.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the diagonal section of the copula, $\Delta(u)=C(u,\dots,u)$, together with the class of diagonally convex copulas (Definition 3), meaning $\Delta$ is convex on $[0,1]$. Because the maximum's distribution function is $\Delta\circ F$, the concentration probability is exactly an increment of $\Delta$, so extremizing it reduces to a one-dimensional optimization over copula diagonals. Lemma 1 characterizes diagonals by $\Delta(1)=1$, $\Delta(u)\le u$, and a Lipschitz slope bound of $d$; Theorem 1 solves the unconstrained extremization subject to those conditions, and Theorem 2 adds convexity, which forces $\Delta$ to lie below the chord from $(u,\Delta(u))$ to $(1,1)$ and yields the factor $1/(1-F(x))$.

What would settle it

Optimize $\Delta(u+\delta)-\Delta(u)$ over all convex functions $\Delta:[0,1]\to[0,1]$ with $\Delta(1)=1$ and $0\le \Delta'\le d$, the exact constraints from Lemma 1; the paper's proof shows the maximizing diagonal is piecewise linear with at most two breakpoints, so this is a finite linear program, and any convex $\Delta$ whose maximal increment exceeds $\delta\min(1/(1-u),d)$ would refute Theorem 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that pointwise anti-concentration of the maximum statistic is governed entirely, through the copula decomposition, by the diagonal section $\Delta(u)=C(u,\dots,u)$ of the dependence structure. Theorem 1 states exactly, for any common marginal law $F$ and any copula, that the worst-case probability is $d(F(x+\varepsilon)-F(x)) \wedge F(x+\varepsilon)$ and the best-case probability is $0\vee(1-F(x)-d(1-F(x+\varepsilon)))$, with copulas attaining both, so the bounds cannot be improved without extra structure. Theorem 2 states that under a new condition, convexity of the diagonal section, the worst case improves to $(F(x+\varepsilon)-F(x))\min(1/(1-F(x)),d)$, and the paper constructs a copula attaining it. Because the proof only uses convexity of this one-dimensional curve, the result applies to any common marginal law and any copula whose diagonal is convex; the paper verifies the condition for the independence, Fréchet–Hoeffding, Gaussian, Clayton, Frank, Gumbel–Hougaard, and mixture copulas, and derives explicit dimension-dependent bounds for several marginals. The paper's application shows these bounds sharpen distributional approximations in high-dimensional inference, including a Gaussian mixture factor-model example where the dimension and small-variance terms separate additively.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the curve describing the dependence among the variables, the copula's diagonal section, is convex; if it is not, only the weaker linear-in-dimension bound is guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For arbitrary dependence, no anti-concentration bound can be uniformly sublinear in the dimension: the worst-case probability is $d(F(x+\varepsilon)-F(x))\wedge F(x+\varepsilon)$, so local concentration can be linear in $d$.
  • For diagonally convex copulas with Gaussian margins, the bound is $(\varepsilon/\sigma)(\sqrt{2\log d}+1)$, recovering the classical Gaussian anti-concentration inequality without requiring joint Gaussianity and with a slightly better constant.
  • For Weibull margins with shape $\alpha\ge 1$, the bound is $(\varepsilon\alpha/\lambda)(\log d+1)^{(\alpha-1)/\alpha}$; for Pareto and gamma margins with $\alpha\ge 1$, the bounds $\alpha\varepsilon/\lambda$ and $\varepsilon/\lambda$ are dimension-independent.
  • In coupling-based high-dimensional inference, the pointwise bound at the quantile $q_\alpha$ controls the error of maximum-statistic tests, and the Gaussian mixture example separates the $\sqrt{\log d}$ term from the small-variance term rather than multiplying them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves open non-identical margins; a natural extension would be a multivariate analogue of the convex-diagonal condition controlling the probability of landing near the perimeter of a high-dimensional rectangle, which the authors note reduces to a generalized maximum problem.
  • Since only the diagonal enters the bound, practitioners could certify diagonal convexity rather than estimate the full copula; an empirical check of convexity of $\widehat\Delta(u)$ from data would indicate whether the favorable anti-concentration regime applies.
  • The mixing example suggests a general recipe: for mixture laws whose components have very different scales, conditioning on the component and applying the diagonal bound componentwise can yield additive rather than multiplicative dimension and scale factors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops sharp pointwise anti-concentration bounds for the maximum of d identically distributed real-valued random variables. Using the fact that the law of the maximum depends on the joint distribution only through the copula diagonal, the authors first give exact worst-case upper and lower bounds over all copulas (Theorem 1), showing that a strictly sublinear dependence on d is impossible without further structure. They then introduce a new class of copulas with convex diagonal section (Definition 3) and prove the sharp bound P(x < max_i X_i <= x+epsilon) <= (F(x+epsilon)-F(x)) min(1/(1-F(x)), d) (Theorem 2), together with an extremal copula diagonal attaining it. The paper verifies diagonal convexity for Gaussian, Archimedean, and mixture copulas, derives consequences for Gaussian, Weibull, reverse Gumbel, Pareto, and gamma marginals, and gives high-dimensional inference applications via coupling and quantile-based tests, including a Gaussian-mixture factor-model example.

Significance. The results are a genuine contribution to anti-concentration theory for extremal statistics. Theorem 1 settles the worst-case copula behavior exactly, and the diagonal-convexity condition in Theorem 2 is a novel, explicitly scoped structural assumption that yields dimension-free or poly-logarithmic bounds for a wide class of non-Gaussian dependence structures. The paper is notable for its sharpness: the extremal copula diagonals are explicitly constructed and shown to satisfy the copula-diagonal characterization, so the bounds are not merely one-sided. The proofs are transparent and mostly self-contained modulo standard external facts (Sklar's theorem, the diagonal characterization, and cited Gaussian maximum-density lemmas). I found no load-bearing technical error. The identical-marginals restriction and the worst-case nature of the bounds are stated honestly in the conclusion. The remaining issues are local presentation and edge-case matters.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4, Lemma 3] The displayed definition of Ψ is internally inconsistent: the first expression contains an extra factor d, while the second expression d·(ψ^{-1})'(d x)/(ψ^{-1})'(x) is not equal to it. The subsequent proof and all worked examples use Ψ(x) = (ψ^{-1})'(d x)/(ψ^{-1})'(x), so the displayed equality should be corrected accordingly; the monotonicity argument is unaffected because the discrepancy is a constant positive factor, but the statement as written is false.
  2. [Section 5.1, proof of Lemma 4 / equation (7)] Equation (7) defines Δ_up using the denominator d-1 and is therefore undefined for d=1, although Theorem 1 is stated for all d in N. The d=1 case is trivial and can be handled separately or by a limiting interpretation, but as written the proof of the extremal upper diagonal does not cover d=1.
  3. [Theorem 2 and its proof in Section 5.2] The bound is stated for every x in R and epsilon >= 0, but when F(x)=1 the expression 1/(1-F(x)) is undefined and the convexity inequality in the proof divides by 1-u with u=1. Since in that case both the left-hand side and the increment F(x+epsilon)-F(x) are zero, the statement should either exclude F(x)=1 explicitly or add a one-line convention that the bound is interpreted by continuity; the same remark applies to the extremal diagonal Δ_u at u=1.
  4. [Section 2.2, Example 2 and Notation] There is a typographical error in the first sentence of Example 2: 'Xi ∼ Uare uniformly distributed' should read 'Xi ∼ U are uniformly distributed' or, preferably, 'Xi ∼ U[0,1]'. This is a presentation issue only.
  5. [Section 4.1, Example 14] The claim that Example 14 offers a 'superior' anti-concentration inequality compared with Nazarov's inequality should be qualified. The displayed first bound contains the factor 1/p1 and the comparison with the Nazarov-type bound is asymptotic in the regime where d is large and the minimal variance σ is small; for fixed small p1 and finite d the two bounds need not be ordered. The authors' subsequent symmetric case clarifies the point, but the surrounding text should state the regime explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 2's bound is derived from convexity and an explicit extremal copula diagonal; self-citations are confined to the application's coupling assumptions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 1's bounds follow from Sklar's theorem, the union bound, and an explicit pair of copula diagonals (Delta_up and Delta_lo) whose validity is checked against Lemma 1, an external characterization of copula diagonals by Fernandez-Sanchez and Ubeda-Flores (2018). Theorem 2's upper bound is Jensen's inequality applied to the convex diagonal together with the Lipschitz bound from Lemma 1, and the extremal diagonal Delta_u is explicitly constructed and verified; no fitted parameter or predicted quantity is used to obtain the bound. The self-citations (Cattaneo et al. 2025, 2024; Cattaneo and Yu 2025) appear in Section 4 only as references for coupling conditions, which are stated assumptions of the application rather than inputs to the anti-concentration theorems; the coupling theorem is external support with its own assumptions and does not contain the target result. Recoveries of Nazarov's inequality and known Gaussian bounds are derived from the new convexity result plus standard Mills-ratio inequalities, not imported by citation. The manuscript also states its main limitation (identical marginals) explicitly, and the Lemma 3 display omits a harmless factor d that does not affect the monotonicity arguments. I find no step where an equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central theorems rest on standard copula theory (Sklar, diagonal characterization) and elementary convexity; the examples use standard Mills-ratio bounds. The only self-cited input is the martingale coupling used in the application, not in the proofs of the main theorems. No free parameters are fitted to data; the invented entity is the new 'diagonally convex' condition, which is checkable for any copula.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Sklar's theorem: the joint law of a random vector decomposes into a copula and the marginal CDFs.
    Invoked in Section 1.2 to express the joint law through a copula and derive equation (2).
  • domain assumption Characterization of d-dimensional copula diagonals (Lemma 1, from Fernandez-Sanchez and Ubeda-Flores 2018).
    Used in the proofs of Theorem 1 and 2 to assert that constructed diagonals correspond to genuine copulas.
  • domain assumption Density of the maximum of a multivariate Gaussian vector has the form phi(x)g(x) with g increasing (Chernozhukov et al. 2015, Lemmas 5 and 6).
    Used in the proof of Lemma 2 to establish convexity of Gaussian copula diagonals.
  • standard math Birnbaum's Mills ratio bound: phi(x)/(1-Phi(x)) <= x+1 for x >= 0.
    Used in Examples 8 and 14 to bound Gaussian tail ratios.
  • domain assumption Martingale coupling Corollary 2.2 of Cattaneo et al. (2025).
    Used in Section 4.1 to supply the coupling condition for the factor model application; this is a self-cited, forthcoming paper.
  • domain assumption Complete monotonicity of the inverse Archimedean generator.
    Standard condition for Archimedean copulas, used in Lemma 3 to define the class of copulas.
invented entities (1)
  • Diagonally convex copula (Definition 3) independent evidence
    purpose: A structural restriction on dependence that yields sharper anti-concentration upper bounds for maxima.
    The condition is checkable for any given copula; the paper verifies it for Gaussian, Clayton, Frank, Gumbel, independence, and mixture copulas, and provides a counterexample. It is a new mathematical class, not a physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sharp Anti-Concentration Inequalities for Extremum Statistics via Copulas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XA52PFDC

@misc{pith2026250207699,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sharp Anti-Concentration Inequalities for Extremum Statistics via Copulas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XA52PFDC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07699}
}
abstract

We derive sharp upper and lower bounds for the pointwise concentration function of the maximum statistic of $d$ identically distributed real-valued random variables. Our first main result places no restrictions either on the common marginal law of the samples or on the copula describing their joint distribution. We show that, in general, strictly sublinear dependence of the concentration function on the dimension $d$ is not possible. We then introduce a new class of copulas, namely those with a convex diagonal section, and demonstrate that restricting to this class yields a sharper upper bound on the concentration function. This allows us to establish several new dimension-independent and poly-logarithmic-in-$d$ anti-concentration inequalities for a variety of marginal distributions under mild dependence assumptions. Our theory improves upon the best known results in certain special cases. Applications to high-dimensional statistical inference are presented, including a specific example pertaining to Gaussian mixture approximations for factor models, for which our main results lead to superior distributional guarantees.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07699 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: the two d-dimensional copula diagonals (7) and (8) constructed to prove (3) and (4) respectively in Theorem 1. For the upper bound (a), the increment over (u, u + δ] is maximized, while for the lower bound (b) it is minimized. Bottom: contour plots for possible two-dimensional (d = 2) copulas (c) and (d) whose diagonals are given by ∆up and ∆lo respectively. We use the extension due to Fern´andez-S´anchez and U… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The diagonal sections of three well-known [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aizenman, M., Germinet, F., Klein, A., and Warzel, S. (2009). On Bernoulli decompositions for random variables, concentration bounds, and spectral localization. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 143:219--238

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    and Karlis, D

    Arakelian, V. and Karlis, D. (2014). Clustering dependencies via mixtures of copulas. Communications in Statistics--Simulation and Computation , 43(7):1644--1661

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    B., Kane, D., Karmalkar, S., and Kothari, P

    Bakshi, A., Diakonikolas, I., Hopkins, S. B., Kane, D., Karmalkar, S., and Kothari, P. K. (2020). Outlier-robust clustering of Gaussians and other non-spherical mixtures. In 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 149--159. IEEE

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Anti-Concentration Inequalities for the Difference of Maxima of Gaussian Random Vectors

    Belloni, A., Fang, E. X., and Shen, S. (2024). Anti-concentration inequalities for the difference of maxima of Gaussian random vectors. 2408.13348

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Birnbaum, Z. W. (1942). An inequality for Mills' ratio. Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 13:245--246

    work page 1942

  6. [6]

    Bobkov, S. G. and Chistyakov, G. P. (2015). On concentration functions of random variables. Journal of Theoretical Probability , 28:976--988

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    D., Feng, Y., and Underwood, W

    Cattaneo, M. D., Feng, Y., and Underwood, W. G. (2024). Uniform inference for kernel density estimators with dyadic data. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 119(548):2695--2708

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    D., Masini, R

    Cattaneo, M. D., Masini, R. P., and Underwood, W. G. (2025). Yurinskii 's coupling for martingales. Annals of Statistics, forthcoming

    work page 2025

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Cattaneo, M. D. and Yu, R. R. (2025). Strong approximations for empirical processes indexed by Lipschitz functions. Annals of Statistics , 81(2):667--737

    2025

  2. [10]

    Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., and Kato, K. (2013). Gaussian approximations and multiplier bootstrap for maxima of sums of high-dimensional random vectors. Annals of Statistics , 41(6):2786--2819

    2013

  3. [11]

    Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., and Kato, K. (2014a). Anti-concentration and honest, adaptive confidence bands. Annals of Statistics , 42(5):1787--1818

    2014

  4. [12]

    Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., and Kato, K. (2014b). Gaussian approximation of suprema of empirical processes. Annals of Statistics , 42(4):1564--1597

    2014

  5. [13]

    Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., and Kato, K. (2015). Comparison and anti-concentration bounds for maxima of Gaussian random vectors. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 162(1):47--70

    2015

  6. [14]

    Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., and Kato, K. (2017a). Central limit theorems and bootstrap in high dimensions. Annals of Probability , 45(4):2309--2352

    2017

  7. [15]

    Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., and Kato, K. (2017b). Detailed proof of Nazarov 's inequality. 1711.10696

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    and R \'e v \'e sz, P

    Cs \"o rg \"o , M. and R \'e v \'e sz, P. (1981). Strong Approximations in Probability and Statistics . Probability and Mathematical Statistics: a series of monographs and textbooks. Academic Press

    1981

  9. [17]

    and Theodorescu, R

    Cuculescu, I. and Theodorescu, R. (2001). Copulas: Diagonals, tracks. Revue Roumaine de Math \'e matiques Pures et Appliqu \'e es , 46(6):731--742

    2001

  10. [18]

    and Zhang, C.-H

    Deng, H. and Zhang, C.-H. (2020). Beyond Gaussian approximation: bootstrap for maxima of sums of independent random vectors. Annals of Statistics , 48(6):3643--3671

    2020

  11. [19]

    and Peccati, G

    D \"o bler, C. and Peccati, G. (2018). The gamma Stein equation and noncentral de Jong theorems. Bernoulli , 24(4B):3384--3421

    2018

  12. [20]

    and Sempi, C

    Durante, F. and Sempi, C. (2016). Principles of Copula Theory . Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, New York

    2016

  13. [21]

    Embrechts, P., Kl \"u ppelberg, C., and Mikosch, T. (2013). Modelling Extremal Events: for Insurance and Finance , volume 33 of Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability . Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  14. [22]

    and \'U beda-Flores, M

    Fern \'a ndez-S \'a nchez, J. and \'U beda-Flores, M. (2018). Constructions of copulas with given diagonal (and opposite diagonal) sections and some generalizations. Dependence Modeling , 6(1):139--155

    2018

  15. [23]

    Fox, J., Kwan, M., and Sauermann, L. (2021). Combinatorial anti-concentration inequalities, with applications. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , volume 171, pages 227--248. Cambridge University Press

    2021

  16. [24]

    J., Nelsen, R

    Frank, M. J., Nelsen, R. B., and Schweizer, B. (1987). Best-possible bounds for the distribution of a sum---a problem of Kolmogorov . Probability Theory and Related Fields , 74(2):199--211

    1987

  17. [25]

    E., Pickett, A

    Gaunt, R. E., Pickett, A. M., and Reinert, G. (2017). Chi-square approximation by Stein's method with application to Pearson's statistic. Annals of Applied Probability , 27:720--756

    2017

  18. [26]

    Giessing, A. (2023). Anti-concentration of suprema of Gaussian processes and Gaussian order statistics. 2310.12119

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    G., and Ulyanov, V

    G \"o tze, F., Naumov, A., Spokoiny, V. G., and Ulyanov, V. V. (2019). Large ball probabilities, Gaussian comparison and anti-concentration. Bernoulli , 25(4A):2538--2563

    2019

  20. [28]

    Jaworski, P. (2009). On copulas and their diagonals. Information Sciences , 179(17):2863--2871

    2009

  21. [29]

    Koike, Y. (2021). Notes on the dimension dependence in high-dimensional central limit theorems for hyperrectangles. Japanese Journal of Statistics and Data Science , 4:257--297

    2021

  22. [30]

    Kozbur, D. (2021). Dimension-free anticoncentration bounds for Gaussian order statistics with discussion of applications to multiple testing. 2107.10766

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Krishnapur, M. (2016). Anti-concentration inequalities. Lecture notes, Advanced Training in Mathematics Workshop in Applied Probability, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay

    2016

  24. [32]

    K., Mukherjee, S., and Banerjee, D

    Kuchibhotla, A. K., Mukherjee, S., and Banerjee, D. (2021). High-dimensional CLT : Improvements, non-uniform extensions and large deviations. Bernoulli , 27(1):192 -- 217

    2021

  25. [33]

    L \'e vy, P. (1954). Th \'e orie de l'Addition Des Variables Al \'e atoires . Gauthier-Villars, Paris

    1954

  26. [34]

    Lindvall, T. (1992). Lectures on the Coupling Method . Dover Publications, New York

    1992

  27. [35]

    E., Lytova, A., Tikhomirov, K., Tomczak-Jaegermann, N., and Youssef, P

    Litvak, A. E., Lytova, A., Tikhomirov, K., Tomczak-Jaegermann, N., and Youssef, P. (2017). Adjacency matrices of random digraphs: singularity and anti-concentration. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 445(2):1447--1491

    2017

  28. [36]

    Livshyts, G. V. (2014). Maximal surface area of a convex set in R ^n with respect to log concave rotation invariant measures. In Geometric Aspects of Functional Analysis: Israel Seminar (GAFA) 2011--2013 , pages 355--383. Springer

    2014

  29. [37]

    Livshyts, G. V. (2021). Some remarks about the maximal perimeter of convex sets with respect to probability measures. Communications in Contemporary Mathematics , 23(05)

    2021

  30. [38]

    E., Lin, Z., and M \"u ller, H.-G

    Lopes, M. E., Lin, Z., and M \"u ller, H.-G. (2020). Bootstrapping max statistics in high dimensions: Near-parametric rates under weak variance decay and application to functional and multinomial data. Annals of Statistics , 48(2):1214--1229

    2020

  31. [39]

    Meka, R., Nguyen, O., and Vu, V. H. (2015). Anti-concentration for polynomials of independent random variables. Theory of Computing , 12:1--17

    2015

  32. [40]

    Miller, K. S. and Samko, S. G. (2001). Completely monotonic functions. Integral Transforms and Special Functions , 12(4):389--402

    2001

  33. [41]

    Nazarov, F. (2003). On the maximal perimeter of a convex set in R ^n with respect to a Gaussian measure. In Geometric Aspects of Functional Analysis: Israel Seminar, 2001--2002 , pages 169--187. Springer

    2003

  34. [42]

    Nelsen, R. B. (2006). An Introduction to Copulas . Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New York

    2006

  35. [43]

    Nie, Z. (2022). Matrix anti-concentration inequalities with applications. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , pages 568--581

    2022

  36. [44]

    Paouris, G. (2012). Small ball probability estimates for log-concave measures. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 364(1):287--308

    2012

  37. [45]

    and Valettas, P

    Paouris, G. and Valettas, P. (2018). A Gaussian small deviation inequality for convex functions. Annals of Probability , 46(3):1441--1454

    2018

  38. [46]

    Pollard, D. (2002). A User's Guide to Measure Theoretic Probability . Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press

    2002

  39. [47]

    and Vershynin, R

    Rudelson, M. and Vershynin, R. (2015). Small ball probabilities for linear images of high-dimensional distributions. International Mathematics Research Notices , 2015(19):9594--9617

    2015

  40. [48]

    and Wellner, J

    Saumard, A. and Wellner, J. A. (2014). Log-concavity and strong log-concavity: A review . Statistics Surveys , 8:45--114

    2014

  41. [49]

    and Rudelson, M

    Vershynin, R. and Rudelson, M. (2007). Anti-concentration inequalities. In Phenomena in High Dimensions, Third Annual Conference, Samos, Greece

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.