On the Uniformity of $(3/2)^n$ Modulo 1

Abstract: It has been conjectured that the sequence $(3/2)^n$ modulo $1$ is uniformly distributed. The distribution of this sequence is signifcant in relation to unsolved problems in number theory including the Collatz conjecture. In this paper, we describe an algorithm to compute $(3/2)^n$ modulo $1$ to $n = 10^8$. We then statistically analyze its distribution. Our results strongly agree with the hypothesis that $(3/2)^n$ modulo 1 is uniformly distributed.

\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
The distribution of $(3/2)^n$ modulo 1 is an interesting topic because of its connections with Mahler's Z-numbers \cite{mahler1968unsolved}, Waring's problem on writing integers as sums of $n$th powers \cite{hilbert1909beweis}, and ergodic-theoretic aspects of the Collatz conjecture \cite{lagarias19853x+}. Pisot and Vijayaraghavan proved that this sequence has infinitely many accumulation points \cite{pisot1938repartition}\cite{vijayaraghavan1941fractional}. It is thought to be uniformly distributed, but it has never even been proven dense in the unit interval \cite{finch2003mathematical}. Thus, whether $(3/2)^n$ modulo 1 is uniformly distributed or not is still an unsolved problem.

One straightforward way to understand this sequence is to compute powers of $3/2$ and statistically evaluate the distribution of fractional parts. When generating these powers by multiplication, they quickly result in large numbers that a computer cannot fully represent in floating point. Multiplication is also a computationally expensive operation. To that end, for the problem of efficiently generating powers of $3/2$ modulo 1 we make the following contributions:
\begin{itemize}
  \item We describe a parallelizable, binary addition algorithm of complexity $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ to compute the fractional part of the sequence $(3/2)^n$ (section \ref{Concept}, appendix \ref{Source}).
  \item We compute the results to $n=10^8$ and conduct statistical testing procedures to assess the strength of the evidence against the uniformity hypothesis for the distribution of the sequence in the unit interval (section \ref{Results}).
\end{itemize}
Section \ref{Background} presents background, section \ref{Concept} offers a description of the proposed parallelization algorithm, section \ref{Results} describes the testing statistical testing procedures employed, section \ref{Related} discusses related work, and section \ref{Conclusion} offers conclusions.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
\label{know} J.J.P. Veerman wishes to thank the Department of Mathematics at the University of Crete for its generous hospitality and in particular to Nikos Frantzikinakis for introducing him to this subject.

\section{Background}
\label{Background}
Any real number $x$ can be decomposed into the sum of its parts by letting $\floor*{x}$ denote the integral part and $\{x\} = x - \floor*{x}$ denote the fractional part.

\theoremstyle{definition}
\begin{definition}
A sequence $(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty$ is said to be \textit{uniformly distributed modulo }1 (abbreviated u.d. mod 1) if the proportion of terms of the sequence $\{x_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ falling in a subinterval $[a,b]$ of $[0,1]$ is proportional to the length of the subinterval \cite{lerma1995distribution}.
That is, if $$\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \displaystyle{\frac{\#\{n \leq N: \{x_n\} \in [a,b]\}}{N}} = b-a $$
for every $0 \leq a < b \leq 1.$ Here, $\#(A)$ denotes the cardinality of a set $A$.
\end{definition}

\noindent The next theorem is due to Weyl \cite{weyl1916gleichverteilung}.
\theoremstyle{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
For almost all $x > 1$ and for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, the sequence $x^n$ is u.d. mod 1.
\end{theorem}
\noindent The exceptional set for which this theorem does not hold has Lebesgue measure 0. A few examples of such sequences in the exceptional set are outlined below, as well as in Finch and Lerma \cite{finch2003mathematical}\cite{lerma1995distribution}:
\begin{enumerate}
  \item All integers $x > 1$, since $x^n \equiv 0$ (mod 1).
  \item Pisot-Vijayaraghavan (or P.V.) numbers, real algebraic integers $x > 1$ whose Galois conjugates lie inside the open unit disc $\{z \in \mathbb{C}: |z| < 1 \}$. Clearly, integers greater than 1 are P.V. numbers. If $x$ is a P.V number, then $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} x^n \equiv 0$ (mod 1) geometrically \cite{salem1963algebraic}. Examples are the silver ratio $\delta_s = 1 + \sqrt{2}$ and the golden ratio $\phi = \frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2}$.
\end{enumerate}
Remarkably, candidate sequences of the measure 1 set for which $x^n$ is u.d. mod 1 are easy to find but difficult to prove. One such candidate is constructed in Drmota \cite{drmota2006sequences}.

\section{Program Design}
\label{Concept}
\subsection{Binary Representation}
\label{Binary}
A simple relationship exists in binary between the sequences $3^n$ and $(3/2)^n$. The number 3/2 is represented in binary as 1.1. A standard binary addition algorithm to compute $(3/2)^2$ involves shifting the radix point one place to the left and then adding the original binary value to the shifted value. This gives $$1.10 + .11 = 10.01.$$

Similarly, the integer 3 is represented in binary digits as 11. To find $3^2 = 9$, a bit shift operation $(<<)$ can be applied to 11 to obtain 110. This term is then added to the original term, which gives $$110 + 11 = 1001.$$

By continuing this way we obtain ordered sequences of binary numbers representing powers of $(3/2)$ and $3$. Here are the first ten.

\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ r c r c }
 1.1 & $(3/2)^1 \quad \quad $ & 11 & $3^1$ \\
10.01 & $(3/2)^2 \quad \quad $ & 1001 & $3^2$ \\
11.011 & $(3/2)^3 \quad \quad $ & 11011 & $3^3$ \\
101.0001 & $(3/2)^4 \quad \quad $ & 1010001 & $3^4$ \\
111.10011 & $(3/2)^5 \quad \quad $ & 11110011 & $3^5$ \\
1011.011011 & $(3/2)^6 \quad \quad $ & 1011011011 & $3^6$ \\
10001.0001011 & $(3/2)^7 \quad \quad $ & 100010001011 & $3^7$ \\
11001.10100001 & $(3/2)^8 \quad \quad $ & 1100110100001 & $3^8$ \\
100110.011100011 & $(3/2)^9 \quad \quad $ & 100110011100011 & $3^9$ \\
111001.1010101001 & $(3/2)^{10} \quad \quad $ & 1110011010101001 & $3^{10}$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

These sequences produce the same binary digits, the only difference being the inclusion of the radix point in the calculation of $(3/2)^j$ for $1 \leq j \leq n$. A shift of one position in the radix occurs for every iteration because the trailing digit of 1 is always added to 0. Thus, in order to determine $(3/2)^j$ from the calculation of $3^j$, the radix point should be located $j$ positions from the right.

For our purposes, the advantages of generating powers of $3$ instead of powers of $(3/2)$ are twofold. First, a hardware implementation of binary integer addition can be used rather than a software implementation of string addition in order to keep track of the location of the radix point. This improves the speed of program execution. Second, the program can run in parallel by providing powers of 3 as starting values. Large starting values of $3^j$ are calculated using an arbitrary precision package.
\subsection{Algorithm Description}
\label{Algorithm}
This algorithm is an arbitrary precision method specifically tailored to compute the sequence $\{(3/2)^n\}$. A technique called \textit{variable length quantity} is used. That is, we concatenate 63 bits of every 64 bit unsigned long integer to form each value of $3^j$, $1 \leq j \leq n$. The 64th bit serves as a marker to determine when a 64 bit unsigned long integer will overflow. This method is preferable to a standard arbitrary precision package for speed of execution.

We begin by seeding an unsigned long vector called \texttt{value} $\in \mathbb{R}^1$ with the number 3. To generate powers of 3, two arithmetic operations are performed: a shift operation $(<<)$ and an add operation $(+)$. These operations are carried out as described in section \ref{Binary} subject to the following conditions: the shift operation sets a shifted bit when overflow of a 63 bit vector word occurs, and the add operation sets a carry bit when overflow of a 63 bit vector word occurs. A new word is added to the vector when the carry or shift bit, or both, indicates. After this occurs the first time, \texttt{value} becomes an element of $\mathbb{R}^2$. At every iteration, a counter is incremented to track the designated location of the radix point to convert the sequence $3^j$ to $(3/2)^j$.

Next, to determine the distribution of the fractional parts of the sequence $(3/2)^j$, the interval $[0,1)$ is subdivided into $2^r$ bins of equal length. The bin number that corresponds to the fractional part of \texttt{value} for each iteration is determined by selecting the $r$ most significant bits of the fractional part, i.e. the digits in positions $[j, j+r-1]$ from the right. The bin number for each iteration is equal to the decimal representation of the digits $[j, j+r-1]$. For each bin, a counter is incremented every time the bin is hit. Thus, the value of the counter gives the number of elements in the bin.

Below we show a portion of the results for the first 40 iterations using $r=2^{10}$ bins. The fractional part to be binned is underlined. Notice, on the last iteration \texttt{value} spans $\mathbb{R}^2$, but the most significant bits of the fractional part of \texttt{value} spans $\mathbb{R}^1$. The source code provides details for the case where the most significant bits of the fractional part spans $\mathbb{R}^2$ or greater (see appendix \ref{Source}).\\

\begin{scriptsize}
\texttt{\raggedleft
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001\underline{1} \\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010\underline{01} \\
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000011\underline{011} \\
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000101\underline{0001} \\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000111\underline{10011} \\
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001011\underline{011001} \\
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010001\underline{0001011} \\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000011001\underline{10100001} \\
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000100110\underline{011100011} \\
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000111001\underline{1010101001} \\
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001010110\underline{0111111101}1 \\
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010000001\underline{1011111100}01 \\
\textbf{\vdots} \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \\
0011100000111101100100010\underline{1110000101}11000010111111111100000001011 \\
...000000000000000000000000000000000001  \ 001010001011100010110100\underline{0101001000}101001000111111110100000100001 \\
\color{white}hey!}
\end{scriptsize}
\noindent The following table displays the bin numbers for this example using $2^{10}$ bins.

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\label{table:1}
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\caption{}
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | }
\hline
Iteration & Most significant fractional digits & Corresponding bin number \\ \hline
1 & 1000000000& 512 \\ \hline
2 & 0100000000& 256 \\ \hline
3 & 0110000000& 384 \\ \hline
4 & 0001000000& 064 \\ \hline
5 & 1001100000& 608 \\ \hline
6 & 0110010000& 400 \\ \hline
7 & 0001011000& 088 \\ \hline
8 & 1010000100& 644 \\ \hline
9 & 0111000110& 454 \\ \hline
10 & 1010101001& 681 \\ \hline
11 & 0111111101& 509 \\ \hline
12 & 1011111100& 764 \\ \hline
\vdots & \vdots& \vdots \\ \hline
39 & 1010101001& 901 \\ \hline
40 & 0101001000& 328 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Results}
\label{Results}
We now conduct a numerical experiment for large $n$, and implement a statistical testing procedure to assess the strength of the evidence for the uniformity of the distribution $(3/2)^n$. In particular, we are interested in assigning $n=10^8$ values in $[0,1]$ to $r=2^{25}$ bins that partition the interval, to determine whether the values are uniformly distributed across the different bins.  The number of ways in which $n$ objects can be assigned to $r$ bins ($r\leq n$) is given by the multinomial coefficient $n!/\lrp{x_1!x_2!\cdots x_r!}$.

Hence, assuming that all bins are equally probable (i.e., the numbers are uniformly distributed within the unit interval) and letting $X_i$ ($1\leq i \leq r$) denote the random variable that counts the number of values that fall in bin $i$, the random vector $\boldsymbol{X}=(X_1,\ldots,X_r)$, jointly follows a multinomial distribution with probability mass function (pmf) given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pr(X_1=x_1,\ldots,X_r=x_r \,|\,  H_0)&=& \frac{n!}{x_1!x_2!\cdots x_r!} \left(\frac{1}{r}\right)^{x_1+\ldots+x_r}\nonumber\\
&=&{n\choose x_1,\ldots,x_r}\left(\frac{1}{r}\right)^n.\label{eq:H0}
\end{eqnarray}
The conditioning on $H_0$ is used to represent the distribution of $\boldsymbol{X}$ under the null hypothesis of  uniformity. In general , letting ${\mbs{\pi}}=(\pi_1,\pi_2,\ldots,\pi_r)$ the multinomial pmf is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f(\mbs{x} \,|\, {\mbs{\pi}})\;=\; \Pr(X_1=x_1,\ldots,X_r=x_r \,|\, {\mbs{\pi}})&=& \frac{n!}{x_1!x_2!\cdots x_r!} \pi_1^{x_1}\cdots\pi_r^{x_r}.\label{eq:H1}
\end{eqnarray}

Thus, testing for uniformity amounts to deciding if the vector $${\mbs{\pi}}=\lrp{\pi_1,\pi_2,\ldots,\pi_r}\text{ is equal to }{\mbs{\pi}}_0=\lrp{1/r,1/r,\ldots,1/r},$$ based on the observed vector of counts for the $r$ bins. This statistical inference problem can be addressed from different viewpoints depending on the branch of statistics considered, each providing fundamentally different inferential statements.  From the frequentist perspective, the strength of the evidence \emph{against} $H_0: {\mbs{\pi}}={\mbs{\pi}}_0$ can be assessed through a testing procedure that yields a falsifiability statement.  Conversely, the Bayesian inferential setting allows one to compare the evidence present in the data for both $H_0$ and $H_1: {\mbs{\pi}}\not={\mbs{\pi}}_0$ through a probabilistic statement.  Throughout the remainder of the section we describe each approach and provide the results obtained for our data in each case.

\subsection{Frequentist Testing}
Defining $\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}}=\lrb{X_1/n, X_2/n,\ldots, X_r/n}$, the test statistic $T(\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0)$ is a random variable that characterizes the divergence between the multinomial distributions characterized by the densities \eqref{eq:H0} and \eqref{eq:H1}.  Let the vector of observed counts for the $r$ bins be given by $\mbs{x}=(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_r)$, and denote by $\hat{\mbs{p}}=(x_1/n, x_2/n, \ldots, x_r/n)$ the vector of estimated values for the multinomial probabilities.  Furthermore, let $\mcal{R}(\alpha)$ denote the $\alpha$-level rejection region for the test.  Then the testing procedure is characterized by the decision rule
\begin{eqnarray*}
\text{If }\tau\in\mcal{R}(\alpha) \hfill & \longrightarrow & \text{reject }H_0\\
\text{If }\tau\not\in\mcal{R}(\alpha) \hfill & \longrightarrow & \text{do not reject }H_0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\tau=T(\hat{\mbs{p}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0)$ (i.e., the value of the test statistic evaluated at $\hat{\mbs{p}}$).  The rejection region $\mcal{R}(\alpha)$ depends on the distribution of the test statistic $T(\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0)$ and the level $\alpha$, often chosen to be in the set $\lrb{0.01,0.05,0.1}$.

The traditional asymptotic results for the distribution of $T(\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0)$ are obtained for the case with $r/n\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ \cite{read2012goodness,Bahadur08}.  However, our problem of interest includes an exceedingly large number of bins, hence, a more suitable assumption for the asymptotic relationship between $n$ and $r$ is $r/n\rightarrow \nu$ with $\nu\in(0,\infty)$. In particular, \cite{Holst1972} shows that some traditional test statistics for the $r/n\rightarrow 0$ case, such as the likelihood ratio test, break down if $r/n\rightarrow \nu$; however, \cite{Holst1972} demonstrates that the popular $\chi$-squared statistic, given by
\begin{eqnarray}
T(\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0)&=& \lrp{\frac{r}{n}\sum_{i=1}^r X_i^2}-n \;=\; rn\lrb{\lrp{\sum_{i=1}^r \lrp{\frac{X_i}{n}}^2}-\frac{1}{r}},
\end{eqnarray}
is robust to this type of asymptotic behavior.  Assuming that $H_0$ holds, $T(\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0)$ is asymptotically distributed chi-squared with $r-1$ degrees of freedom \cite{pearson1900x} (denoted by $\chi_{r-1}^2$) as $r/n\rightarrow\nu$ while $n$ and $r$ approach $\infty$. Hence, for this test statistic the $\alpha$-level rejection region is given by $\mcal{R}(\alpha)=[\chi_{r-1,1-\alpha},\infty)$, where $\chi_{r-1,1-\alpha}$ denotes the $\alpha$-level critical value for the $\chi_{r-1}^2$ distribution (e.g., see Chapter 8.2 in \cite{casella2002statistical}).
Hence, the test statistic evaluated at $\hat{\mbs{p}}$ corresponds to
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau \;=\; T(\hat{\mbs{p}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0) &=& \lrp{\frac{r}{n}\sum_{i=1}^r x_i^2}-n,\label{eq:tau}
\end{eqnarray}
implying that if $\hat{p}_i=\frac{x_i}{n}=\frac{1}{r}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,r$, then $\tau=0$, which explains why the rejection region only encompasses the upper tail of the distribution.

Figure \ref{fig:chisqtest} below depicts the probability density functions obtained for the test statistic under the null hypothesis $H_0$ for $r=2^{25}$ and $n=10^8$.  The region shaded in grey represents $P\lrp{T(\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0) > \tau}$
As mentioned above, the $\alpha$-level hypothesis test conducted rejects $H_0$ whenever $T(\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0)\in\mcal{R}(\alpha)$, or equivalently whenever $P\lrp{T(\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0) > \tau} < \alpha$, which is clearly not the case for for $\alpha\in\lrb{0.01, 0.05,0.1}$ (see Figure \ref{fig:chisqtest}). Thus, from the frequentist standpoint there is no evidence in the data for the test to reject the null hypothesis in favor of $H_1$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{FigAll.pdf}
\caption{Probability density function for $T(\hat{\mbs{p}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0)$ under the null hypothesis of uniformity with $n=10^8$ and $r=2^{25}$.}
\label{fig:chisqtest}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

We tried analogous tests for the pairs $(n=(10^8/2^3), r=2^{22})$, $(n=(10^8/2^5), r=2^{20})$,  and $(n=(10^8/2^7), r=2^{18})$, with $P\lrp{T(\hat{{\mbs{\pi}}},{\mbs{\pi}}_0) > \tau}$ equal to 0.45, 0.94, and 0.01, respectively.  Note that the three tests with larger $n$ and $r$ values, lead to probabilities that are consistent with $H_0$.  While the test for $(n=(10^8/2^7), r=2^{18})$ has a small probability under $H_0$, this result should be interpreted in contrast to all other possible multinomial weights. In the next section we will revisit this result from the Bayesian standpoint, which allows us to test for the strength of $H_0$ among all other possibilities in the $r$-dimensional simplex, as opposed to simply providing an argument of the falsibiability of $H_0$.

\subsection{Bayesian Inference}

While the frequentist testing framework assumes that the vector of multinomial probabilities ${\mbs{\pi}}$ is fixed but unknown, in the Bayesian context ${\mbs{\pi}}$ is considered a random vector. The Bayesian testing machinery uses Bayes rule to calculate the conditional probability for the hypotheses of interest given the observed data, denoted by $P(H_0\,|\, \mbs{x})$ and $P(H_1\,|\, \mbs{x})$, respectively, and uses these probabilities as the measure of evidence for or against them.  These probabilities are referred to in the statistical literature as \emph{posterior probabilities}.  The difficulty in calculating these probabilities stems from choosing \emph{suitable} prior probability distributions over the $r$-dimensional simplex $\mcal{S}_r$ (for the vector of multinomial probabilities ${\mbs{\pi}}$) and over the space of hypotheses $\lrb{H_0,H_1}$.   What is a \emph{suitable} prior probability distribution has been a topic of intense debate in the statistical literature, but the consensus is that in the absence of prior information, these statements should avoid biasing the outcome of the tests in any direction, and should thus be as uninformative as possible to maximize the ability of the information contained in the data to drive the conclusions.

For our particular problem selecting a prior distribution on the space of hypotheses is straightforward. This space solely contains two elements, therefore, only $\psi_0=P(H_0)$ (the prior probability that  $H_0$ holds) has to be specified.  By construction, conditional on $H_0$ the vectors ${\mbs{\pi}}$ and ${\mbs{\pi}}_0$ are equal with probability one. Furthermore, let $g$ denote a conditional  density function with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\lrb{{\mbs{\pi}}\not={\mbs{\pi}}_0}$, with $g({\mbs{\pi}}_0)=0$.  Using Bayes theorem and the definitions above, the posterior probability for $H_0$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
P(H_0\,|\, \mbs{x})&=&\frac{\psi_0 \, f(\mbs{x}\,|\, {\mbs{\pi}}_0) }{\psi_0 \, f(\mbs{x}\,|\, {\mbs{\pi}}_0) + (1-\psi_0) \int_{\mcal{S}_r}f(\mbs{x}\,|\, {\mbs{\pi}})g({\mbs{\pi}})d\,{\mbs{\pi}}}\nonumber\\
&=& \lrp{1+\frac{(1-\psi_0)}{\psi_0} \frac{1}{B_g(\mbs{x})}}^{-1},\label{eq:post}
\end{eqnarray}
where $B_g(\mbs{x})=f(\mbs{x}\,|\, {\mbs{\pi}}_0)\big/ \int_{\mcal{S}_r}f(\mbs{x}\,|\, {\mbs{\pi}})g({\mbs{\pi}})d\,{\mbs{\pi}}$ is the Bayes factor, which corresponds to a likelihood ratio for $H_0$ relative to $H_1$ (where the likelihood under $H_1$ is averaged over all possible ${\mbs{\pi}}\in\mcal{S}$ according to $g$).

In the absence of prior information the usual choice for $\psi_0$ is often $\psi=0.5$, since it sets the ratio in $(1-\psi_0)/\psi_0$ in \eqref{eq:post}  to 1, making
\begin{eqnarray*}
P(H_0\,|\, \mbs{x}) &=& \frac{B_g(\mbs{x})}{1+ B_g(\mbs{x})},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is a function driven by the observed data and the function $g$.  The choice of $g$ strongly affects the outcome of the testing problem, with its influence manifesting through $B_g(\mbs{x})$.  Given that $P(H_0\,|\, \mbs{x})$ is a monotone nondecreasing function of $B_g(\mbs{x})$, instead of choosing a particular function $g$, in \cite{Delampady1990} the authors propose to obtain a lower bound $\underline{B}_G(\mbs{x})=\inf_{g\in G}B_g(\mbs{x})$ over entire classes of densities $G$.  This in turns determines a conservative lower bound for $P(H_0\,|\, \mbs{x})$.  Here, we follow the guidance provided in \cite{Delampady1990}, and restrict to the Dirichlet distribution, characterized by the class of density functions of the form
$$G=\lrb{ g_{c}({\mbs{\pi}})=\frac{\Gamma(c)}{\lrp{\Gamma( c/r)}^r} \prod_{i=1}^r\pi_{i}^{(c/r)-1}\text{, for some }c>0\text{ and }{\mbs{\pi}}\in\mcal{S}_r},$$
whose elements $g_{c}({\mbs{\pi}})$ are conjugate to the likelihood $f(\mbs{x}\,|\, {\mbs{\pi}})$.  These density functions are centered around ${\mbs{\pi}}_0$ (i.e., $E_{g_c}[{\mbs{\pi}}]={\mbs{\pi}}_0$), and spread their mass around the mean in a way that prevents biases towards particular values, lending some measure of ``objectivity'' to the testing procedure. The lower bound for the Bayes factor in the class $G$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\underline{B}_G(\mbs{x}) &=&\inf_{c>0}\frac{\Gamma(c+n)\lrp{\Gamma(c/r)}^r \lrp{1/r}^{n}}{\Gamma(c)\prod_{i=1}^r\Gamma(x_i+c/r)},
\end{eqnarray*}
which approaches $\underline{B}^{*}(\mbs{x})=\inf_{0<\rho<1} \rho^{1-r}\exp{\lrb{-\frac{1}{2}(1-\rho^2)\tau}}$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, with $\tau$ defined as in \eqref{eq:tau}.

Applying the results from \cite{Delampady1990} described above to the data generated with $n=10^8$ and $r=2^{25}$, the value of the asymptotic lower bound $\underline{B}^{*}(\mbs{x})=1$.  A Bayes factor of 1 represents indifference between two competing hypotheses.  That being said, the fact that the Bayes factor is bounded below at 1 indicates that, at its worst, the evidence for ${\mbs{\pi}}_0$ is as strong as the evidence in favor all other possible values of ${\mbs{\pi}}\in \lrb{\mcal{S}_r \setminus \lrb{{\mbs{\pi}}_0}}$ combined.   Thus, choosing $\psi_0=0.5$, we have that
\begin{eqnarray*}
P(H_0\,|\, \mbs{x}) &\geq& \frac{B^*(\mbs{x})}{1+ B^*(\mbs{x})} \; =\; \frac{1}{2},
\end{eqnarray*}
implying that the posterior probability for $\lrb{{\mbs{\pi}}={\mbs{\pi}}_0}$ is at least as large as the posterior probabilities for all other possible values in $\mcal{S}_r$ combined; an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of $H_0$.

Revisiting the alternative experiments considered, we have that, excluding the pair $n=(10^8/2^7)$ and $r=2^{18}$, all other $(n,r)$ combinations lead lower bound for $P(H_0\,|\, \mbs{x})$ of $1/2$, which again provides strong evidence in favor of $H_0$.  For the pair $n=(10^8/2^7)$ and $r=2^{18}$, we find a lower bound of 8\%.  Implying that although the evidence is not overwhelming in this case, there is some evidence for the null hypothesis, especially in light of the fact that the space of all other possibilities is uncountable.

\section{Related Work}
\label{Related}
To our knowledge no research has been published to evaluate numerically the distribution of the sequence $(3/2)^n$ modulo 1. However, the distribution of this sequence has been studied in relation to another topic: Mahler's Z-numbers. A Z-number is a real number $\xi$ such that $\{\xi(3/2)^n\} \leq 1/2$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Mahler conjectured in 1968 that no Z-numbers exist \cite{mahler1968unsolved}.

Recently, Akiyama proved that for coprime integers $p>q> 1$, where $p > q^2$, there exists $\xi > 0$ such that $\{\xi(p/q)^n\}$ stays in a Cantor set for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ \cite{akiyama2008mahler}. Furthermore, Dubickas also proved that for coprime $p>q> 1$, there exists $\xi > 0$ such that $\{\xi(p/q)^n\}$ lies in a short interval of $[0,1]$. In particular, his work implies that $\Vert \{\xi (3/2)^{2n}\} \Vert < 14/45$ \cite{dubickas2010powers}.

Waring's problem is the conjecture that every natural number can be expressed as the sum of $k$ $n$th powers of non-negative integers \cite{finch2003mathematical}. Waring's problem can be solved if the inequality $$\{(3/2)^n\} \leq 1 - (3/4)^n$$ holds. Kubina and Wunderlich demonstrated computationally that this inequality is met for $2 \leq n \leq 471,600,000$ \cite{kubina1990extending}. No counterexample to this inequality has been found, and it is believed that this inequality can be extended to $$(3/4)^n < \{(3/2)^n\} < 1 - (3/4)^n$$ for $n > 7$, though this statement has never been proven \cite{finch2003mathematical}.

As Vijayaraghavan \cite{vijayaraghavan1941fractional} remarked in 1941, it is not known whether $$\limsup\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} \{(3/2)^n\} - \liminf\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} \{(3/2)^n\} > 1/2,$$ and this is still an open problem, but in 1995, Flatto, Lagarias, and Pollington \cite{flatto1995range} showed that $$\limsup\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} \{(3/2)^n\} - \liminf\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty} \{(3/2)^n\} \geq 1/3.$$

\section{Conclusions and Further Work}
\label{Conclusion}
The statistical tests conducted for the numerical experiment strongly support the hypothesis that the sequence $(3/2)^n$ modulo 1 is uniformly distributed when larger sample sizes are considered, both from the frequentist and from the Bayesian standpoint.  For a smaller dataset tested, the evidence is not as conclusive, but even in this case the uniformity hypothesis is not unlikely when considering the outcome of the Bayesian testing procedure.

For the numerical experiment described in Section \ref{Results}, the number of iterations was taken to $n= 10^8$, but it could reasonably be taken to $n=10^9$ or $10^{10}$ with the aid of a supercomputer. The program was parallelized to run four instances total on two computers with Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz, 3401 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s). The runtime of the program for these computers was $11$ days, with a more precise runtime given by $t = (2.378 \num{1e-10})n^2$, for $n$ denoting the number of iterations and $t$ denoting time (in seconds). Starting values for parallelization are noted in Figure \ref{speed} below.

\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{extrapolation1.pdf}
\caption{Program runtime (extrapolated)}
\label{speed}
\end{figure}

On the Uniformity of $(3/2)^n$ Modulo 1


The lost boarding pass, and other practical problems

Abstract: The reader is reminded of several puzzles involving randomness. These may be ill-posed, and if well-posed there is sometimes a solution that uses probabilistic intuition in a special way. Various examples are presented including the well known problem of the lost boarding pass: what is the probability that the last passenger boarding a fully booked plane sits in the assigned seat if the first passenger has occupied a randomly chosen seat? This problem, and its striking answer of $\frac12$, has attracted a good deal of attention since around 2000. We review elementary solutions to this, and to the more general problem of finding the probability the $m$th passenger sits in the assigned seat when in the presence of some number $k$ of passengers with lost boarding passes. A simple proof is presented of the independence of the occupancy status of different seats, and a connection to the Poisson--Dirichlet distribution is mentioned.

\section{Puzzles in probability}

The world is amply supplied with probability teasers. These can mystify and intoxicate. Here are some
classics\footnote{All problems in this article  are considered in some detail in Grimmett
and Stirzaker \cite[Chaps 1, 3, 4, 12]{otep2e, prp3e}.}.
\begin{numlist}
\item {(Family planning)} A family has three children, two of whom are boys. What is the probability the third is a boy?
\item {(Bertrand's paradox)} A chord of the unit circle is picked at random. What is the
probability that an equilateral triangle with the chord as base can fit inside the circle?
\item {(Monty Hall problem)} Monty Hall shows you three doors concealing, \resp, two goats and one Cadillac, and he asks you
to choose a door and take whatever is behind it. Without opening your door, he opens another and displays a goat.
Is it to your advantage to accept his invitation to shift your choice to the third door?
\end{numlist}
These three questions have the common feature of being \lq ill posed': insufficient information
is given for the answer to be properly determined.

There are further teasers that tempt the reader to indulge in sometimes over-complex calculations. Here is one such.

\begin{numlist}
\item [4.] {(Red Now)}
This game is played by a single player with
a well shuffled conventional pack of 52 playing cards. At times $n=1,2,\dots,52$
the player turns over a new card and observes its colour.
Exactly once in the game s/he must say, just before exposing a
card, ``Red Now''. The game is won if the next exposed card is red.
Is there a strategy
for the player that results in a probability of winning different
from $\frac12$?
\end{numlist}

It will be tempting to embark on a calculation that analyses the success
probability of a general strategy, possibly using
some fairly heavyweight machinery such as optional stopping.
One would need firstly to decide what exactly makes  a \lq strategy', and secondly
which strategies to prioritise (such as waiting until
there is a given preponderance of reds in the unseen cards).
There is however a beautiful
\lq one-line' solution\footnote{Explained
to one of the authors by an undergraduate following a lecture.}
that finesses such complexities as follows,
at the price of employing a touch of what might be called \lq probabilistic intuition'.
It may be seen that the chance of winning is the same
for a player who, after calling “Red Now”, picks the card placed at the bottom of the pack rather than
that at the top. At the start of this game,
the bottom card is red with probability $\frac12$ irrespective of the strategy of the player.

We amplify this discussion with a more detailed analysis in Sections \ref{sec:int}--\ref{sec:many}
of the well known \lq lost boarding pass problem'\footnote{See \cite[Prob.\ 1.8.39]{otep2e, prp3e}.}.
This provides a
surprising illustration of the probabilistic property of \lq independence' of events, and
reveals the full structure of the random mapping of passengers to seats.

\section{One lost boarding pass}\label{sec:int}

\begin{question}\label{q1}
(Lost boarding pass problem) A plane has $n\ge 2$ seats, and is fully booked.
A line of $n$ people board one by one. Each has an assigned seat, but the first passenger
(doubtless a mathematician thinking of other things) has
lost his or her boarding pass and sits in a seat chosen at random.  On boarding,
subsequent passengers sit in their assigned seats if free,
and in randomly chosen empty seats if not. What is the probability that
the last passenger sits in his or her assigned seat?
\end{question}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{absent1}
\caption{Seats are labelled $1,2,\dots,n$, and the extra label $n+1$ represents a copy of seat $1$.
In this example, passenger $1$ sits in seat $4$, passenger $4$ is displaced into a later seat, and the chain of
displacement continues until some displaced passenger chooses seat $n+1$ ($\equiv 1$).
An asterisk denotes a correctly seated passenger.}\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}

This problem has generated a good deal of discussion.
It is well known that the answer is $\frac12$, and several arguments may be found  for this
in puzzle books and online (see, for example, \cite{stack}).
The neatest is probably the following
(attributed by Peter Winkler \cite[p.\ 35]{Wink} in 2004
to Alexander Holroyd, but perhaps known contemporaneously to others). Let the passengers be labelled
$1,2,\dots,n$ in order of boarding, and label their assigned seats similarly (so that passenger $k$ has
been assigned the seat labelled $k$). The seating process is illustrated in
Figure \ref{fig:1}.

\begin{solution}\label{soln1}
When the $n$th passenger chooses
a seat, there is only one available, and this must be either seat $1$ or seat $n$
(since seat $r\in\{2,3,\dots,n-1\}$, if free, would have been claimed earlier by passenger $r$).
Each of these two possibilities has probability $\frac12$, since no earlier decision has distinguished between them.
\end{solution}

Some will be uncomfortable with this solution, in that it uses a symmetry rather than an equation.
Such is not atypical of arguments considered by mathematicians to be \lq neat', though they
frequently have the potential to mystify
the uninitiated (see, for example, \cite[p.\ 176]{bb}).

The solution presented in \cite{otep2e} is more prosaic than the above,
and utilizes
conditional probability to derive a recurrence relation. Such a method was used by Dermot Roaf \cite{roaf}
to obtain an answer to the following elaboration of Question \ref{q1}.

\begin{question}\label{q2}
What is the probability that passenger $m$ finds seat $m$ to be already occupied?
\end{question}

We do not include Roaf's solution (which uses an equation). Here however is the \lq one-liner'\footnote{Possibly
noted first by Nigussie \cite{Nigussie}.} that extends Solution \ref{soln1}.

\begin{solution}\label{soln2}
Let $2\le m\le n$.
When
passenger $m$ chooses a seat, seats $2,3,\dots,m-1$ are already taken (since seat $r\in\{2,3,\dots,m-1\}$,
if free, would have been claimed earlier by passenger $r$), and one further seat also.
No information is available about the label of this further seat.
By symmetry, it is equally likely to be any of the $n-m+2$ seats labelled
$1,m,m+1,\dots,n$. Therefore, it is seat $m$
with probability $1/(n-m+2)$.
\end{solution}

Let $D_m$ be the event that passenger $m$ finds seat $m$
already occupied.
Henze and Last \cite{henze} have
observed that the $D_m$ are independent events. We explain this using the
simple argument of Solution \ref{soln2}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm0}
The events $D_2,D_3,\dots,D_n$ are independent.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
This is by iteration of the argument of Solution \ref{soln2}. Let $2\le m_1<m_2\le n$, so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:7}
\Pr(D_{m_1}\cap D_{m_2}) = \Pr(D_{m_1}) \Pr(D_{m_2}\mid D_{m_1}).
\end{equation}
When passenger $m_1$ chooses a seat, seats $2,3,\dots,m_1-1$ have already been taken,
together with one further seat
denoted $S_1$. Conditional on $D_{m_1}$, we have $S_1=m_1$, so that passenger $m_1$ is
displaced to some later seat. When, subsequently, passenger $m_2$ chooses a seat, the seats $m_1+1,m_1+2,\dots,m_2-1$
are occupied and in addition one further seat denoted $S_2$.  The choices made so far
contain no information about $S_2$ other than it is
one of $1,m_2,m_2+1,\dots,n$.
Thus, $\Pr(D_{m_2}\mid D_{m_1})$
equals the (conditional) probability that $S_2=m_2$,
namely $1/(n-m_2+2)$. By \eqref{eq:7},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:8}
\Pr(D_{m_1}\cap D_{m_2}) = \frac1{n-m_1+2}\cdot\frac 1{n-m_2+2}=\Pr(D_{m_1})\Pr(D_{m_2}),
\end{equation}
so that $D_{m_1}$ and $D_{m_2}$ are independent. By the same argument iterated,
any finite subset of  $\{D_m: 2\le m\le n\}$ is independent.
\end{proof}

We summarise the above as follows. By Solution \ref{soln2} and Theorem \ref{thm0}, the $D_m$ are independent wth probabilities $p_m:=\Pr(D_m)$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:9}
p_m=\frac 1{n-m+2},\qq m=2,3,\dots,n.
\end{equation}

We may construct the seating arrangement \lq backwards'.
For $s=1,2,\dots,n$, we declare $s$ to be \emph{red} with probability
$1/s$, and \emph{black} otherwise, with different integers having independent colours.
We relabel seat $1$ as seat $n+1$, so that the seat-set is
now  $S=\{2,3,\dots,n+1\}$, and we declare seat $m$ to be red if the integer $s=n-m+2$ is red,
which occurs with probability $p_m$. The  passengers may now be seated. Passenger $1$ sits in the earliest red seat,
$R_1$ say; passenger $R_1$ sits in the next red seat, $R_2$ say, and so on; undisplaced passengers
sit in their assigned seats.

\begin{remark}\label{rem1}
The harmonic progression of \eqref{eq:9} provokes a coupling of seat colours inspired by the theory of record values.
Let $\{U_s: 1\le s\le n\}$ be independent random variables with the uniform distribution on $[0,1]$.
The integer $s$ is called a \emph{record value} if $U_s>U_r$ for $r<s$.
It is standard\/\footnote{See, for example, \cite[Prob.\ 7.11.36]{otep2e,prp3e}.} that the
events $V_s=\{\text{\rm$s$ is a record value}\}$, for $1\le s \le n$,
are independent with $\Pr(V_s)=1/s$. The seats may be coloured as follows.
Seat $m \in S$ is coloured red if and only if $n-m+2$ is a record value.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}\label{rem:2}
What happens in the limit as $n\to\oo$, and in particular how does Figure \ref{fig:1} evolve when scaled by
the factor $1/n$?
Let $S_i$ be the seat occupied by passenger $i$, with the convention that the seat labelled $1$ is relabelled $n+1$
(see Figure \ref{fig:1}).
Note that $S_i \ge i$ for all $i$, and $S_i=i$ if and only if $i \ne 1$ and $i$ is correctly seated.
The displacements $D_i:= S_i-i$ are a measure of the degree of disorder in the plane.
It turns out that the normalised vector $D=(D_1/n,D_2/n,\dots,D_n/n)$, when re-ordered in
decreasing order (so that the first entry is the maximum displacement),  has  a limiting distribution
in the limit as $n \to\oo$. The limit is the so-called Poisson--Dirichlet distribution, which crops up in
a variety of settings including probabilistic number theory, the theory of random permutations,
and population genetics\/\footnote{See Terry Tao's blog \cite{tao2013}.}.
The key reason for this is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:1}: $S_1$ is uniformly distributed on the set of seats;
passenger $S_1$ sits in a seat labelled $S_2$ that is uniform on the seats to the right of $S_1$; and so on.

\end{remark}

Much mathematics proceeds by identification and solution of a sequence of smaller problems, which are obtained
from the original by  a process of distillation
of intrinsic difficulties. In this way, even teasers may play significant roles in solving challenging
problems.  The lost boarding pass problem
(more specifically, the argument of Solutions \ref{soln1} and \ref{soln2})
has contributed to work by Johan W\"astlund \cite{wast}
on the random assignment problem and the so-called Buck--Chan--Robbins urn process.

\section{Many lost boarding passes}\label{sec:many}

A more general version of Questions \ref{q1} and \ref{q2} has been studied by Henze and Last \cite{henze}.

\begin{question}\label{q3}
Let $k \ge 1$. A plane has $n\ge k+1$ seats, and is fully booked.
A line of $n$ people board one by one. Each has an assigned seat, but the first $k$ passengers
have
lost their boarding passes and sit in seats chosen at random from those available.
Subsequent passengers sit in their assigned seats if free,
and in randomly chosen empty seats if not. Let $k+1 \le m\le n$.
What is the probability  that
passenger $m$ finds seat $m$ already occupied?
\end{question}

\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{absent2}
\caption{With the first $3$ boarding passes lost, each of the first $3$ passengers
initiates a chain of displacements.}\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}

The solution using symmetry follows
the route of Solution \ref{soln2}.

\begin{solution}\label{soln3}
Let $k+1\le m\le n$.
When
passenger $m$ chooses a seat, the seats $k+1,k+2,\dots,m-1$ are already  taken (since seat $r\in\{k+1,k+2,\dots,m-1\}$,
if free, would have been claimed earlier by passenger $r$), and $k$ further seats also.
By symmetry, these further seats are equally likely to be any $k$-subset of the $n-m+k+1$ seats labelled
$1,2,\dots,k,m,m+1,\dots,n$. Therefore, seat $m$ is occupied with probability $k/(n-m+k+1)$.
\end{solution}

In particular, the probability that passenger $n$ sits in his or her assigned seat is
$$
1-\frac k{k+1}= \frac 1{k+1}.
$$
We turn finally to independence.
As in Section \ref{sec:int}, let $D_m$ be the event that passenger $m$ finds seat $m$ already occupied.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm3}
The events $D_{k+1},D_{k+2},\dots,D_n$ are independent.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
This follows that of Theorem \ref{thm0}. For example, by the same argument, \eqref{eq:8} becomes
\begin{align*}
\Pr(D_{m_1}\cap D_{m_2}) &= \frac k{n-m_1+k+1}\cdot\frac k{n-m_2+k+1}\\
&=\Pr(D_{m_1})\Pr(D_{m_2}),
\end{align*}
and similarly for intersections of three or more of the events $D_m$.
\end{proof}

The overall seating program is now as follows, using the language of the end of Section \ref{sec:int}.
We have $S=\{k+1,k+2,\dots,n,n+1,\dots,n+k\}$, and seat $m\in S$ is declared \emph{red} with
probability
$$
p_m= \begin{cases} \dfrac k{n-m+k+1} &\text{if } m \le n,\\
1 &\text{if } m>n,
\end{cases}
$$
and \emph{black} otherwise, different seats being coloured independently of one another.
There are $k$ distinct shades $\rho_1,\rho_2,\dots,\rho_k$ of red. Each red seat $m$ satisfying $m\le n$
is shaded with a uniformly random shade, chosen
independently of the shades of other red seats.  As for the seats labelled $n+1,n+2,\dots,n+k$, for
each $i$ exactly one
of these is shaded
$\rho_i$, with the distribution of shades being given by a random permutation of the labels.

The passengers may now be seated according to the following algorithm.
Passenger $1$ sits in the earliest seat shaded $\rho_1$; the displaced passenger
sits in the next seat shaded $\rho_1$, and so on.
The process is repeated for passengers $2,3,\dots,k$, and finally
the black seats are occupied by their correct passengers.

\begin{remark}\label{rem:3}
In Remark \ref{rem:2} we identified the limit of the seating process as $n\to\oo$, with displacements
scaled by $1/n$. With $k \ge 1$ lost boarding passes, the diagram of Figure \ref{fig:2}
converges, when rescaled,  to $k$ independent copies of that of Figure \ref{fig:1}.
\end{remark}

One may also consider the more general situation when the lost boarding passes may not be consecutive.
The associated probabilities can be calculated using the methods and conclusions given above.

\section*{Acknowledgement}
We are grateful to David Bell for having drawn our attention to Question \ref{q1}
in 2000 or earlier.

\input{lost-bp3.bbl}

\end{document}

Probability (math.PR); History and Overview (math.HO)


On Bayes risk of the posterior mean in linear inverse problems

Abstract: We consider the concept of Bayes risk in the context of finite-dimensional ill-posed linear inverse problem with Gaussian prior and noise models. In this note, we rederive the following well-known result: in the present Gaussian linear setting, the Bayes risk of the posterior mean, relative to the sum of squares loss function, equals the trace of the posterior covariance operator. While our discussion is limited to a finite-dimensional setup, our presentation is motivated by more general infinite-dimensional formulations.

\section{Introduction}
We recall some basics from theory of point estimation regarding the concept of
the risk for an estimator. Then, taking a Bayesian point of view, we discuss the
notion of Bayes risk.  We focus on ill-posed linear inverse problems with
Gaussian prior and additive Gaussian noise models. In this case, we show that
the Bayes risk, relative to the sum of squares loss function, equals the trace
of the posterior covariance operator; see Proposition~\ref{prp:main}.  The results discussed herein are
well-known. The purpose of this note is to provide an accessible and
self-contained summary. For further details on the concepts of risk and Bayes
risk of an estimator discussed below, see e.g.,~\cite{Ghosh06,Berger13}.
Herein, we consider only inverse problems with finite-dimensional parameters.
However, the result on Bayes risk (Proposition~\ref{prp:main}) can be extended to Bayesian linear
inverse problems in infinite-dimensional Hilbert
spaces~\cite{AlexanderianGloorGhattas16}.
In fact, the style of presentation in this note, while limited to a finite-dimensional
setup, is motivated by the
more general infinite-dimensional Hilbert space setting.

In a statistical inverse problem,
Bayes risk can be used as a means of assessing the statistical quality of the
estimated parameter. This is important, for example, in the context of optimal
experimental design (OED). In an OED problem, one seeks measurements that optimize
the quality of the estimated parameters.  Bayes risk is one from among several
possibilities for an optimal experimental design criterion; see
e.g,~\cite{ChalonerVerdinelli95,Haber08,Alexanderian21}.

\section{Preliminaries}

In this section, we recall some basics from probability and statistics that are
needed in this note.  Throughout, $\mathbb{R}^N$ is always equipped with the
Euclidean inner product, denoted by $\ip{\cdot}{\cdot}$, and the Euclidean norm
$\| \cdot \| = \ip{\cdot}{\cdot}^{1/2}$. If we want to emphasize the dimension
$N$ of the space, when using the Euclidean inner product, we use the notation
$\ipn{\cdot}{\cdot}{N}$.

\subsection{Background concepts from probability}
We denote the Borel sigma-algebra on $\mathbb{R}^N$ by $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^N)$.
Let us recall the definition of the mean and covariance operator of a
probability measure $\mu$ on $(\mathbb{R}^N, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^N))$ that has finite first and
second moments.
Let $\{\vec{e}_1, \ldots, \vec{e}_N\}$ be the
standard basis in $\mathbb{R}^N$.  The mean $\vec{c}$ and covariance operator
$\mat{Q}$ of $\mu$ are defined as follows:
\[
c_i = \ip{\vec{e}_i}{\vec{c}} = \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \ip{\vec{e}_i}{\vec{x}} \,
\mu(d\vec{x}) \quad \mbox{ and }\quad
Q_{ij} = \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \ip{\vec{e}_i}{\vec{x}-\vec{c}} \ip{\vec{e}_j}{\vec{x}-\vec{c}} \, \mu(d\vec{x}),
\]
with $i, j \in \{1, \ldots, N\}$.\footnote{The notions of mean and covariance operator
of measures
extend naturally to the case of probability measures on infinite-dimensional
Hilbert spaces~\cite{DaPrato}.}  Using the definition of mean
and covariance operator, it is straightforward to show
\[
    \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \| \vec{x} \|^2 \,d\vec{x} = \mathsf{tr}(\mat{Q}) + \| \vec{c}\|^2.
\]

Let $\mu$ be a probability measure on $(\mathbb{R}^N, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^N))$.  The law of a random
variable $\vec Z:(\mathbb{R}^N, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^N), \mu) \to (\mathbb{R}^M, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^M))$ is the probability
measure $\Law{\vec Z}$ defined by
\[
    \Law{\vec Z}(E) = \mu(\vec{Z}^{-1}(E))
\quad E \in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^M).
\]
See~\cite{Williams} for more details.  We recall the following well-known
result:
a Borel measurable function $\phi:\mathbb{R}^M \to \mathbb{R}$
is integrable with respect to $\Law{\vec{Z}}$
precisely when $\phi \circ \vec{Z}$ is integrable with respect to
$\mu$. In addition, we have the change of variable formula
\[
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N} \phi(\vec{Z}(\vec{x})) \mu(d\vec{x}) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^M} \phi(\vec{z}) \Law{\vec{Z}}(d\vec{z}).
\]
This result holds in more general measure theoretic settings;
see~\cite[Section 3.6]{Bogachev07}.
We will also need the following well-known result regarding
Gaussian measures~\cite{DaPrato}.
We include a proof of this in the
present finite-dimensional setting, for completeness.
\begin{proposition}\label{prp:change_meas_gaussian}
Let $\mu = \GM{\vec{c}}{\mat{Q}}$ be a Gaussian measure on $(\mathbb{R}^N, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^N))$.
Let $\AA \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times N}$ and $\ss \in \mathbb{R}^M$.
Define the random variable $\vec{Z}(\vec x) = \AA \vec{x} + \ss$
on $(\mathbb{R}^N, \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^N), \mu)$.
Then, $\vec{Z}$ is a Gaussian random variable with law $\Law{\vec{Z}} =
\GM{\AA\vec{c} + \ss}{\AA \mat{Q} \AA^\tran}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
See the Appendix~\ref{appdx:proof}.
\end{proof}
Let us also recall the following related result:
let $\vec{X}$ be a $N$-dimensional
Gaussian random vector with law
$\GM{\vec{c}}{\mat{Q}}$ and let $\AA \in \mathbb{R}^{M \times N}$ and $\ss \in \mathbb{R}^M$. Then,
$\vec{Z} = \AA \vec{X} + \ss$ is also a Gaussian and
\begin{equation}\label{equ:lin_image}
   \vec{Z} \sim \GM{\AA\vec{c} + \ss}{\AA \mat{Q} \AA^\tran}.
\end{equation}
See e.g.,~\cite[p.~121]{Gut09} for a direct proof of this for
Gaussian random vectors.

\subsection{Frequentist risk}
In what follows, $\mathscr{H}$ denotes the $N$-dimensional Euclidean space,
$\vec{m} \in \mathscr{H}$ is an inference parameter, and $\widehat{\vec{m}}(\vec{y})$ is
an estimator (point-estimate) for $\vec{m}$ obtained using a realization of data $\vec{y}$. We
let $\L{\vec{m}, \widehat{\vec{m}}(\vec{y})}$ denote a loss function.
An example (and that's the only one we consider) is the sum of
squares loss function:
\[
   \L{\vec{m}, \widehat{\vec{m}}(\vec{y})} = \norm{ \vec{m} - \widehat{\vec{m}}(\vec{y})}^2,
\]
where $\| \cdot \|$ is the Euclidean norm.
The data $\obs$ takes values in $\mathscr{Y} = \mathbb{R}^D$. Herein,
we let $\pi_{\scriptscriptstyle\text{like}}(\vec{y} | \vec{m})$ be a likelihood function.

From a frequentist point of view, there is nothing random about the parameter
vector $\vec{m}$. This parameter is an underlying truth we seek to estimate.
On the other hand, the estimator $\widehat{\vec{m}}$ is a random
variable---it is a function of the random variable $\vec{y}$.  (The
distribution of $\vec{y}$ is specified by a likelihood model.)  We denote the
(frequentist) \emph{risk} of the estimator
$\widehat{\vec{m}}$ by $\mathrm{Risk}(\widehat{\vec{m}}; \vec{m})$ and define it as follows,
\[
   \mathrm{Risk}(\widehat{\vec{m}}; \vec{m}) = \ave{\vec{y}|\vec{m}}{\L{\vec{m}, \widehat{\vec{m}}(\cdot)}} = \int_\mathscr{Y} \L{\vec{m}, \widehat{\vec{m}}(\vec{y})} \pi_{\scriptscriptstyle\text{like}}( \vec{y} | \vec{m}) \, d\vec{y}.
\]
A common choice for the loss function is the sum of squares loss function, where
we use
\[
   \mathrm{Risk}(\widehat{\vec{m}}; \vec{m}) =
   \ave{\vec{y}|\vec{m}} {\norm{\vec{m} - \widehat{\vec{m}}(\vec{y})}^2}
   = \int_\mathscr{Y} \norm{\vec{m} - \widehat{\vec{m}}(\vec{y})}^2  \pi_{\scriptscriptstyle\text{like}}( \vec{y} | \vec{m}) \, d\vec{y}.
\]
The above risk is often referred to as the mean-squared-error
and is denoted by $\mathrm{MSE}$; i.e., $\mathrm{MSE}(\widehat{\vec{m}}; \vec{m}) = \avey{\norm{\vec{m} - \widehat{\vec{m}}(\vec{y})}^2}$.
An elementary calculation shows,
\begin{equation}\label{equ:MSE}
    \mathrm{MSE}(\widehat{\vec{m}}; \vec{m}) = \norm{\vec{m} - \aver{\widehat{\vec{m}}}}^2 + \aver{ \norm{\widehat{\vec{m}} - \aver{\widehat{\vec{m}}}}^2},
\end{equation}
where for brevity we have used $\aver{\cdot}$ in place of $\avey{\cdot}$.
Note that the first term in~\eqref{equ:MSE} quantifies the magnitude of estimation bias,
$\norm{\vec{m} - \aver{\widehat{\vec{m}}}}^2 = \norm{\mathrm{Bias}(\widehat{\vec{m}})}^2$,
and the second one describes the variability of the estimator around its mean.

\section{The $\mathrm{MSE}$ for the solution of an ill-posed linear inverse problem}
Consider a linear forward operator $\mat{F} \in \mathbb{R}^{D \times N}$ and
the following data model
\[
    \obs = \mat{F} \vec{m} + \vec{\eta},
\]
where $\vec{\eta}$ is a centered Gaussian with covariance $\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}$. This implies,
$\obs | \vec{m} \sim \GM{\mat{F}\vec{m}}{\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}}$.
Given a realization of $\obs$, we can
obtain a point-estimate for the parameter $\vec{m}$ by computing
\begin{equation}\label{equ:linearinv}
    \widehat{\vec{m}}(\obs) = \arg\min_{\vec{m} \in \mathscr{H}}\,
\frac12 (\mat{F} \vec{m} - \obs)^\tran \vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}^{-1} (\mat{F}\vec{m} - \obs) +
\frac\regpar2 (\vec{m} - \vec{m}_0)^\tran \mat{R} (\vec{m} - \vec{m}_0).
\end{equation}
Here $\mat{R} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$ is a (symmetric positive definite) regularization operator, needed
due to ill-posed nature of the inverse problemm, $\upbeta$ is a regularization
parameter, and $\vec{m}_0$ is a reference parameter value.
In many cases $\vec{m}_0 = \vec{0}$ is used.
The solution to the regularized least-squares problem
is
\begin{equation}\label{equ:dparh}
    \widehat{\vec{m}}(\obs) = \mat{H}^{-1}(\mat{F}^\tran\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}^{-1}\obs + \upbeta \mat{R} \vec{m}_0),
\end{equation}
with
\[
    \mat{H} = \mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}} + \upbeta \mat{R}, \qquad \mbox{ where }\qquad \mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}} = \mat{F}^\tran \vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}^{-1} \mat{F}.
\]
Note that $\mat{H}$ is the Hessian of the objective function in~\eqref{equ:linearinv},
and $\mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}}$ is the Hessian of the data-misfit part in the objective function.

The following result describes the $\mathrm{MSE}(\widehat{\vec{m}}; \vec{m})$ in the
present setting:
\begin{proposition}
Let $\widehat{\vec{m}}$ in~\eqref{equ:dparh} be the estimator of $\vec{m}$. Then,
\begin{equation}\label{equ:MSE_linear_inv}
    \mathrm{MSE}(\widehat{\vec{m}}; \vec{m}) = \upbeta^2\norm{\mat{H}^{-1}\mat{R} (\vec{m} -\vec{m}_0)}^2
                             + \mathsf{tr}(\mat{H}^{-2} \mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}}).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First we note that
\[
\begin{aligned}
   \mathrm{Bias}(\widehat{\vec{m}}) = \avey{\widehat{\vec{m}}} - \vec{m}
   &= \avey{\mat{H}^{-1}\mat{F}^\tran\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}^{-1}\obs} + \upbeta \mat{H}^{-1} \mat{R} \vec{m}_0 - \vec{m} \\
   &= \mat{H}^{-1}\mat{F}^\tran\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}^{-1}\mat{F}\vec{m} - \vec{m} + \upbeta \mat{H}^{-1} \mat{R} \vec{m}_0\\
   &= \mat{H}^{-1}( \mat{F}^\tran \vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}^{-1} \mat{F} - \mat{H}) \vec{m} + \upbeta \mat{H}^{-1} \mat{R} \vec{m}_0\\
   &= -\upbeta\mat{H}^{-1}\mat{R}(\vec{m} - \vec{m}_0).
\end{aligned}
\]
Thus, the first term in~\eqref{equ:MSE} is given by $\upbeta^2
\norm{\mat{H}^{-1}\mat{R} (\vec{m}-\vec{m}_0)}^2$.
Next, we compute the second term in~\eqref{equ:MSE}. To this end, let us
define $\vec{Z}(\obs) = \widehat{\vec{m}}(\obs) - \aver{\widehat{\vec{m}}(\cdot)}$, and note that $\vec{Z}$
has a
Gaussian law $\Law{\vec Z}$ with mean
zero and covariance operator,
\[
    (\mat{H}^{-1} \mat{F}^\tran \vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}^{-1}) \vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}} (\mat{H}^{-1} \mat{F}^\tran \vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}^{-1})^\tran = \mat{H}^{-1} \mat{F}^\tran \vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{noise}}^{-1} \mat{F} \mat{H}^{-1}
      = \mat{H}^{-1} \mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}} \mat{H}^{-1}.
\]
Therefore,
\[
    \aversmall{\norm{\vec{Z}(\obs)}^2} = \int_\mathscr{H} \norm{\vec{z}}^2
\, \Law{z}(d\vec z)
    = \mathsf{tr}(\mat{H}^{-1} \mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}} \mat{H}^{-1})
    = \mathsf{tr}(\mat{H}^{-2} \mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}}). \qedhere
\]
\end{proof}

\section{Bayes risk and the case of the Bayesian linear inverse problem}
As seen in the previous section, the $\mathrm{MSE}$ of the least-squares estimate
$\widehat{\vec{m}}$ has a contribution from the estimation bias; see,
e.g.,~\eqref{equ:MSE_linear_inv}, where the first term in the sum
is the size of the estimation bias.  We cannot compute the
bias term because it depends on the unknown parameter $\vec{m}$ we are trying
estimate.
As seen shortly, this issue can be dealt with naturally in a Bayesian
framework, where we view $\vec{m}$ as a random variable.

We equip $\mathscr{H}$ with the corresponding Borel sigma algebra and consider the
measurable space $(\mathscr{H}, \mathcal{B}(\mathscr{H}))$.  In the Bayesian framework, our prior
knowledge regarding the parameter $\vec{m}$ is encoded in a probability measure
$\mu_\text{pr}$ on $(\mathscr{H}, \mathcal{B}(\mathscr{H}))$. We refer to $\mu_\text{pr}$ as the prior measure.
This setup, in particular, enables computing the expected value of the bias
term and leads to the notion of \emph{Bayes risk}.  Namely,
we define the Bayes risk as the expected value of the
frequentist risk with respect to the prior law of $\vec{m}$.
In particular, using the $\mathrm{MSE}$ as the risk measure, we define the Bayes risk
of the estimator $\widehat{\vec{m}}$ by
\[
   \myov{\mathrm{Risk}}(\widehat{\vec{m}}) = \ave{\mu_\text{pr}}{\mathrm{MSE}(\widehat{\vec{m}}; \vec{m})}
                 = \int_\mathscr{H} \int_\mathscr{Y} \norm{\vec{m} - \widehat{\vec{m}}(\vec{y})}^2  \pi_{\scriptscriptstyle\text{like}}( \vec{y} | \vec{m}) \, d\vec{y} \, \mu_\text{pr}(d\vec{m}).
\]
We consider a Gaussian prior measure $\mu_\text{pr} = \GM{\vec{m}_{\mathrm{pr}}}{\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}}$.

Next, we cast the linear inverse problem~\eqref{equ:linearinv} in a Bayesian
framework.  The following is based on standard results on Gaussian linear inverse
problems~\cite{Tarantola05}.
In the Bayesian formulation, we relabel components of
~\eqref{equ:linearinv} and~\eqref{equ:dparh} as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\vec{m}_0$ is replaced with $\vec{m}_{\mathrm{pr}}$;
\item $\upbeta\mat{R}$ is replaced with $\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}^{-1}$;
\item $\mat{H}^{-1}$ is replaced with the covariance operator $\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}$; and
\item $\widehat{\vec{m}}(\obs)$ becomes the posterior mean $\vec{m}_{\mathrm{post}}^\obs$.
\end{itemize}
The expression~\eqref{equ:MSE_linear_inv} for the $\mathrm{MSE}$, cast in the present Bayesian framework, is given by
\[
    \mathrm{MSE}(\vec{m}_{\mathrm{post}}^\obs; \vec{m}) = \norm{\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}^{-1} (\vec{m}-\vec{m}_{\mathrm{pr}})}^2 + \mathsf{tr}(\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}^{2} \mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}}).
\]
The following result, which is the main point of this note, concludes our discussion.
\begin{proposition}\label{prp:main}
We have $\myov{\mathrm{Risk}}(\vec{m}_{\mathrm{post}}^\obs) = \mathsf{tr}(\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the random variable $\vec Z(\vec{m}) =
\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}^{-1} (\vec{m} - \vec{m}_{\mathrm{pr}})$, defined on $(\mathscr{H},\mathcal{B}(\mathscr{H}), \mu_\text{pr})$,
and note that $\Law{\vec Z} =  \GM{\vec 0}{\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}^{-1}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}}$. Thus,
\[
\int_\mathscr{H} \norm{\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}^{-1} (\vec{m} - \vec{m}_{\mathrm{pr}})}^2 \, \mu_\text{pr}(d\vec{m})
   = \int_\mathscr{H} \norm{ \vec{z}}^2 \, \Law{\vec{z}} (d\vec{z})
   = \mathsf{tr}(\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}^{-1}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}})
   = \mathsf{tr}(\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}^{2}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}^{-1}).
\]
Therefore,
\[
\begin{aligned}
\myov{\mathrm{Risk}}(\vec{m}_{\mathrm{post}}^\obs) = \int_\mathscr{H} \mathrm{MSE}(\vec{m}_{\mathrm{post}}) \, \mu_\text{pr}(d\vec{m})
                &= \int_\mathscr{H} \norm{\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}^{-1} (\vec{m} - \vec{m}_{\mathrm{pr}})}^2 \, \mu_\text{pr}(d\vec{m}) + \mathsf{tr}(\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}^{2} \mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}}) \\
                &= \mathsf{tr}(\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}^{2}\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{pr}}^{-1}) +  \mathsf{tr}(\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}^{2} \mat{H}_{\mathrm{misfit}}) = \mathsf{tr}(\vec{\Gamma}_{\mathrm{post}}).\qedhere
\end{aligned}
\]
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{plain}