A Bernstein Inequality For Spatial Lattice Processes∗
Eduardo Valenzuela-Domı́nguez†

Johannes T. N. Krebs‡§

Jürgen E. Franke¶

arXiv:1702.02023v2 [math.ST] 5 Dec 2017

December 6, 2017

Abstract
In this article we present a Bernstein inequality for sums of random variables which are defined on a spatial lattice
structure. The inequality can be used to derive concentration inequalities. It can be useful to obtain consistency properties for nonparametric estimators of conditional expectation functions.
Keywords: Asymptotic inference; Asymptotic inequalities; Bernstein inequality; Concentration inequality; Nonparametric statistics; Spatial Lattice Processes; Strong mixing
MSC 2010: Primary: 62G20; 62M40; 37A25; Secondary: 62G05; 62G09

1 Introduction
Inequalities of the Bernstein type are a major tool for the asymptotic analysis in probability theory and statistics. The
P
original inequality published by Bernstein (1927) considers the case P(|Sn | ≥ ε), where Sn = nk=1 Zk for real-valued
zero-mean random variables Z1 , . . . , Zn which are independent and identically distributed and bounded. A short proof
is given in Bosq (2012) together with a demonstration how Hoeffding’s inequality (Hoeffding (1963)) can be concluded
too. A version for independent multivariate random variables is given by Ahmad and Amezziane (2013).
Starting with Collomb’s and Carbon’s inequalities (Collomb (1984) and Carbon (1983)), during the last thirty years
there have been derived various generalizations of Bernstein’s inequality to stochastic processes {Z(t) : t ∈ Z} under the
assumption of weak dependence (Bryc and Dembo (1996) and Merlevède et al. (2009)). The corresponding definitions
of dependence and their interaction properties can be found in Doukhan (1994) and in Bradley (2005).
Furthermore, there are inequalities of the Bernstein-type which are tailored to special mathematical questions:
Arcones (1995) develop Bernstein-type inequalities for U -statistics. Krebs (2018) gives an exponential inequality for
strongly mixing random fields which are defined on exponentially growing graphs.
Bernstein inequalities often find their applications when deriving large deviation results or (uniform) asymptotic
consistency statements in nonparametric regression and density estimation: Valenzuela-Domı́nguez (1995) considers
nonlinear function estimation on random random fields under mixing conditions. Such statistical procedures are also
widely used in image analysis, where the image is modeled as a given function on part of the integer lattice Z2 contaminated by additive noise. Frequently, the noise is assumed to consist of independent and identically distributed random
variables, but this assumption is not always realistic, compare e.g., Daul et al. (1998). A more general noise model is provided by stationary stochastic processes, e.g., by Markov random fields. For such processes, functions like conditional
probability densities or conditional expectations of an observation given data in a neighborhood may also be estimated
by nonparametric procedures Tran (1990). For investigating the asymptotic properties of those estimation procedures a
∗ This research was partially supported by the Fraunhofer ITWM, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany and by the RTG 1932 Stochastic Models for
Innovations in the Engineering Sciences funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).
† Departamento de Matemática, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa Marı́a, Valparaı́so, Chile, email: eduardo.valenzuela@usm.cl
‡ Department of Mathematics, University of Kaiserslautern, 67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany, email: krebs@mathematik.uni-kl.de
§ Corresponding author
¶ Department of Mathematics, University of Kaiserslautern, 67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany, email: franke@mathematik.uni-kl.de

1

Bernstein inequality for spatial stochastic processes on an integer lattice is needed. For continuous-parameter processes
on R2 , such a result has been derived in Bertail et al. (2000). Here, we provide a Bernstein inequality for stochastic
processes on ZN under rather general conditions, e.g., assuming only α-mixing which is a rather weak type of mixing
condition. To allow for other applications, e.g., to spatial-temporal processes used in modeling environmental data like
precipitation or pollution, we do not restrict ourselves to the plane but consider integer lattices in arbitrary dimensions.
This paper is organized as follows: we give the main definitions and notation in Section 2. In Section 3 we present
the Bernstein inequality for random fields on a lattice ZN and further concentration inequalities, it is the main part of
this article.

2 Definitions and Notation
In this section we give the mathematical definitions and notation which we shall use to derive the results. We work on a
probability space (Ω, A, P). Let N ∈ N be a natural number. A real-valued random field Z which is indexed by ZN is
a collection of random variables {Z(s) : s ∈ ZN }. We write d∞ for the metric on the lattice ZN which is induced by
the Euclidean-∞-norm, i.e., d∞ (s, t) = max{|si − ti | : 1 ≤ i ≤ N } for s, t ∈ ZN . Denote for two subsets I, J ⊆ ZN
their distance by
d∞ (I, J) = inf{d∞ (s, t) : s ∈ I, t ∈ J}.
Furthermore, we write s ≤ t if and only if si ≤ ti for i = 1, . . . , N .
The α-mixing coefficient is introduced by Rosenblatt (1956). It is defined by
α(F, G) := sup {|P(A ∩ B) − P(A)P(B)| : A ∈ F, B ∈ G}
for two sub-σ-algebras F and G of A. Note that α(F, G) ≤ 1/4, compare Bradley (2005). If X and Y are two
random variables on (Ω, A, P), then α(X, Y ) is the mixing coefficient α(σ(X), σ(Y )). Furthermore, for a random field
{Z(s) : s ∈ ZN } and a subset I ⊆ ZN , denote by F(I) := σ(Z(s) : s ∈ I) the σ-algebra generated by the Z(s) in I.
The α-mixing coefficient of the random field Z is then defined as
α(k) :=

sup

Z

sup |P(A ∩ B) − P(A)P(B)| ,

I,J⊆ N , A∈F(I),
d∞ (I,J)≥k B∈F(J)

k ∈ N.

(2.1)

The random field Z is said to be strongly (spatial) mixing (or α-mixing) if α(k) → 0 (k → ∞).
We write eN = (1, . . . , 1) for the element in ZN which only contains ones. Let n = (n1 , . . . , nN ) ∈ NN , then we
write In for the N -dimensional cube on the lattice which is spanned by eN and n, i.e., In = {k ∈ ZN : eN ≤ k ≤ n}.

3 Exponential inequalities for α-mixing processes on N -dimensional lattices
Theorem 3.1 (Bernstein inequality). Let Z := {Z(s) : s ∈ ZN } be a real-valued random field defined on the N dimensional lattice ZN . Each Z(s) is bounded by a uniform constant B, has expectation zero and the variance
of Z(s) is uniformly bounded by σ 2 . Let Z be strongly mixing with mixing coefficients {α(k) : k ∈ N}. Set
Pk
N −1
ᾱk :=
α(u). Let P (n) = (P1 (n1 ), . . . , PN (nN )) and Q(n) = (Q1 (n1 ), . . . , QN (nN )) be arbitrary
u=1 u
non-decreasing sequences in NN which are indexed by n ∈ NN and which satisfy for each 1 ≤ k ≤ N
1 ≤ Qk (nk ) ≤ Pk (nk ) < Qk (nk ) + Pk (nk ) < nk .

2

(3.1)

Furthermore, let n := |In | = n1 · . . . · nN , P := P1 (n1 ) · . . . · PN (nN ) and q := min {Q1 (n1 ), . . . , QN (nN )} as well
as p := max {P1 (n1 ), . . . , PN (nN )}. Then for all ε > 0 and β > 0 such that 2N +1 BPeβ < 1
!



X
√ Nn
P [n(2N +1)]
α(q)
Z(s) ≥ ε ≤ 2 exp 12 e2
P
P
(3.2)
s∈In
n
 o
3N 2
2
2
· exp − βε + 2 β e σ + 12B γ ᾱp n ,
where the constant 0 < γ < ∞ depends on the lattice dimension N .
P
Proof. We write Sn = s∈In Z(s) for n ∈ NN . To exploit the mixing property we want to decompose the sum Sn
into different parts which consist of sums over groups of the Z(s). Using the mixing condition, most of these subsums
are only weakly dependent. To simplify notation, we write
P ≡ P (n) ≡ (P1 , . . . , PN ),

Q ≡ Q(n) ≡ (Q1 , . . . , QN )

keeping the dependence on n in mind. We choose a corresponding sequence R ≡ R(n) ≡ (R1 , . . . , RN ) such that
(Rk − 1)(Pk + Qk ) < nk ≤ Rk (Pk + Qk ) =: n∗k for each k = 1, . . . , N.

(3.3)

For the k-th coordinate direction, we partition the summation index set {1, . . . , n∗k } ⊇ {1, . . . , nk } into Rk subsets each
consisting of two disjoint intervals of length Pk and Qk resp. So, we have a union of 2Rk intervals half of them of length
Pk , the other half of length Qk , covering the set {1, . . . , nk }.
Combining the partitions in all N coordinate directions, we get a partition of the N -dimensional rectangle In∗ =
{s ∈ ZN ; eN ≤ s ≤ n∗ } ⊇ In into R = R1 · . . . · RN blocks containing (P1 + Q1 ) · . . . · (PN + QN ) points
of the N -dimensional integer lattice each. Within each block, there are 2N smaller subsets, which are N -dimensional
rectangles with all edges of length either Pk or Qk , k = 1, . . . , N . Write I(l, u) for the l-th subset in the u-th block,
l = 1, . . . , 2N and u = 1, . . . , R. Note that the diameter w.r.t. d∞ of the rectangular set I(l, u) is bounded by p, since
diam{I(l, u)} = max{d∞ (s, t), s, t ∈ I(l, u)} ≤ max{P1 , . . . , PN } = p.
Its cardinality is at most card{I(l, u)} ≤
P
sum Sn = s∈In Z(s) as follows

QN

k=1

max{Pk , Qk } =

Sn =

Z(s) =

l=1 u=1 s∈I(l,u)

with S(l, u) =

P

s∈I(l,u)

Z(s) and T (l, r) =

Pr

k=1

Pk = P (cf. (3.1). Now we can partition the

N

N

2 X
R
X
X

QN

u=1

2 X
R
X

(3.4)

N

S(l, u) =

l=1 u=1

2
X

T (l, R)

l=1

S(l, u), for r = 1, . . . , R. We have the recursive property

T (l, r) = T (l, r − 1) + S(l, r) and T (l, 0) = 0.

(3.5)

Now we can apply this decomposition to the exponential eβSn as follows

E



eβSn

i

=



i
i
h P2N
hQ N
h
i
P2N N
2
βT (l,R)
≤ E 2−N l=1 e2 βT (l,R)
= E eβ l=1 T (l,R) = E
l=1 e

(3.6)

where we have used the well-known inequality between geometric and arithmetic mean. Setting δ = 2N β we have






N
E eβSn ≤ 2−N P2l=1 E eδT (l,R) . Now, we study E eδT (l,r) for l = 1, . . . , 2N and r = 1, . . . , R. By (3.5)

E

h

eδT (l,r)

E eδT (l,r−1) eδS(l,r)
i
i h
i
h
h
≤ E eδT (l,r−1) eδS(l,r) − E eδT (l,r−1) E eδS(l,r)
h

i

3

+

E

h

eδT (l,r−1)

i

E

h

eδS(l,r)

i

.

But T (l, r − 1) is F(I(l, 1) ∪ · · · ∪ I(l, r − 1)) =: F(J(l, r − 1))-measurable and S(l, r) is F(I(l, r))-measurable, this
implies that eδT (l,r−1) is F(J(l, r − 1))-measurable and eδS(l,r) is F(I(l, r))-measurable. Since Z(s) is bounded and
the minimal distance between the sets J(l, r − 1) and I(l, r) is d∞ (J(l, r − 1), I(l, r)) ≥ min{Q1 , . . . , QN } = q, we
can apply Davydov’s inequality (compare A.1) as follows
i
i h
i
h
h
E eδT (l,r−1) eδS(l,r) − E eδT (l,r−1) E eδS(l,r) ≤ 12α(q)1/a keδS(l,r)k∞keδT (l,r−1)kb
with a, b ≥ 1 such that

E
As |S(l, r)| ≤

P

h

1
a

+

1
b

= 1, therefore

i
i h
i
h
eδT (l,r) ≤ 12α(q)1/a keδS(l,r) k∞ keδT (l,r−1) kb + E eδT (l,r−1) E eδS(l,r) .

s∈I(l,r) |Z(s)|

(3.7)

≤ BP and choosing
0<β≤

1
1
, i.e., 0 < δ ≤
2N +1 BPe
2BPe

we have δS(l, r)| ≤ 1/(2e) and for all D such that 0 ≤ D ≤ e
|δDS(l, r)| ≤

1
2

(3.8)

√
e.

(3.9)

which implies
eδDS(l,r)

∞

≤

Using (3.8), we have eδDS(l,r) ≤ 1 + δDS(l, r) + (δDS(l, r))2 . Next, we take expectations of this inequality and use
that the Z(s) have expectation zero as well as that the inequality 1 + x ≤ exp x is true for all x ≥ 0. We obtain
h
i


(3.10)
E eδDS(l,r) ≤ 1 + δ2 D2 E S(l, r)2 ≤ eδ2D2 E[ S(l,r)2 ] .
Now we have to evaluate E[S(l, r)2 ]:

2 
X
X



E S(l, r)2 = E  
Z(s)  =

E

s∈I(l,r)

s∈I(l,r)



X

Z(s)2 +

X

E [ Z(s)Z(t) ]

s∈I(l,r) t∈I(l,r),t6=s



We know that |Z(s)| ≤ B, so |E [ Z(s)Z(t) ] | ≤ 12B 2 α(d∞ (s, t)) and using E Z(s)2 ≤ σ 2 < ∞, we have

E



X

S(l, r)2 ≤ σ 2 P + 12B 2

X

s∈I(l,r) t∈I(l,r),t6=s

α(d∞ (s, t))

In order to evaluate the double sum, note that if s, t ∈ I(l, r), s 6= t, then by (3.4) d∞ (s, t) assumes values between 1
and p, i.e., 1 ≤ d∞ (s, t) ≤ p. Furthermore, for a general point s ∈ ZN the cardinality of the set of points t ∈ ZN whose
distance to s is exactly u is card{t ∈ ZN : d∞ (s, t) = u} = (2u + 1)N − (2u − 1)N ≤ γuN −1 for u ≥ 1, where γ is a
constant which depends on the lattice dimension N . Thus, the double sum can be bounded as follows
X

X

s∈I(l,r) t∈I(l,r),t6=s

α(d∞ (s, t)) ≤
≤

p
X X

s∈I(l,r) u=1 t∈
p
X X

s∈I(l,r) u=1

X

α(u)



N

ZN :d∞ (s,t)=u

N

α(u) (2u + 1) − (2u − 1)

4

≤γP

p
X

u=1

α(u)uN −1 .

So, we have
E[S(l, r)2 ] ≤ σ 2 P + 12B 2 γ ᾱp P.

(3.11)

≤ exp(δ 2 D2 (σ 2 P + 12B 2 γ ᾱp P). We set V := σ 2 P + 12B 2 γ ᾱp P and D = 1.
From (3.10) we obtain E e
Thus, it follows from (3.7)
i
i
h
h
E eδT (l,r) ≤ 12α(q)1/a eδS(l,r) eδT (l,r−1) + E eδT (l,r−1) eδ2V .

δDS(l,r)



But by Hölder’s inequality E e

E



h

b

∞


δT (l,r−1)

≤ eδT (l,r−1)

b

, so we obtain

i  2
eδT (l,r) ≤ eδ V + 12α(q)1/a eδS(l,r)

∞



eδT (l,r−1)

b

.

(3.12)

Now let a = 1 + r and b = 1 + 1/r such that for all i = 1, . . . , r, we have
1 ≤ bi−1 ≤


r
1
1+
≤ e.
r

(3.13)

Then we obtain successively as in deriving (3.12) the following inequalities for r ≥ 2:
eδT (l,r−1)
eδT (l,r−2)

b

b2

 2 2
≤ eδ b V + 12α(q)1/a eδbS(l,r−1)

 2 4
2
≤ eδ b V + 12α(q)1/a eδb S(l,r−2)
..
.

eδT (l,2)

br−2

∞

1/b

∞

eδT (l,r−2)

1/b2

 2 2(r−2)
r−2
V
≤ eδ b
+ 12α(q)1/a eδb S(l,2)

∞

b2

eδT (l,r−3)

1/br−2

b3

eδT (l,1)

br−1

.

Substituting, we get:

E

h

eδT (l,r)

i

#
"r−1
i1/br−1
h
Y 2 2(i−1)
i−1
i−1
V
E eδbr−1 T (l,1)
(eδ b
+ 12α(q)1/a keδb S(l,r−i+1) k∞ )1/b
≤

(3.14)

i=1

i−1

but bi−1 ≤ e for i = 1, . . . , r, such that keδb
(eδ

2 2(i−1)

b

V

S(l,r−i+1)

k∞ ≤

√
e by (3.9) and even further

√
√
i−1
2 i−1
i−1
+ 12α(q)1/a e)1/b
≤ eδ b V (1 + 12α(q)1/a e)1/b
(
)
√
12 eα(q)1/a
2 i−1
≤ exp δ b V +
bi−1
n
o

√
≤ exp δ 2 bi−1 V exp 12 eα(q)1/a

by (3.13). Therefore, again using (3.13)
r−1
Y

(eδ

i=1

2 2(i−1)

b

V

r−1
o
n √
Y √
√
i−1
1/a
2
e12 eα(q) +δ eV = exp 12 eα(q)1/a (r − 1) + δ 2 eV (r − 1) .
≤
+ 12α(q)1/a e)1/b
i=1

Since br−1 ≤ e by (3.13), and using (3.10) and (3.11) we have
i1/e
i1/e
h
h
keδTl,1 kbr−1 ≤ keδT (l,1) ke = E eδeT (l,1)
≤ E eδeS(l,1)
≤ (eδ

2 2

e

E[ S(l,1)2 ] )1/e ≤ (eδ2 e2 V )1/e = exp{δ 2 eV }.

5

Combining these results, we get from (3.14) for l = 1, . . . , 2N and r = 1, . . . , R that
i
n
h
o
E eδT (l,r) ≤ exp 12√eα(q)1/a (r − 1) + δ2 eV r .
By (3.1), Pk < Pk + Qk < nk for each k = 1, . . . , N which implies by (3.3) that both Pk < nk and Rk < 2nk /Pk .
For a = 1 + r, r = R, we therefore have the two relations 1 > a1 > P/[(2N + 1)n] and R ≤ 2N n/P. Hence, for the
choice r = R we arrive at (using that 0 < α(q) ≤ 1/4)

E
Using δ = 2N β:

E

h

h

eδT (l,R)

N

e2

i

βT (l,R)

 n

n √
N
no
.
≤ exp 12 eα(q)P/[(2 +1)n] 2N − 1 + δ 2 eV 2N
P
P
i

n
o
 n
√
N
n
≤ exp 23N β 2 eV + 12 eα(q)P/[(2 +1)n] 2N − 1
P
P

Returning to (3.6) and using Markov’s inequality, we have

P (|Sn | ≥ ε) = P (Sn ≥ ε) + P (−Sn ≥ ε) = P
 



≤ e−βε E eβS + E e−βS
n

n



eβSn ≥ eβε + P e−βSn ≥ eβε

Now, if we change Z(s) to −Z(s), all results remain valid, therefore we have in (3.6)


2N  h


i
i
h
X
P (|Sn | ≥ ε) ≤ e−βε 2−N
E e2N βTl,R + E e−2N βTl,R 
l=1
n
 n
o
√
N
n
≤ 2e−βε exp 23N β 2 eV + 12 eα(q)P/[(2 +1)n] 2N − 1 .
P
P
Recalling the definition of V this immediately implies (3.2).

We can formulate the following extension of the above Bernstein inequality for unbounded random variables


Theorem 3.2. Let {Z(s) : s ∈ I} be a strongly mixing random field with E [ Z(s) ] = 0 and E Z(s)2 ≤ σ 2 < ∞.
Furthermore, assume that the tail distribution is bounded uniformly in s by

P(|Z(s)| ≥ z) ≤ κ0 exp (−κ1 z τ )
for κ0 , κ1 , τ > 0. Then for any B > 0 it is true that
!



X

√
N
12
n
−1/τ
Γ τ −1 , κ1 B τ n + 2 exp 12 e2N α(q)P [n(2 +1)]
κ0 κ1
Z(s) ≥ ε ≤
P
ετ
P
s∈In


n
 o
1
· exp − βε · exp 23N β 2 e σ 2 + 48B 2 γ ᾱp n ,
3
where Γ denotes the upper incomplete gamma function.

Proof. We split each Z(s): choose an arbitrary bound B > 0 and define for s ∈ ZN
Z(s)# := Z(s) − min(Z(s), B) ≥ 0,

Z(s)∗ := Z(s) − max(Z(s), −B) ≤ 0

and Z(s)0 := max(min(Z(s), B), −B).

6

(3.15)





Then, Z(s) = Z(s)# + Z(s)∗ + Z(s)0 and 0 = E [ Z(s) ] = E Z(s)# + E [ Z(s)∗ ] + E Z(s)0 . Thus,

P

X

s∈In

Z(s) ≥ ε

!



= P

X

s∈|In |



Z(s) − E [ Z(s) ] ≥ ε




X

ε
ε
Z(s)# − E Z(s)# ≥  + P 
Z(s)∗ − E [ Z(s)∗ ] ≥ 
≤ P
3
3
s∈|In |
s∈|In |


X


ε
+ P
Z(s)0 − E Z(s)0 ≥  .
3


X



(3.16)

s∈|In |

We treat each term in (3.16) separately. We consider the first two terms. We obtain with Markov’s inequality




X
X





3
ε
6|In | 
Z(s)# − E Z(s)# ≥  ≤ E 
Z(s)# − E Z(s)#  ≤
P
E Z(s)# .
3
ε
ε
s∈|In |

Using the tail condition, we can estimate the expectation in (3.17) by
Z ∞



E Z(s)# = P Z(s)# ≥ z dz
0
Z ∞
Z ∞

P (Z(s) − B)1{Z(s)≥B} ≥ z dz = P (Z(s) ≥ z) dz
=
0

≤ κ0

(3.17)

s∈|In |

B

Z

∞

τ

exp (−κ1 z ) dz = κ0

Z

∞

κ1 B τ

B

1
τ



1
κ1

1/τ

y

1
τ

−1 −y

e

κ0
dy =
τ



1
κ1

1/τ

Γ



1
, κ1 B τ
τ



.

Since σ(Z(s)0 : s ∈ I) ⊆ σ(Z(s) : s ∈ I) for any I ⊆ ZN , the mixing coefficient of the field {Z(s)0 : s ∈ ZN } can
be estimated by those of {Z(s) : s ∈ ZN }. Furthermore, Var(Z(s)0 ) ≤ σ 2 and we can apply Theorem 3.1 to the third


term of (3.16), using that Z(s)0 − E Z(s)0 ≤ 2B. Hence,


ε
P
Z(s)0 − E Z(s)0 ≥ 
3
s∈|In |



n ε o


√
N
n
≤ 2 exp 12 e2N α(q)P [n(2 +1)] · exp − β · exp 23N β 2 e σ 2 + 48B 2 γ ᾱp n .
P
3


X



This finishes the proof.

We give a result which is an immediate consequence of Theorem 3.1:
Corollary 3.3. Let the real valued random field Z have α-mixing coefficients which are exponentially decreasing, i.e.,
there are c0 , c1 ∈ R+ such that α(k) ≤ c0 exp(−c1 k). The Z(s) have expectation zero and are bounded by B.


Moreover, E Z(s)2 ≤ σ 2 . Let n ∈ NN be such that both
min ni ≥ e2 and

1≤i≤N

min{ni : i = 1, . . . , N }
≥ C′,
max{ni : i = 1, . . . , N }

for a constant C ′ > 0. Then there are constants A1 , A2 ∈ R+ which depend on the lattice dimension N , the constant
C ′ and the bound on the mixing coefficients but not on n ∈ NN and not on B such that for all ε > 0


!
2
X
A
ε
2
.
Q
P
Z(s) ≥ ε ≤ A1 exp −
N
2
2
N/(N
+1)
(σ + B )n + Bε n
s∈In
i=1 log ni
7

k
j
N/(N +1)
log ni for i = 1, . . . , N . Furthermore, we denote
Proof of Corollary 3.3. Define Pi (ni ) := Qi (ni ) := ni

the smallest coordinate of n ∈ NN by n := min1≤i≤N ni and the largest coordinate by n = max1≤i≤N ni . Note that
n → ∞ implies that n → ∞. We consider the first factor on the RHS of (3.2) and show that under the stated conditions





√
N
n
(3.18)
sup exp 12 e2N α(q)P [n(2 +1)] : n ∈ ZN , n ≥ e2 < ∞.
P

By assumption we have that α(q) ≤ c1 exp(−c2 q), for two constants c1 , c2 ∈ R≥0 and q = min1≤i≤N Qi . Therefore it
suffices to show that
log(n/P) − c2 /(2N + 1) q P/n → −∞ as n → ∞.

(3.19)

QN
PN
Note that for a, b ≥ 2, we have ab ≥ a + b. Thus, for i=1 log ni ≥ i=1 log ni if n is at least e2 . We make the
definition η := N/(N + 1). Let n ≥ e2 , then for any constant c ∈ R+

!−1 
!
!1−η N
!η−1 N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
η
 − c(n) log n
log ni
log ni
ni
ni
log 
i=1

i=1

≤ (N + 1)−1
≤ (N + 1)−1
=

N
X
i=1

N
Y

i=1

i=1

i=1

log ni − c

(n)η+(η−1)
(n)(N −1)(1−η)

log ni − c

 n (N −1)/(N +1)
n

log n

N
Y

log ni

i=1

log n

N
Y

i=1

!

log ni

!


Y
N
 n (N −1)/(N +1)
log ni → −∞ as n → ∞.
(N + 1)−1 − c
log n
n
i=1

This proves (3.19) and consequently, that (3.18) is finite. Thus, we arrive at
!


X

1 2A2 (σ 2 + B 2 )nβ 2
Z(s) ≥ ε ≤ A1 exp −βε + A2 β 2 (σ 2 + B 2 )n ≤ A1 exp −βε +
P
2 1 − 2N +1 BPeβ
s∈In

for all β > 0 which satisfy 2N +1 BPeβ < 1, for all ε > 0 and for two constants A1 , A2 which are independent of B, β,
minimizes this last bound and we obtain
ε and n. The choice β0 := ε/(2A2 (σ 2 + B 2 )n + ε2N +1 BPe)

Qapproximately
N
N/(N +1)
the desired result if we use additionally that P ≤ n
i=1 log ni .

A

Appendix

Davydov’s inequality relates the covariance of two random variables to the α-mixing coefficient:
Proposition A.1 (Davydov (1968)). Let (Ω, A, P) be a probability space and let G, H ⊆ A be sub-σ-algebras. Denote
by α := sup{|P(A ∩ B) − P(A)P(B)| : A ∈ G, B ∈ H} the α-mixing coefficient of G and H. Let p, q, r ≥ 1 be
Hölder conjugate, i.e., p−1 + q −1 + r−1 = 1. Let ξ (resp. η) be in Lp (P) and G-measurable (resp. in Lq (P) and
H-measurable). Then |Cov(ξ, η)| ≤ 12 α1/r kξkLp (P) kηkLq (P) .

References
I. A. Ahmad and M. Amezziane. Probability inequalities for bounded random vectors. Statistics & Probability Letters,
83(4):1136–1142, 2013.

8

M. A. Arcones. A Bernstein-type inequality for U-statistics and U-processes. Statistics & Probability Letters, 22(3):
239–247, 1995.
S. Bernstein. Sur l’extension du théorème limite du calcul des probabilités aux sommes de quantités dépendantes.
Mathematische Annalen, 97(1):1–59, 1927.
P. Bertail, D. N. Politis, and N. Rhomari. Subsampling continuous parameter random fields and a Bernstein inequality.
Statistics: A Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 33(4):367–392, 2000.
D. Bosq. Linear processes in function spaces: theory and applications, volume 149. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2012.
R. C. Bradley. Basic properties of strong mixing conditions. a survey and some open questions. Probability Surveys, 2
(2):107–144, 2005.
W. Bryc and A. Dembo. Large deviations and strong mixing. In Annales de l’IHP Probabilités et statistiques, volume 32,
pages 549–569, 1996.
M. Carbon. Inégalité de Bernstein pour les processus fortement mélangeants non nécessairement stationnaires. C.R.
Acad. Sc. Paris I, 297:303–306, 1983.
G. Collomb. Propriétés de convergence presque complète du prédicteur à noyau. Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete, 66(3):441–460, 1984.
C. Daul, R. Rösch, B. Claus, J. Grotepaß, U. Knaak, and R. Föhr. A fast image processing algorithm for quality control
of woven textiles. In Mustererkennung 1998, pages 471–479. Springer, 1998.
Y. A. Davydov. Convergence of distributions generated by stationary stochastic processes. Theory of Probability & Its
Applications, 13(4):691–696, 1968.
P. Doukhan. Mixing, volume 85 of Lecture Notes in Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.
W. Hoeffding. Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 58(301):13–30, 1963.
J. T. N. Krebs. A Bernstein inequality for exponentially growing graphs. Communications in Statistics - Theory and
Methods, 2018, to appear.
F. Merlevède, M. Peligrad, and E. Rio. Bernstein inequality and moderate deviations under strong mixing conditions,
volume Volume 5 of Collections, pages 273–292. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Beachwood, Ohio, USA, 2009.
M. Rosenblatt. A central limit theorem and a strong mixing condition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
42(1):43–47, 1956.
L. T. Tran. Kernel density estimation on random fields. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 34(1):37–53, 1990.
E. Valenzuela-Domı́nguez. Asymptotic properties of nonparametric estimators for nonlinear functions of random fields.
PhD thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, 1995.

9

