The copies of any permutation pattern are asymptotically normal

Abstract: We prove that the number of copies of any given permutation pattern $q$ has an asymptotically normal distribution in random permutations.

\section{Introduction}
The classic definition of pattern avoidance for permutations is as follows.
Let $p=p_1p_2\cdots p_n$ be a permutation, let $k<n$, and let $q=q_1q_2\cdots
q_k$ be another permutation. We say that $p$ {\em contains} $q$ as a pattern
if there exists a subsequence $1\leq i_1<i_2<\cdots <i_k\leq n$
 so that for all indices
$j$ and $r$, the inequality $q_j<q_r$ holds if and only if the inequality
$p_{i_j}<p_{i_r}$ holds. If $p$ does not contain $q$, then we say
that $p$ {\em avoids} $q$.  In other words, $p$ contains $q$ if $p$ has
a subsequence of entries, not necessarily in consecutive positions, which
relate to each other the same way as the entries of $q$ do.

In a recent survey paper \cite{monsurvey} on the monotone permutation
pattern $12\cdots k$, we have shown that if $X_n$ is the random variable
counting copies of that pattern in a randomly selected permutation
of length $n$, then as $n$ goes to infinity, $X_n$ converges (in distribution)
to a normal distribution. When we say ``random permutation'', we mean that
each permutation of length $n$ is selected with probability $1/n!$.

In this paper, we will generalize that result for {\em any} permutation
pattern $q$, and the variable $X_{n,{\bf q}}$ counting the copies of $q$ in
permutations of length $n$. The proof is very similar to the monotone case;
just some details
have to be modified. The result is a far-reaching generalization of
the classic results (see \cite{fulman}) for more references) that descents
and inversions of random permutations are asymptotically normal.
 As a byproduct, we will see how close $\hbox {Var}(X_{n,{\bf q}})$
and $\hbox {Var}(X_{n,{\bf 12\cdots k}})$
 are to each other, for any pattern $q$ of length
$k$.

\section{The Proof of Our Theorem}
\subsection{Background and Definitions}
We need to introduce some notation for transforms of the random variable
$Z$. Let $\bar{Z}=Z-E(Z)$, let $\tilde{Z}=\bar{Z}/\sqrt{\hbox {Var}( Z)}$, and let
$Z_n\rightarrow N(0,1)$ mean that $Z_n$ converges in distribution to the
standard normal variable.

\begin{definition}
Let $\{Y_{n,k}|k=1,2,\cdots ,N_n\}$ be an array of
 random variables.
 We say that a graph $G$ is
a {\em dependency graph} for   $\{Y_{n,k}|k=1,2\cdots , N_n\}$
 if the following
two conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a bijection between the random variables $Y_{n,k}$ and
the vertices of $G$, and
\item If $V_1$ and $V_2$ are two disjoint sets of vertices of $G$ so that
no edge of $G$ has one endpoint in $V_1$ and another one in $V_2$, then
the corresponding sets of random variables are independent.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}

Note that  the dependency graph of a
 family of variables is not unique. Indeed if $G$ is a dependency graph
for a family and $G$ is not a complete graph,
 then we can get other dependency graphs for the family
by simply adding new edges to $G$.

Now we are in position to state Janson's theorem, the famous
{\em Janson dependency criterion}.

\begin{theorem} \cite{janson} \label{janson}
Let $Y_{n,k}$ be an array of random variables such that for all $n$, and
for all $k=1,2,\cdots ,N_n$, the inequality $|Y_{n,k}|\leq A_n$ holds for
some real number $A_n$, and that the maximum degree of a dependency
graph of $\{Y_{n,k} | k=1,2,\cdots ,N_n \}$ is $\Delta_n$.

Set $Y_n=\sum_{k=1}^{N_n} Y_{n,k}$ and $\sigma_n^2= \hbox {Var} ( Y_n)$. If there
is a natural number $m$ so that
\begin{equation} \label{jansencond}
N_n\Delta_n^{m-1} \left (\frac{A_n}{\sigma_n} \right )^m \rightarrow 0,
\end{equation}
as $n$ goes to infinity, then \[ \tilde{Y}_n \rightarrow N(0,1) .\]
\end{theorem}

\subsection{Verifying the Conditions of Janson's Criterion}
Let $q$ be a fixed pattern of length $k$. As $q$ is fixed for the rest
of this paper, we will  mark our variables $X_n$ instead of $X_{n,{\bf q}}$,
in order to avoid excessive indexing.

Let us order the ${n\choose k}$ subwords of length $k$ of the permutation
$p_1p_2\cdots p_n$ linearly in some way.
For $1\leq i\leq {n\choose k}$, let $X_{n,i}$
 be the indicator random
variable of the event that in a randomly selected permutation of length $n$,
the $i$th subword of length $k$ in the permutation $p=p_1p_2\cdots p_n$
is a $q$-pattern. We will now verify that the family of the
$X_{n,i}$ satisfies all conditions of the Janson Dependency Criterion.

First, $|X_{n,i}|\leq 1$ for all $i$ and all $n$, since the $X_{n,i}$ are
indicator random variables. So we can set $A_n=1$. Second, $N_n={n\choose k}$,
the total number of subwords of length $k$ in $p$. Third, if $a\neq b$, then
$X_a$ and $X_b$ are independent unless the corresponding subwords intersect.
For that, the $b$th subword must intersect the $a$th subword in $j$ entries,
for some $1\leq j\leq k-1$. For a fixed $a$th subword, the number of
ways that can happen is $\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} {k\choose j}{n-k\choose k-j}=
{n\choose k}-{n-k \choose k}-1$, where we used
 the well-known Vandermonde identity to compute the sum.
Therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{maxdegree}
\Delta_n \leq {n\choose k}-{n-k \choose k}-1.
\end{equation}
In particular, note that (\ref{maxdegree}) provides an upper bound for
$\Delta_n$ in terms of a polynomial function of $n$ that is
of degree $k-1$ since terms of degree
$k$ will cancel.

There remains the task of finding a lower bound for $\sigma_n$ that
we can then use in applying Theorem \ref{janson}. Let $X_n=
\sum_{i=1}^{n\choose k} X_{n,i}$. We will show the following.

\begin{proposition} \label{varprop}
 There exists a positive constant $c$ so that
for all $n$, the inequality
\[\hbox {Var}(X_n)\geq cn^{2k-1}\]
holds.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
By linearity of expectation, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{variance}
\hbox {Var} (X_n) & = & E(X_n^2) - (E(X_n))^2 \\
 & = & E \left (\left( \sum_{i=1}^{{n\choose k}} X_{n,i} \right )^2 \right )
-  \left (E \left (\sum_{i=1}^{{n\choose k}} X_{n,i} \right ) \right )^2 \\
 & = & E \left (\left( \sum_{i=1}^{{n\choose k}} X_{n,i} \right )^2 \right )
- \left( \sum_{i=1}^{{n\choose k}} E(X_{n,i}) \right )^2  \\
 \label{lastone} & = &  \sum_{i_1, i_2}
E(X_{n,i_1}X_{n,i_2})  - \sum_{i_1, i_2}
E(X_{n,i_1})E(X_{n,i_2}).
\end{eqnarray}

Let $I_1$ (resp. $I_2$) denote the $k$-element subword of $p$ indexed
by $i_1$, (resp. $i_2$). Clearly, it suffices to show that
\begin{equation} \label{simplified} \sum_{|I_1\cap I_2| \leq 1}
E(X_{n,i_1}X_{n,i_2}) - \sum_{i_1, i_2}
E(X_{n,i_1})E(X_{n,i_2}) \geq cn^{2k-1},\end{equation}
since the left-hand side of (\ref{simplified}) is obtained from the
(\ref{lastone}) by removing the sum of some positive terms, that is,
the sum of all $E(X_{n,i_1}X_{n,i_2})$ where  $|I_1\cap I_2| >1$.

As $E(X_{n,i})=1/k!$ for each $i$, the sum with negative sign in
(\ref{lastone}) is
\[ \sum_{i_1, i_2}
E(X_{n,i_1})E(X_{n,i_2}) ={n\choose k}^2 \cdot \frac{1}{k!^2},\]
which is a polynomial function
 in $n$, of degree $2k$ and of leading coefficient
$\frac{1}{k!^4}$. As far as the summands in  (\ref{lastone}) with a positive
sign go, {\em most} of them are also equal to  $\frac{1}{k!^2}$. More
precisely, $E(X_{n,i_1}X_{n,i_2})=\frac{1}{k!^2}$ when
 $I_1$ and $I_2$ are disjoint, and that happens for
${n\choose k}{n-k\choose k}$ ordered pairs $(i_1,i_2)$
 of indices. The sum of these
summands is
\begin{equation}
\label{disjoint} d_n={n\choose k}{n-k\choose k} \frac{1}{k!^2},
\end{equation}
which is again a polynomial function in $n$, of degree $2k$ and with leading
coefficient
$\frac{1}{k!^4}$. So summands
 of degree $2k$ will cancel out in (\ref{lastone}). (We will see in the next
paragraph that the summands we have not yet considered add up to a polynomial
of degree $2k-1$.)

In fact, considering the two types of summands we studied in
(\ref{lastone}) and (\ref{disjoint}), we see that they add up to
\begin{eqnarray}
{n\choose k}{n-k\choose k} \frac{1}{k!^2}-{n\choose k}^2  \frac{1}{k!^2}
& = & n^{2k-1} \frac{2{k\choose 2}-{2k-1\choose 2}}{k!^4}+O(n^{2k-2}) \\
\label{theeasy} & = & n^{2k-1} \frac{-k^2}{k!^4} +O(n^{2k-2}) .
\end{eqnarray}

Next we look at ordered pairs of indices $(i_1,i_2)$ so that the corresponding
subwords $I_1$ and $I_2$ intersect in exactly one entry, the entry
 $x$. Let us restrict our attention to the special case when
  $I_1$ and $I_2$ both form $q$-patterns, and
$x$ is the $a$th smallest entry in $I_1$ and the $b$th smallest entry in
 $I_2$. Given $q$, the pair $(a,b)$
describes the location of $x$ in $I_1$ and in $I_2$
as well. Let $I_1'$ (resp. $I_2'$) denote the set of
 $a-1$ positions in $I_1$ (resp.
$b-1$ positions in
$I_2$) which must contain entries smaller than $x$ given that
 $I_1$ (resp. $I_2$)  forms a $q$-pattern. Similarly, let
$I_1''$ (resp. $I_2''$) denote the
set of $k-a$ positions in $I_1$ (resp.
$k-b$ positions $I_2$) which must contain entries larger than $x$ given that
 $I_1$ (resp. $I_2$)
 forms a $q$-pattern.

\begin{example}
Let $q=35142$, and let us say that $I_1$ and $I_2$ both form $q$-patterns,
and they intersect in one entry $x$ that is the third smallest entry in
$I_1$ and the fourth smallest entry in $I_2$ (so $a=3$, and $b=4$).
Then $x$ is the leftmost entry of $I_1$ and the next-to-last entry of $I_2$.
Furthermore, the third and fifth positions of $I_1$ form $I_1'$ and the
second and fourth positions of $I_1$ form $I_1''$. Similarly,
the first, third, and fifth positions of $I_2$ form $I_2'$ and the second
position of $I_2$ forms $I_2''$.
\end{example}

Let $q_a$ (resp. $q_b$) be the pattern obtained from $q$ by removing its
$a$th smallest (resp. $b$th smallest) entry.

Note that  $X_{i_1}X_{i_2}=1$ if and only if all of the following independent
events hold.
\begin{enumerate}
\item In the $(2k-1)$-element set of entries that belong to $I_1\cup I_2$,
the entry $x$ is the $(a+b-1)$th smallest. This happens with
probability $1/(2k-1)$.
\item The $a+b-2$ entries in positions belonging to $I_1'\cup I_2'$
 must all be
smaller than the $2k-a-b$ entries in positions belonging to
 $I_1''\cup I_2''$. This happens with probability
$\frac{1}{{2k-2\choose a+b-2}}$.
\item
\begin{itemize}
\item the subword $I_1'$ is a pattern that is isomorphic to the
pattern formed by the $a-1$ smallest entries of $q$,
\item the subword
$I_2'$ is a pattern that is isomorphic to the
pattern formed by the $b-1$ smallest entries of $q$,
\item the subword $I_1''$ is a pattern that is isomorphic to the
pattern formed by the $k-a$ largest entries of $q$, and
\item
the subword $I_2''$ is a pattern that is isomorphic to the
pattern formed by the $k-b$ largest entries of $q$.
This happens with probability
$\frac{1}{(a-1)!(b-1)!(k-a)!(k-b)!}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}

Therefore, if  $|I_1\cap I_2|=1$, then
\begin{eqnarray} \label{oneprob}
P(X_{i_1}X_{i_2}=1) & = &
\frac{1}{(2k-1){2k-2\choose a+b-2}(a-1)!(b-1)!(k-a)!(k-b)!} \\
& = & \frac{1}{(2k-1)!}\cdot{a+b-2 \choose a-1}{2k-a-b\choose k-a}
.\end{eqnarray}

How many such ordered pairs $(I_1,I_2)$ are there? There are ${n\choose 2k-1}$
choices for the underlying set $I_1\cup I_2$.
Once that choice is made,
the $a+b-1$st smallest entry of $I_1\cup I_2$ will be $x$.
Then
the number of choices for the set of  entries other than $x$
that will be part of $I_1$ is ${a+b-2\choose a-1}{2k-a-b\choose k-a}$.
 Therefore, summing over all $a$ and $b$ and
recalling (\ref{oneprob}),
\begin{eqnarray} \label{contribution}
p_n & = &  \sum_{|I_1\cap I_2|=1}P(X_{i_1}X_{i_2}=1)=\sum_{|I_1\cap I_2|=1}
E (X_{i_1}X_{i_2})  \\
\label{thehard} &  = &
 \frac{1}{(2k-1)!}{n\choose 2k-1}\sum_{1\leq a,b\leq k}{a+b-2 \choose a-1}^2
{2k-a-b\choose k-a}^2.
\end{eqnarray}

The expression we just obtained is a polynomial of degree $2k-1$, in the
variable $n$. We claim that its leading coefficient is
larger than $k^2/k!^4$. If we can show that, the proposition will be proved
since (\ref{theeasy}) shows that the summands not included in
(\ref{contribution}) contribute about $-\frac{k^2}{k!^4}n^{2k-1}$ to
the left-hand side of (\ref{simplified}).

Recall that by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, if $t_1,t_2,\cdots, t_m$
are non-negative real numbers, then
\begin{equation}\label{schwarz}
\frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^m t_i\right)^2}{m} \leq \sum_{i=1}^m t_i^2,
\end{equation}
where equality holds if and only if all the $t_i$ are equal.

Let us apply this inequality with the numbers ${a+b-2 \choose a-1}^2
{2k-a-b\choose k-a}^2$ playing the role of the $t_i$, where $a$ and $b$
range from 1 to $k$.
We get that
\begin{equation}
\label{cauchy} \sum_{1\leq a,b \leq k}{a+b-2 \choose a-1}^2
{2k-a-b\choose k-a}^2  > \frac{\left (
\sum_{1\leq a,b\leq k} {a+b-2 \choose a-1}
{2k-a-b\choose k-a} \right)^2}{k^2}. \end{equation}
We will use Vandermonde's identity to compute the right-hand side. To that
end, we first compute the sum of summands with a {\em fixed} $h=a+b$.
We obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{1\leq a,b\leq k} {a+b-2 \choose a-1}
{2k-a-b\choose k-a} &  = & \sum_{h=2}^{2k} \sum_{a=1}^k
{h-2\choose a-1}{2k-h\choose k-a} \\
 &  = & \sum_{h=2}^{2k} {2k-2\choose k-1} \\
 &  = & (2k-1) \cdot {2k-2\choose k-1}.
\end{eqnarray}

Substituting the last expression into the right-hand side of (\ref{cauchy})
yields
\begin{equation} \label{estimate} \sum_{1\leq a,b \leq k}{a+b-2 \choose a-1}^2
{2k-a-b\choose k-a}^2 >  \frac{1}{k^2} \cdot (2k-1)^2 \cdot
{2k-2\choose k-1}^2.\end{equation}

\noindent Therefore, (\ref{contribution}) and (\ref{estimate}) imply that
\[p_n>\frac{1}{(2k-1)!}{n\choose 2k-1}\frac{(2k-1)^2}{k^2}
{2k-2\choose k-1}^2.\]
As we pointed out after (\ref{contribution}), $p_n$ is a polynomial of
degree $2k-1$ in the variable $n$. The last displayed inequality shows that
its leading coefficient is larger than
\[ \frac{1}{(2k-1)!^2} \cdot \frac{1}{k^2} \cdot \frac{(2k-2)!^2}{(k-1)!^4}
=\frac{k^2}{k!^4}  \] as claimed.

Comparing this with (\ref{theeasy})
 completes the proof of our Proposition.
\end{proof}

We can now return to the application of Theorem \ref{janson} to our
variables $X_{n,i}$. By Proposition \ref{varprop}, there is an absolute
constant $C$ so that $\sigma_n>Cn^{k-0.5}$ for all $n$.
So (\ref{jansencond}) will be satisfied if we show that
there exists a positive integer $m$ so that
\[{n\choose k} (dn^{k-1})^{m-1} \cdot (n^{-k+0.5})^m<
dn^{-0.5m}
 \rightarrow 0.\]
Clearly, any positive integer $m$ is a good choice. So we have proved the
following theorem.

\begin{theorem} \label{main}
 Let $q$ be a fixed permutation pattern of length $k$,
and let $X_n$ be the random variable counting
 occurrences of $q$ in permutations of length $n$.
Then $\tilde{X}_n\rightarrow N(0,1)$. In other words, $X_n$ is asymptotically
normal.
\end{theorem}

The following Corollary shows how close the variances of the numbers of copies
of two given patterns are to each other.

\begin{corollary} For any pattern $q$ of length $k$, we have
\[Var(X_{n,{\bf q}})=c_kn^{2k-1}+O(n^{2k-2}),\]
where \[c_k=\frac{1}{(2k-1)!^2}\sum_{1\leq a,b \leq k}{a+b-2 \choose a-1}^2
{2k-a-b\choose k-a}^2 -\frac{k^2}{k!^4}  .\]
\end{corollary}

We point out that this does {\em not} mean that $Var(X_{n,{\bf q}})$ does not
depend on $q$. It does, and it is easy to verify that $\hbox {Var}(X_{4,{\bf 123}})
\neq
\hbox {Var}(X_{4,{\bf 132}})$. However, it is only the terms of degree at most $2k-2$
of $\hbox {Var}(X_{n,{\bf q}})$ that depend on $q$.

\begin{proof}
Note that in the proof of Theorem \ref{main}, we have not used anything
about the pattern $q$ apart from  its length. Our claim then follows from
comparing (\ref{theeasy}) and (\ref{thehard}).
\end{proof}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Probability (math.PR)


Caratheodory-Tchakaloff Subsampling

Abstract: We present a brief survey on the compression of discrete measures by Caratheodory-Tchakaloff Subsampling, its implementation by Linear or Quadratic Programming and the application to multivariate polynomial Least Squares. We also give an algorithm that computes the corresponding Caratheodory-Tchakaloff (CATCH) points and weights for polynomial spaces on compact sets and manifolds in 2D and 3D.

\section{Subsampling for discrete measures}
Tchakaloff theorem, a cornerstone of quadrature theory,
substantially asserts
that for every compactly supported measure
there exists a
positive algebraic quadrature formula with cardinality not exceeding the
dimension
of the exactness polynomial space (restricted to the measure support).
Originally proved by V. Tchakaloff in 1957 for absolutely continuous
measures \cite{T57}, it has then be
extended to any measure with finite
polynomial moments, cf. e.g. \cite{CF02}, and to
arbitrary finite dimensional spaces of integrable functions \cite{BZ12}.

We begin by stating a discrete version of Tchakaloff theorem,
in its full generality, whose proof is based on Caratheodory theorem
about finite dimensional conic combinations.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\mu$ be a multivariate discrete measure
supported at a finite set
$X=\{x_i\}\subset \mathbb{R}^d$,
with correspondent
positive weights (masses)
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}=\{\lambda_i\}$, $i=1,\dots,M$, and let
$S=\mbox{span}(\phi_1,\dots,\phi_L)$ a finite dimensional space of
$d$-variate functions defined on $K\supseteq X$,
with $N=\mbox{dim}(S|_X)\leq L$.

Then, there exist a quadrature formula with nodes $T=\{t_j\}\subseteq X$
and positive
weights $\boldsymbol{w}=\{w_j\}$, $1\leq j\leq m\leq N$, such that
\begin{equation} \label{qformula}
\int_X{f(x)\,d\mu}=\sum_{i=1}^M{\lambda_i\,f(x_i)}
=\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,f(t_j)}\;,\;\;\forall f\in S|_X\;.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\vskip0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof.\/} Let $\{\psi_1,\dots,\psi_N\}$ be a basis of $S|_X$, and
$V=(v_{ij})=(\psi_j(x_i))$ the Vandermonde-like matrix of the basis
computed at the support points. If $M>N$ (otherwise there is
nothing to prove), existence of a positive quadrature formula
for $\mu$ with cardinality not exceeding $N$ can be immediately translated
into existence of a nonnegative solution with at most $N$ nonvanishing
components to the underdetermined linear system
\begin{equation} \label{momeqs}
V^t\boldsymbol{u}=\boldsymbol{b}\;,\;\;\boldsymbol{u}\geq \boldsymbol{0}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{moments}
\boldsymbol{b}=V^t\boldsymbol{\lambda}=\left\{\int_X{\psi_j(x)\,d\mu}\right\}\;,\;\;1\leq
j\leq
N\;,
\end{equation}
is the vector of $\mu$-moments of the basis $\{\psi_j\}$.

Existence then holds by the
well-known Caratheodory theorem applied to the columns of $V^t$, which
asserts that a conic (i.e., with positive coefficients) combination
of any numer of vectors in $\mathbb{R}^N$ can be rewritten as a conic
combination of at most $N$ (linearly independent) of them;
cf. \cite{C11} and, e.g., \cite[\S 3.4.4]{CCZ14}.$\;\;\;\;\;\square$
\vskip0.3cm

Since such a discrete version of Tchakaloff theorem is a direct
consequence of Caratheodory theorem, we may term such an approach
{\em Caratheodory-Tchakaloff subsampling\/}, and the corresponding
nodes (with associated
weights) a set of Caratheodory-Tchakaloff (CATCH) points.

The idea of reduction/compression of a finite measure by
Tchakaloff or directly Caratheodory theorem recently arose in different
contexts,
for example in a probabilistic setting \cite{LL12},
as well as in univariate \cite{H09} and multivariate
\cite{BDME16,PSV16,RB15,SV15}
numerical quadrature, with applications to multivariate polynomial
inequalities and least squares approximation \cite{PSV16,SV15,V16}.
In many situations CATCH subsampling can produce a high Compression
Ratio, namely when $N\ll M$ like for example in polynomial least squares
approximation \cite{SV15}
or in QMC (Quasi-Monte Carlo) integration \cite{BDME16} or in particle
methods \cite{LL12},
\begin{equation} \label{CR}
C_{ratio}=\frac{M}{m}\geq \frac{M}{N} \gg 1\;,
\end{equation}
so that the efficient computation of CATCH points and weights becomes
a relevant task.

Now, while the proof of the general Tchakaloff theorem is not,
that of the discrete version can be made constructive, since Caratheodory
theorem itself has a constructive proof (cf., e.g., \cite[\S 3.4.4]{CCZ14}).
On the other hand, such a proof
does not give directly an efficient implementation. Nevertheless,
there are at least two reasonably efficient approaches to solve the
problem.

The first, adopted for example in \cite{H09} (univariate) and \cite{SV15}
(multivariate) in the framework of polynomial spaces, rests on
{\em Quadratic
Programming\/}, namely on the classical {\em Lawson-Hanson active set
method\/} for
{\em NonNegative Least Squares\/} (NLLS). Indeed, we may think to solve
the quadratic minimum problem
\begin{equation} \label{NNLS}
\mbox{NNLS}:\;\;\;\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\min{\|V^t\boldsymbol{u}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_2}\\
\boldsymbol{u}\geq \boldsymbol{0}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
which exists by Theorem 1 and can be computed by standard NNLS solvers
based on the Lawson-Hanson method
\cite{LH74}, which
seeks a sparse solution. Then, the nonvanishing components of such a
solution
give the weights $\boldsymbol{w}=\{w_j\}$ as well as the indexes of the nodes
$T=\{t_j\}$ within $X$.
A variant of the Lawson-Hanson method
is implemented in the Matlab native function {\tt lsqnonneg\/}
\cite{matlab},
while a recent
optimized Matlab implementation can be found in \cite{S16}.

The second approach is based instead on {\em Linear Programming\/} via the
classical {\em simplex method\/}. Namely, we may think to solve the
linear minimum problem
\begin{equation} \label{LP}
\mbox{LP}:\;\;\;\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\min{\boldsymbol{c}^t\boldsymbol{u}}\\
V^t\boldsymbol{u}=\boldsymbol{b}\;,\;\;\boldsymbol{u}\geq
\boldsymbol{0}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
where the constraints identify a
polytope (the feasible region)
in $\mathbb{R}^d$ and the vector $\boldsymbol{c}$ is chosen to be linearly
independent from the rows of $V^t$ (i.e., it is not the restriction to
$X$ of a function in $S$), so that the objective functional is
not constant on the polytope. To this aim, if $X\subset K$ is
determining on a supspace $T\supset S$ on $K$, i.e. a function in $T$
vanishing on $X$
vanishes everywhere on $K$, then it is sufficient to take
$\boldsymbol{c}=\{g(x_i)\}$, $1\leq i\leq M$, where the function $g|_K$
belongs to $T|_K\setminus S|_K$. For example, working with polynomials it
is sufficient to take a polynomial of higher degree on $K$ with respect to
those in $S|_K$.

Observe that in our setting the feasible
region is
nonempty, since $\boldsymbol{b}=V^t\boldsymbol{\lambda}$, and we are interested in any
basic feasible solution, i.e., in any vertex of the polytope, that has
at least $M-N$ vanishing
components.  As
it is well-known, the solution of the Linear Programming problem is a
vertex of the polytope that can be computed by the simplex method (cf.,
e.g., \cite{CCZ14}). Again, the nonvanishing components of such a vertex
give the weights $\boldsymbol{w}=\{w_j\}$ as well as the indexes of the nodes
$T=\{t_j\}$ within $X$.

This approach was adopted for example in
\cite{RB15} as a basic step to compute, when it exists, a
multivariate algebraic Gaussian quadrature formula (suitable choices
of $\boldsymbol{c}$ are also discussed there; see Example 1 below). In a
Matlab-like environment, the simplex
method is implemented by the {\tt glpk\/} Octave native function
\cite{octave} (from the GNU Linear Programming Kit).

Even though both, the active set method for (\ref{NNLS}) and the simplex
method for (\ref{LP}), have
theoretically an
exponential complexity (worst
case analysis), as it is well-known their practical behavior is
quite satisfactory, since the
average complexity turns out to be polynomial in the dimension of the
problems (observe that in the present setting we deal with dense
matrices); cf., e.g., \cite[Ch. 9]{GNS09}. It is worth
quoting here the extensive theoretical and
computational results recently presented in the Ph.D. dissertation
\cite{T15},
where Caratheodory reduction of a discrete measure is implemented by
Linear Programming, claiming an experimental average cost of
$\mathcal{O}(N^{3.7})$.

A different combinatorial algorithm (Recursive
Halving Forest), based on the SVD, is also there proposed to compute
a basic feasible solution and compared with the best
Linear Programming solvers, claiming an experimental average cost of
$\mathcal{O}(N^{2.6})$. The methods are essentially applied to the
reduction
of Cartesian tensor cubature measures.

In our
implementation of CATCH subsampling
\cite{PSV16-2}, we have chosen to work with the Octave native Linear
Programming solver {\tt glpk\/} and the Matlab native
Quadratic Programming solver {\tt lsqnonneg\/}, that are suitable
for moderate size problems, like
those typically arising with polynomial spaces
($S=S_\nu=\mathbb{P}_\nu^d$) in dimension $d=2,3$ and
small/moderate degree of exactness $\nu$. On large
size problems, like those typically
arising in higher dimension and/or high degree of exactness,
the solvers discussed in
\cite{T15} could become necessary.

Now, since we may expect that the underdetermined system
(\ref{momeqs}) is not
satisfied
exactly by the computed solution, due to finite precision arithmetic and
by the effect of an error tolerance in the iterative algorithms, namely
that there is a nonzero moment residual
\begin{equation} \label{residual}
\|V^t\boldsymbol{u}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_2=\varepsilon>0\;,
\end{equation}
it is then worth studying the effect of such a residual on the accuracy
of the quadrature formula. We can state and prove an estimate still
in the general discrete setting of Theorem 1.

\begin{Proposition}
Let the assumptions of Theorem 1 be satisfied, let
$\boldsymbol{u}$ be a nonnegative vector such that (\ref{residual})
holds, where $V$ is the Vandermonde-like matrix at $X$ corresponding to
a $\mu$-orthonormal basis $\{\psi_k\}$ of $S|_X$, and let $(T,\boldsymbol{w})$
be the quadrature formula corresponding to the nonvanishing
components of $\boldsymbol{u}$. Moreover, let
$1\in S$ (i.e., $S$ contains the constant functions).

Then, for every function $f$ defined on $X$, the following
error estimate holds
\begin{equation} \label{errest}
\left|\int_X{f(x)\,d\mu}-\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,f(t_j)}\right|
\leq C_\varepsilon E_S(f;X)+\varepsilon
\|f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(X)}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{ES}
E_S(f;X)=\min_{\phi\in S}{\|f-\phi\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}}\;,\;\;
C_\varepsilon=2\left(\mu(X)+\varepsilon\,\sqrt{\mu(X)}\right)\;.
\end{equation}
\end{Proposition}
\vskip0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof.\/} First, observe that
\begin{equation} \label{mom1}
\int_{X}{\phi(x)\,d\mu}=\langle \boldsymbol{\gamma},\boldsymbol{b}\rangle\;,\;\;\forall
\phi\in S\;,
\end{equation}
$\boldsymbol{\gamma}=\{\gamma_k\}$, $\boldsymbol{b}=\{b_k\}=V^t\boldsymbol{\lambda}$, where
$\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the Euclidean scalar product
in $\mathbb{R}^N$ and
$$
\gamma_k=\int_{X}{\phi(x)\psi_k(x)\,d\mu}\;,\;\;
b_k=\int_{X}{\psi_k(x)\,d\mu}\;,\;\;1\leq k\leq N\;,
$$
are the coefficients of $\phi$ in the $\mu$-orthonormal basis
$\{\psi_k\}$ and the $\mu$-moments
of $\{\psi_k\}$, respectively.

Take $\phi\in S$. By a classical chain of estimates in quadrature theory,
we can write
$$
\left|\int_{X}{f(x)\,d\mu}-\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,f(t_j)}\right|\leq
\int_{X}{|f(x)-\phi(x)|\,d\mu}
$$
$$
+\left|\int_{X}{\phi(x)\,d\mu}-\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,\phi(t_j)}\right|
+\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,|\phi(t_j)-f(t_j)|}
$$
\begin{equation} \label{chain}
\leq
\left(\mu(X)+\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j}\right)\|f-\phi\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}
+\left|\int_{X}{\phi(x)\,d\mu}-\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,\phi(t_j)}\right|\;.
\end{equation}
Now,
$$
\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,\phi(t_j)}=\sum_{k=1}^N{\gamma_k\,\sum_{j=1}^m
{w_j\,\psi_k(t_j)}}=\langle\boldsymbol{\gamma},V^t\boldsymbol{u}\rangle\;,
$$
and thus by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
\begin{equation} \label{estphi}
\left|\int_{X}{\phi(x)\,d\mu}-\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,\phi(t_j)}\right|
=|\langle\boldsymbol{\gamma},b-V^t\boldsymbol{u}\rangle|
\leq \|\boldsymbol{\gamma}\|_2\,\|b-V^t\boldsymbol{u}\|_2
=\|\phi\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(X)}\,\varepsilon\;.
\end{equation}
Moreover
$$
\|\phi\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(X)}\leq
\|\phi-f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(X)}+\|f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(X)}
$$
\begin{equation}
\leq
\sqrt{\mu(X)}\,\|\phi-f\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}
+\|f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(X)}\;.
\end{equation}
On the other hand
$$
\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j}\leq \left|\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j}-\int_X{1\,d\mu}\right|
+\int_X{1\,d\mu}=\left|\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j}-\int_X{1\,d\mu}\right|+\mu(X)
$$
\begin{equation} \label{estsumwj}
\leq \varepsilon\,\|1\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(X)}+\mu(X)
=\varepsilon\,\sqrt{\mu(X)}+\mu(X)\;,
\end{equation}
where we have applied (\ref{estphi}) with $\phi=1$.

Putting estimates (\ref{estphi})-(\ref{estsumwj})
into (\ref{chain} we obtain
$$
\left|\int_{X}{f(x)\,d\mu}-\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,f(t_j)}\right|\leq
\left(2\mu(X)+\varepsilon\,\sqrt{\mu(X)}\right)\|f-\phi\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}
$$
$$
+\varepsilon\left(\sqrt{\mu(X)}\,\|\phi-f\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}
+\|f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}(X)}\right)\;,\;\;\forall \phi\in S\;,
$$
and taking the minimum over $\phi\in S$ we finally get (\ref{errest}).
$\;\;\;\;\;\square$
\vskip0.3cm

It is worth observing that the assumption $1\in S$ is quite natural, being
satisfied for
example in the usual polynomial and trigonometric spaces. From this point
of view, we can also stress that sparsity cannot be ensured by the
standard Compressive Sensing approach to underdetermined systems, such as
the Basis Pursuit algorithm that minimizes $\|u\|_1$ (cf., e.g.,
\cite{FR13}), since if $1\in S$
then $\|u\|_1=\mu(X)$ is constant.

Moreover,
we notice that if $K\supset X$ is a compact set, then
\begin{equation} \label{jackson}
E_S(f;X)\leq E_S(f;K)\;,\;\;\forall f\in C(K)\;.
\end{equation}
If $S$ is a polynomial space (as in the sequel) and $K$ is
a ``Jackson compact'',
$E_S(f;K)$ can be estimated by the regularity of $f$ via
multivariate Jackson-like
theorems; cf. \cite{P09}.

To conclude this Section, we sketch the pseudo-code
of an algorithm
that implements CATCH subsampling, via the preliminary
computation of an orthonormal basis of $S|_X$.
\begin{Algorithm}
{\em (computation of CATCH points and weights):
\begin{itemize}

\item input: the discrete measure $(X,\boldsymbol{\lambda})$, the
generators $(\phi_k)=(\phi_1,\dots,\phi_L)$ of $S$, possibly the
dimension $N$ of $S|_X$

\item compute the Vandermode-like matrix $U=(u_{ik})=(\phi_k(x_i))$

\item if $N$ is unknown, compute $N=rank(U)$ by a rank-revealing algorithm

\item compute the QR factorization with column pivoting
$\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U(:,\boldsymbol{\pi})=QR$, where $\Lambda=diag(\lambda_i)$
and $\boldsymbol{\pi}$ is a permutation vector (we observe that
$rank(Q)=rank(\sqrt{\Lambda}\,U)=rank(U)=N$)

\item select the orthogonal matrix $V=Q(:,1:N)$; the first $N$ columns of
$Q$ correspond to an orthonormal basis of
$S|_X$
with respect to the measure $(X,\boldsymbol{\lambda})$,
$(\psi_j)=(\phi_{\pi_j})R_N^{-1}$, $1\leq j\leq N$, where
$R_N=R(1:N,1:N)$

\item compute a sparse solution to $V^t\boldsymbol{u}=\boldsymbol{b}=V^t\boldsymbol{\lambda}$,
$\boldsymbol{u}\geq \boldsymbol{0}$, by
the Lawson-Hanson
method for
the NNLS problem (\ref{NNLS}) or by the simplex
method for the LP problem (\ref{LP})

\item compute the residual $\varepsilon=\|V^t\boldsymbol{u}-\boldsymbol{b}\|_2$

\item $ind=\{i:u_i\neq 0\}$, $\boldsymbol{w}=\boldsymbol{u}(ind)$, $T=X(ind)$

\item output: the CATCH compressed measure $(T,\boldsymbol{w})$ and the
residual $\varepsilon$ (that appears in the relevant estimates
(\ref{errest})-(\ref{ES}))

\end{itemize}
$\,$\/}
\end{Algorithm}

We observe that there are two key tools of numerical linear
algebra in this algorithm,
that allow to work in the right space, in view of the fact that
$rank(U)=\mbox{dim}(S|_X)$. The first is the computation of such a rank,
that gives of course a numerical rank, due to finite precision arithmetic.
Here we can resort, for example, to the SVD decomposition of $U$ in its
less costly version that produces only the singular values (with a
threshold
on such values), which is just that used by the {\tt rank\/} Matlab/Octave
native function.
The second is the computation of a basis of $S|_X$, namely an orthonormal
basis, by the pivoting process which is aimed at selecting linearly
independent generators.

\section{Caratheodory-Tchakaloff Least Squares}
The case where $(X,\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ is itself a quadrature/cubature formula
for some
measure on $K\supset X$, that is the
compression (or reduction) of such formulas, has been till now the main
application of Caratheodory-Tchakaloff subsampling, in the classical
framework of algebraic formulas as well as in the probabilistic/QMC
framework; cf.
\cite{H09,RB15,SV15} and \cite{BDME16,LL12,T15}.
In this survey, we concentrate on another relevant application, that is
the
{\em compression of multivariate polynomial least squares\/}.

Let us consider the total-degree polynomial framework, that is
\begin{equation} \label{totaldeg}
S=S_\nu=\mathbb{P}_\nu^d(K)\;,
\end{equation}
the space of $d$-variate real polynomials with total-degree not exceeding
$\nu$, restricted to $K\subset
\mathbb{R}^d$, a compact set or a compact (subset of a)
manifold. Let us define for notational convenience
\begin{equation} \label{E_n}
E_n(f)=E_{\mathbb{P}_n^d(K)}(f;K)=\min_{p\in
\mathbb{P}_n^d(K)}{\|f-p\|_{L^\infty(K)}}\;,
\end{equation}
where $f\in C(K)$.

Discrete LS approximation by total-degree
polynomials of degree at most $n$ on $X\subset K$ is ultimately an
orthogonal
projection of a function $f$ on $\mathbb{P}_n^d(X)$, with
respect to the scalar product of $\ell^2(X)$, namely
\begin{equation} \label{LS}
\|f-\mathcal{L}_{n}f\|_{\ell^2(X)}
=\min_{p\in \mathbb{P}_n^d(K)}{\|f-p\|_{\ell^2(X)}}
=\min_{p\in \mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)}{\|f-p\|_{\ell^2(X)}}\;.
\end{equation}
Recall that for every function $g$ defined on $X$
\begin{equation} \label{ell2int}
\|g\|^2_{\ell^2(X)}=\sum_{i=1}^M{g^2(x_i)}=\int_X{g^2(x)\,d\mu}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the discrete measure supported at $X$ with unit masses
$\boldsymbol{\lambda}=(1,\dots,1)$.

Taking $p^\ast\in \mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)$
such that $\|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}$ is minimum (the polynomial of
best uniform approximation of $f$ in $\mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)$), we get
immediately the
classical LS error estimate
\begin{equation} \label{standard0}
\|f-\mathcal{L}_{n}f\|_{\ell^2(X)}
\leq \|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^2(X)}
\leq \sqrt{M}\,\|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}
\leq \sqrt{M}\,E_n(f)\;,
\end{equation}
where $M=\mu(X)=\mbox{card}(X)$. In terms of the Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE), an indicator widely used in the applications, we have
\begin{equation} \label{standard}
\mbox{RMSE}_X(\mathcal{L}_{n}f)=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\,\|f-\mathcal{L}_nf\|_{\ell^2(X)}\leq
E_n(f)\;.
\end{equation}
Now, if $M>N_{2n}=\mbox{dim}(\mathbb{P}_{2n}^d(X))$
(we stress that here polynomials of degree $2n$ are involved),
by Theorem 1 there exist $m\leq N_{2n}$ Caratheodory-Tchakaloff
(CATCH) points
$T_{2n}=\{t_j\}$ and weights $\boldsymbol{w}=\{w_j\}$, $1\leq j\leq m$,
such that the following basic $\ell^2$ identity holds
\begin{equation} \label{p^2}
\|p\|^2_{\ell^2(X)}=\sum_{i=1}^M{p^2(x_i)}
=\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,p^2(t_j)}=\|p\|^2_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}\;,
\;\;\forall p\in \mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)\;.
\end{equation}
Notice that the CATCH points $T_{2n}\subset X$ are
$\mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)$-determining, i.e., a polynomial of degree
at most $n$ vanishing there
vanishes everywhere on $X$, or in other terms
$\mbox{dim}(\mathbb{P}^d_{n}(T_{2n}))=\mbox{dim}(\mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X))$,
or equivalently any
Vandermonde-like
matrix with a basis of $\mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)$ at $T_{2n}$ has full rank.
This also entails that, if $X$ is $\mathbb{P}^d_{n}(K)$-determining, then
such is $T_{2n}$.

Consider the $\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})$ LS polynomial
$\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f$, namely
\begin{equation} \label{CLS}
\|f-\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}
=\min_{p\in \mathbb{P}_n^d(K)}{\|f-p\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}}
=\min_{p\in \mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)}{\|f-p\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}}\;.
\end{equation}
Notice that $\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}$ is a {\em weighted\/} least
squares operator; reasoning as in (\ref{standard}) and observing that
$\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j}=M$ since $1\in \mathbb{P}^d_{n}$, we get
immediately
\begin{equation} \label{standard2}
\|f-\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}
\leq \sqrt{M}\,E_n(f)\;.
\end{equation}

On the other hand, we can also write the following estimates
$$
\|f-\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f\|_{\ell^2(X)}
\leq \|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^2(X)}
+\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}(p^\ast-f)\|_{\ell^2(X)}
$$
and
$$
\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}(p^\ast-f)\|_{\ell^2(X)}
=\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}(p^\ast-f)\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}
\leq
\|p^\ast-f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}\;,
$$
where we have used the basic $\ell^2$ identity (\ref{p^2}), the fact that
$\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}p^\ast=p^\ast$
and that $\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f$ is an orthogonal projection.
By the two estimates above we get eventually
\begin{equation} \label{hypest0}
\|f-\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f\|_{\ell^2(X)}
\leq \sqrt{M}\,\left(\|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}+
\|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^\infty(T_{2n})}\right)\leq
2\sqrt{M}\,E_n(f)\;,
\end{equation}
or, in RMSE terms,
\begin{equation} \label{hypest}
\mbox{RMSE}_X(\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f)\leq 2E_n(f)\;,
\end{equation}
which shows the most relevant feature of the ``compressed'' least
squares operator $\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}$ at the CATCH points
(CATCHLS), namely that
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\em the LS and compressed CATCHLS RMSE estimates
(\ref{standard}) and (\ref{hypest}) have
substantially the same size\/}.
\end{itemize}
This fact, in particular the appearance
of the factor $2$ in the estimate for the compressed operator, is
reminiscent of {\em hyperinterpolation theory\/} \cite{S95}.
Indeed, what we are
constructing here is a sort of hyperinterpolation in a fully discrete
setting. Roughly summarizing, hyperinterpolation ultimately approximates
a (weighted)
$L^2$ projection on $\mathbb{P}_n^d$ by a discrete weighted $\ell^2$
projection, via
a quadrature formula of exactness degree $2n$. Similarly, here we
are approximating a $\ell^2$ projection
on $\mathbb{P}_n^d$ by a
weighted $\ell^2$ projection with a smaller support, again
via a quadrature formula of exactness degree $2n$.

The estimates above are valid by the theoretical exactness of the
quadrature formula.
In order to take into account a nonzero moment residual as in
(\ref{residual}), we state and prove the following

\begin{Proposition}
Let $\mu$ be the discrete measure supported at $X$ with unit
masses $\boldsymbol{\lambda}=(1,\dots,1)$, let $\boldsymbol{u}$ be a nonnegative vector
such that (\ref{residual})
holds, where $V$ is the orthogonal Vandermonde-like matrix at $X$
corresponding to
a $\mu$-orthonormal basis $\{\psi_k\}$ of $\mathbb{P}^d_{2n}(X)$, and
let $(T_{2n},\boldsymbol{w})$
be the quadrature formula corresponding to the nonvanishing components
of $\boldsymbol{u}$.
Then the following polynomial inequalities hold for every $ p\in
\mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)$
\begin{equation} \label{basest}
\|p\|_{\ell^2(X)}\leq
\alpha_M(\varepsilon)\,\|p\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}
\leq \sqrt{M}\,\beta_M(\varepsilon)\,
\|p\|_{\ell^\infty(T_{2n})}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{alphabeta}
\alpha_M(\varepsilon)=\left(1-\varepsilon\sqrt{M}\right)^{-1/2}\;,\;\;
\beta_M(\varepsilon)=\alpha_M(\varepsilon)\,\left(1+\varepsilon/\sqrt{M}
\right)^{1/2}\;,
\end{equation}
provided that $\varepsilon\sqrt{M}<1$.
\end{Proposition}

\begin{Corollary}
Let the assumptions of Proposition 2 be satisfied. Then the following
error estimate holds for every $f\in C(K)$
\begin{equation} \label{CLSerr}
\|f-\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f\|_{\ell^2(X)}\leq
\left(1+\beta_M(\varepsilon)\right)\,
\sqrt{M}\,E_n(f)\;.
\end{equation}
\end{Corollary}
\vskip0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof of Proposition 2 and Corollary 1.\/}
First, observe that
$$
\|p\|^2_{\ell^2(X)}=\int_X{p^2(x)\,d\mu}=\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,p^2(t_j)}
+\varepsilon_{2n}
$$
$$
\leq \sum_{j=1}^m{w_j\,p^2(t_j)}+|\varepsilon_{2n}|
=\|p\|^2_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}+|\varepsilon_{2n}|\;,
$$
where by Proposition 1
$$
|\varepsilon_{2n}|\leq \varepsilon \|p^2\|_{\ell^2(X)}\;.
$$
Now, using the fact that we are in a fully discrete setting, we get
$$
\|p^2\|_{\ell^2(X)}\leq \sqrt{M}\,\|p^2\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}
=\sqrt{M}\,\|p\|^2_{\ell^\infty(X)}
\leq \sqrt{M}\,\|p\|^2_{\ell^2(X)}\;,
$$
and finally putting together the three estimates above
$$
\|p\|^2_{\ell^2(X)}\leq
\|p\|^2_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}+\varepsilon\sqrt{M}\,\|p\|^2_{\ell^2(X)}\;,
$$
that is the first inequality in (\ref{basest}), provided that
$\varepsilon\sqrt{M}<1$. To get the second inequality in (\ref{basest}),
we simply observe that for every function $g$ defined on $X$
\begin{equation} \label{estg}
\|g\|^2_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}\leq \left(\sum_{j=1}^m{w_j}\right)\,
\|g\|^2_{\ell^\infty(T_{2n})}\leq M\,\left(1+\varepsilon/\sqrt{M}
\right)\,\|g\|^2_{\ell^\infty(T_{2n})}
\end{equation}
in view of (\ref{estsumwj}) (here $\mu(X)=M$). We notice incidentally that
the estimates in \cite[\S 4]{SV15} must be corrected, since the factor
$(1+\varepsilon/\sqrt{M})^{1/2}$ is missing there.

Concerning Corollary 1, take $p^\ast\in \mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)$
such that $\|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}$ is minimum (the polynomial of
best uniform approximation of $f$ in $\mathbb{P}^d_{n}(X)$). Then
we can write, in view of Proposition 1 and the fact that
$\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}$ is an
orthogonal projection operator in $\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})$,
$$
\|f-\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f\|_{\ell^2(X)}
\leq \|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^2(X)}
+\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}(p^\ast-f)\|_{\ell^2(X)}
$$
$$
\leq \sqrt{M}\,\|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}
+\alpha_M(\varepsilon)\,
\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}(p^\ast-f)\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}
$$
$$
\leq \sqrt{M}\,\|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}
+\alpha_M(\varepsilon)\,
\|p^\ast-f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}
$$
$$
\leq \sqrt{M}\,\|f-p^\ast\|_{\ell^\infty(X)}
+\sqrt{M}\,\beta_M(\varepsilon)\,
\|p^\ast-f\|_{\ell^\infty(T_{2n})}
$$
\begin{equation} \label{estcor1}
\leq \sqrt{M}\,\left(1+\beta_M(\varepsilon)
\right)\,E_n(f)\;,
\end{equation}
that is (\ref{CLSerr})$.\;\;\;\;\;\square$

\begin{Remark}
{\em Observe that $\beta_M(\varepsilon)\to 1$ as $\varepsilon \to 0$,
and quantitatively, $\beta_M(\varepsilon)\approx 1$ for
$\varepsilon\sqrt{M}\ll 1$. Then we can write the approximate estimate
\begin{equation} \label{approxCLSerr}
\mbox{RMSE}_X(\mathcal{L}_{n}^{c}f)\lesssim
(2+\varepsilon\sqrt{M}/2)\,E_n(f)\;,\;\;\varepsilon\sqrt{M}\ll 1\;,
\end{equation}
i.e., we substantially recover (\ref{hypest}), as well as the size of
(\ref{standard}), with a mild requirement on the moment residual error
(\ref{residual}).
\/}
\end{Remark}

\begin{Example}
{\em
An example of reconstruction of two bivariate functions with different
regularity
by LS and CATCHLS on a nonstandard domain (union of four disks)
is displayed
in Table 1 and Figure 1, where $X$ is a low-discrepancy
point set, namely the about 5600 Halton points of the domain
taken from 10000 Halton points of the minimal surrounding rectangle.
Polynomial least squares on low-discrepancy point sets
have been recently studied for example in \cite{MN16}, in the
more general framework of Uncertainty Quantification.

We have implemented CATCH subsampling
by NonNegative Least Squares (via the {\tt lsqnonneg\/}
Matlab native function) and by Linear Programming (via the {\tt glpk\/}
Octave native function). In the Linear Programming approach, one has to
choose a vector $\boldsymbol{c}$ in the target functional. Following \cite{RB15},
we have taken $\boldsymbol{c}=\left\{x_i^{2n+1}+y_i^{2n+1}\right\}$, where
$X=\{(x_i,y_i)\}$, $1\leq i\leq M$, i.e., the vector $\boldsymbol{c}$ corresponds
to the polynomial $x^{2n+1}+y^{2n+1}$
evaluated at $X$. There are two reasons for this
choice. The first is that (only) in the univariate case, as proved in
\cite{RB15}, it leads to $2n+1$ Gaussian quadrature nodes.
The second is that the
polynomial $x^{2n+1}+y^{2n+1}$ is not in the polynomial space of
exactness, and thus we avoid that $\boldsymbol{c}^t\boldsymbol{u}$ be
constant on the polytope defined by the constraints (recall, for example,
that for
$\boldsymbol{c}^t=(1,\dots,1)$ we have $\boldsymbol{c}^t\boldsymbol{u}=\sum{u_i}=M$).

Observe that the CATCH points computed by NNLS and LP show quite different
patterns, as we can see in Figure 1. On the other hand they
both give a compressed LS operator with
practically the same RMSEs as we had sampled
at the original points, with remarkable Compression Ratios. The moment
residuals appear more stable with LP, but are in any case extremely small
with
both solvers. On the
other hand, at least with the present degree range and implementation
(Matlab 7.7.0 (2008) and Octave 3.0.5 (2008) with an Athlon
64 X2 Dual Core 4400+ 2.40GHz processor), NNLS
turn out to be more efficient than LP (the cputime varies from the order
of $10^{-1}$ sec. at degree $n=3$ to the order of $10^2$ sec. at
degree $n=18$).
We expect however that
increasing the size of the problems, especially at higher degrees,
LP could overcome NNLS.
\/}
\end{Example}

We stress that the compression procedure is function independent, thus
we can preselect the re-weighted CATCH sampling sites on a given
region, and
then apply the compressed CATCHLS formula to different functions.
This approach to
polynomial least squares could be very useful in applications where the
sampling process is difficult or costly, for example to place
a small/moderate number of accurate sensors on some region of the earth
surface, for the measurement and reconstruction of a scalar
or vector field.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Cardinality $m$, Compression Ratio, moment residual and
$\mbox{RMSE}_X$ by LS and CATCHLS for the Gaussian
$f_1(\rho)=\exp(-\rho^2)$ and the power function
$f_2(\rho)=(\rho/2)^5$, $\rho=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$, where $X$ is the
Halton point set of Fig. 1.}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c}
deg $n$ & 3 & 6 & 9 & 12 & 15 & 18\\
\hline
$N_{2n}$ & 28 & 91 & 190 & 325 & 496 & 703\\
NNLS: $m$ & 28 & 91 & 190 & 325 & 493 & 693\\
LP: $m$ & 28 & 91 & 190 & 325 & 493 & 691\\
$C_{ratio}$ & $200$ & $62$ & $29$ & $17$ & $11$ &
$8$\\
NNLS: residual $\varepsilon$ & 4.9e-14 & 1.2e-13 & 3.4e-13 & 4.3e-13 &
8.8e-13 & 2.5e-12\\
LP: residual $\varepsilon$ & 2.0e-14 & 3.0e-14 & 9.1e-14 & 9.8e-14 &
7.7e-14 & 7.6e-14\\
\hline
NNLS/LP & 0.38 & 0.23 & 0.19 & 0.27 &
0.74 & 0.70\\
(cputime ratio) & & & & & & \\
\hline
$f_1$: LS & 3.6e-02 & 4.8e-03 & 2.3e-04 & 3.1e-06 & 2.0e-07
& 2.2e-09\\
NNLS-CATCHLS & 4.1e-02 & 4.9e-03 & 2.3e-04 & 3.2e-06 & 2.0e-07
& 2.2e-09\\
LP-CATCHLS & 5.0e-02 & 6.1e-03 & 2.7e-04 & 3.5e-06 & 2.0e-07
& 2.3e-09\\
\hline
$f_2$: LS & 2.8e-01 & 2.4e-03 & 1.5e-04 & 2.6e-05 & 6.7e-06
& 2.2e-06\\
NNLS-CATCHLS & 3.1e-01 & 2.4e-03 & 1.6e-04 & 2.7e-05 & 6.8e-06
& 2.2e-06\\
LP-CATCHLS & 3.9e-01 & 3.0e-03 & 1.8e-04 & 3.0e-05 & 6.7e-06
& 2.2e-06\\
\hline
\end {tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[!ht] \centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.60,clip]{4disks9.eps}\hfill
\includegraphics[scale=0.60,clip]{4disks9-LP.eps}\hfill
\caption{Extraction of 190 points for CATCHLS
($n=9$) from $M\approx 5600$ Halton
points
on the
union of 4 disks: $C_{ratio}=M/m\approx 29$; top: by NonNegative Least
Squares as in (\ref{NNLS}); bottom: by Linear Programming as in
(\ref{LP}).}
\end{figure}

\subsection{From the discrete to the continuum}
In what follows we study situations where the sampling sets are
discrete models of ``continuous'' compact sets, in the framework of
polynomial approximation. In particular, we
have in mind
the case where $K$ is the {\em closure of a bounded open subset\/} of
$\mathbb{R}^d$
(or of a bounded open subset of a lower-dimensional manifold
in the induced topology, such as a subarc of the
circle in $\mathbb{R}^2$ or a
subregion of the sphere in $\mathbb{R}^3$). The so-called ``Jackson
compacts'', that are compact sets where a Jackson-like
inequality holds, are of special interest, since there the best uniform
approximation error $E_n(f)$ can be estimated by the regularity of $f$;
cf. \cite{P09}.

Such a connection with the continuum has already been exploited in the
previous sections, namely on the right-hand side of the LS error
estimates, e.g. in (\ref{standard}) and (\ref{CLSerr}). Now, to get a
connection also on the left-hand side, we should give some structure to
the discrete sampling set $X$. We shall work within the theory of
{\em polynomial meshes\/}, introduced in \cite{CL08} and later developed
by various authors; cf., e.g., \cite{BBCL12,BCLSV11,BDMSV11,K11,PV13} and
the references therein.

We recall that a {\em weakly admissible polynomial mesh\/} of
a compact set $K$ (or of a compact subset of a manifold) in
$\mathbb{R}^d$ (we restrict here to the real case), is
a sequence of
finite subsets $X_n\subset K$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{wam}
\|p\|_{L^\infty(K)}\leq C_n\,\|p\|_{\ell^\infty(X_n)}\;,\;\forall
p\in \mathbb{P}_n^d(K)\;,
\end{equation}
where $C_n=\mathcal{O}(n^\alpha)$,
$M_n=\mbox{card}(X_n)=\mathcal{O}(n^\beta)$, with $\alpha\geq 0$,
and $\beta\geq d$. Indeed, since $X_n$ is automatically
$\mathbb{P}_n^d(K)$-determining, then $M_n\geq
N=\mbox{dim}(\mathbb{P}_n^d(K))=\mbox{dim}(\mathbb{P}_n^d(X_n))$.
In the case where $\alpha=0$ (i.e., $C_n\leq C$) we speak of an {\em
admissible
polynomial mesh\/}, and such a mesh is termed {\em optimal\/} when
$\mbox{card}(X_n)=\mathcal{O}(N)$.

Polynomial meshes have interesting computational features
(cf. \cite{BDMSV11}), e.g.
\begin{itemize}

\item extension by algebraic transforms, finite
union and product

\item contain computable near optimal
interpolation sets \cite{BCLSV11,BDMSV10}

\item are near optimal for uniform LS approximation, namely
\cite[Thm. 1]{CL08}
\begin{equation} \label{LSwam}
\|\mathcal{L}_{n}\|=\sup_{f\in C(K),\,f\neq 0}
\frac{\|\mathcal{L}_{n}f\|_{L^\infty(K)}}
{\|f\|_{L^\infty(K)}}\leq C_n\,\sqrt{M_n}\;,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{L}_{n}$ is the $\ell^2(X_n)$-orthogonal projection
operator
$C(K)\to \mathbb{P}_n^d(K)$.
\end{itemize}
To prove (\ref{LSwam}), we can write the chain of inequalities
$$
\|\mathcal{L}_{n}f\|_{L^\infty(K)}\leq C_n\,
\|\mathcal{L}_{n}f\|_{\ell^\infty(X_n)}\leq
C_n\,
\|\mathcal{L}_{n}f\|_{\ell^2(X_n)}
$$
\begin{equation} \label{normLSwam}
\leq
C_n\,\|f\|_{\ell^2(X_n)}\leq C_n\,\sqrt{M_n}\,\|f\|_{\ell^\infty(X_n)}
\leq C_n\,\sqrt{M_n}\,\|f\|_{L^\infty(K)}\;,
\end{equation}
where we have used the polynomial inequality (\ref{wam}) and the fact that
$\mathcal{L}_{n}f$ is a discrete orthogonal projection. From
(\ref{LSwam}) we get in a standard way the uniform error
estimate
\begin{equation} \label{uniform}
\|f-\mathcal{L}_{n}f\|_{L^\infty(K)}\leq
\left(1+\|\mathcal{L}_{n}\|\right)\,E_n(f)
\leq \left(1+C_n\,\sqrt{M_n}\right)\,E_n(f)\;,
\end{equation}
valid for every $f\in C(K)$.

These properties show that polynomial meshes are good models
of multivariate compact sets, in the context of polynomial approximation.
Unfortunately, several computable meshes have high cardinality.

In \cite[Thm. 5]{CL08} it
has been proved that admissible polynomial meshes
can be constructed in any compact set satysfying a Markov polynomial
inequality
with exponent $r$, but these have cardinality $\mathcal{O}(n^{rd})$.
For example, $r=2$ on convex compact sets with nonempty interior.
Construction of optimal admissible
meshes has been carried out for compact sets with various geometric
structures, but still the cardinality can be very large already
for $d=2$ or $d=3$, for example on polygons/polyhedra with many vertices,
or on star-shaped domains with smooth boundary; cf.,
e.g., \cite{K11,PV14}.

As already observed, in the applications of LS approximation
it is very important
to reduce the sampling cardinality, especially when the sampling process
is difficult or costly. Thus we may think to apply CATCH subsampling to
polynomial meshes, in view of CATCHLS approximation, as in the previous
section. In particular, it results that we can substantially keep the
uniform
approximation features of the polynomial mesh. We give the main result
in the following
\begin{Proposition}
Let $X_n$ be a polynomial mesh (cf. (\ref{wam})) and let the assumptions
of Proposition 2 be satisfied with $X=X_n$.

Then, the following estimate hold
\begin{equation} \label{LSwam2}
\|\mathcal{L}_n^c\|=\sup_{f\in C(K),\,f\neq 0}
\frac{\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^cf\|_{L^\infty(K)}}
{\|f\|_{L^\infty(K)}}\leq C_n\,\sqrt{M_n}\,\beta_{M_n}(\varepsilon)\;,
\end{equation}
provided that $\varepsilon\sqrt{M_n}<1$, where $\mathcal{L}_{n}^cf$ is the
least squares polynomial
at the Caratheodory-Tchakaloff points $T_{2n}\subseteq X_n$. Moreover,
\begin{equation} \label{catchwam}
\|p\|_{L^\infty(K)}\leq
C_n\,\sqrt{M_n}\,
\beta_{M_n}(\varepsilon)\,\|p\|_{\ell^\infty(T_{2n})}\;,\;\;\forall
p\in \mathbb{P}_n^d(K)\;.
\end{equation}

\end{Proposition}
\vskip0.3cm
\noindent
{\em Proof.\/}
To prove (\ref{LSwam2}), we can write the estimates
$$
\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^cf\|_{L^\infty(K)}\leq
C_n\,\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^cf\|_{\ell^\infty(X_n)}
\leq C_n\,\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^cf\|_{\ell^2(X_n)}
$$
$$
\leq C_n\,\alpha_{M_n}(\varepsilon)\,
\|\mathcal{L}_{n}^cf\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}
\leq C_n\,\alpha_{M_n}(\varepsilon)\,
\|f\|_{\ell^2_{\boldsymbol{w}}(T_{2n})}\;,
$$
using the first estimate in (\ref{basest}) for
$p=\mathcal{L}_{n}^cf$ and the fact that
$\mathcal{L}_{n}^cf$ is a discrete orthogonal
projection, and then conclude by
(\ref{estg}) applied to $f$.

Concerning (\ref{catchwam}), we can write
$$
\|p\|_{L^\infty(K)}\leq
C_n\,\|p\|_{\ell^\infty(X_n)}
\leq C_n\,\|p\|_{\ell^2(X_n)}\;,
$$
and then apply (\ref{basest}) to $p$.$\;\;\;\;\;\square$
\vskip0.3cm

By Proposition 3 and (\ref{alphabeta}), we have that the
(estimate of) the uniform norm of
the CATCHLS
operator has substantially the same size of (\ref{LSwam}), as long as
$\varepsilon\sqrt{M_n}\ll 1$. On the other hand, inequality
(\ref{catchwam}) with $\varepsilon=0$ says that
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em the $2n$-deg CATCH points of a polynomial
mesh are a polynomial mesh\/}
\begin{equation} \label{catchwam2}
\|p\|_{L^\infty(K)}\leq
C_n\,\sqrt{M_n}\,\|p\|_{\ell^\infty(T_{2n})}\;,\;\;\forall
p\in \mathbb{P}_n^d(K)\;.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
Moreover, (\ref{catchwam}) shows that such CATCH points,
computed in finite-precision arithmetic, are still a polynomial mesh
in the degree range where $\varepsilon\sqrt{M_n}\ll 1$.
For a discussion of the consequences of  (\ref{catchwam2}) in the theory
of polynomial meshes see \cite{V16}.

In order to make an example, in Figure 2 we consider the (high
cardinality)
optimal polynomial mesh constructed
on a smooth convex set ($C^2$ boundary), by the rolling ball theorem
as described in \cite{PV14} (the set boundary corresponds to a level curve
of the quartic $x^4+4y^4$). The CATCH points have been computed by
NNLS as in (\ref{NNLS}), and the LS
and CATCHLS uniform operator norms have been
numerically estimated on a fine control mesh via the corresponding
discrete reproducing
kernels,
as discussed in \cite[\S 2.1]{BDMSV11}.
In Figure 2-bottom, we see that the CATCHLS operator norm is close
to the LS operator norm, as we could expect from (\ref{LSwam}) and
(\ref{LSwam2}), which
however turn out to be large overestimates of the actual norms.

\begin{figure}[!ht] \centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.60,clip]{convmesh.eps}\hfill
\includegraphics[scale=0.60,clip]{lebLSconv15.eps}\hfill
\caption{Top: polynomial mesh and extracted CATCH points on a smooth
convex set
($n=5$, $C_{ratio}=971/66\approx 15$);
bottom: numerically evaluated LS $(\ast)$ and CATCHLS
$(\circ)$ uniform operator norms, for degree $n=1,\dots,15$.}
\end{figure}

Caratheodory-Tchakaloff Subsampling


Improved Bound for Tomaszewski's Problem

Abstract: In 1986, Tomaszewski made the following conjecture. Given $n$ real numbers $a_{1},...,a_{n}$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}^{2}=1$, then of the $2^{n}$ signed sums $\pm a_{1} \pm ... \pm a_{n}$, at least half have absolute value at most $1$. Hendriks and Van Zuijlen (2020) and Boppana (2020) independently proved that a proportion of at least $0.4276$ of these sums has absolute value at most $1$. Using different techniques, we improve this bound to $0.46$.

\section{Introduction}

Take $a_{1},...,a_{n}$ real numbers such that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}^{2}=1$ and consider the randomly signed sum $\sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_i a_i$, where the $\epsilon_i$ are independent, identically distributed (i.i.d.) Rademacher random variables, i.e. $\mathbb{P}(\epsilon_i=1)=\mathbb{P}(\epsilon_i=-1)=\frac12$. In 1986, Tomaszewski (see \cite{guy}) conjectured that $\mathbb{P}(|\sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_i a_i|\leq 1)\geq \frac12$. Note that this bound is tight for $n \ge 2$ as we can take for instance $a_{1}=a_{2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$, $a_i=0$ for $2 < i \le n$. While various partial results towards this conjecture were proven, the original problem is still open.

Several papers have focussed on showing bounds from below approaching $1/2$. Holzman and Kleitman \cite{holzman} proved that $\mathbb{P}(|\sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_i a_i|\leq 1)\geq \frac38$. In fact, they showed the stronger, tight result that $\mathbb{P}(|\sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_i a_i| < 1)\geq \frac38$ as long as there is more than one non-zero term. Later, but independently and using different techniques, Ben-Tal, Nemirovski and Roos \cite{bental} obtained the weaker bound of $\frac{1}{3}$. Their method was later refined by Shnurnikov \cite{shnurnikov} to obtain the bound of $0.36$, still weaker than the result of Holzman and Kleitman.

More recently, Boppana and Holzman \cite{boppanaold} obtained a bound of $0.406259$. Using a result of Bentkus and Dzindzalieta \cite{bentkus}, their argument can be improved to actually give a better bound of approximately $0.4276$, as was independently observed by Hendriks and Van Zuijlen \cite{zuijlen} and Boppana \cite{boppananew}. We make further progress on Tomaszewski's conjecture by using different techniques to prove our main theorem.

\begin{Th}
Let $a_{1},...,a_{n}$ be real numbers such that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}^{2}=1$ and let $\epsilon_{i}$ for $i=1,...,n$ be i.i.d. random variables with $\mathbb{P}(\epsilon_{i}=+1)=\mathbb{P}(\epsilon_{i}=-1)= \frac{1}{2}$. Then $\mathbb{P}(|\sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_i a_i|\leq 1)\geq 0.46.$
\end{Th}

Note that partial sums $\sum_{i=1}^k \epsilon_ia_i$ can be interpreted as a random walk with prescribed step sizes.
This interpretation suggests common techniques like mirroring, symmetry and second moment arguments, as have been used in previous papers on this problem \cite{bental,boppananew,boppanaold,zuijlen,holzman,shnurnikov}. We manage to set up a framework which allows for a tight interplay between all these techniques, by combining them with ideas from linear programming.

Depending on the size of $\max\{|a_i|\}$, we consider four cases: the intermediate ones represent the core of the proof and to tackle them we use a combination of mirroring, symmetry and second moment arguments to reduce the problem to an easily solvable linear program.

The efficacy of the techniques used in this paper is dependent on the specific values of the $a_i$'s. Our division into different cases allows us to push each of the ideas to their limit. Because of the variety of examples of values $a_i$'s showing the tightness of the conjecture in the sense that $\mathbb{P}(|\sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_i a_i| < 1)<\frac{1}{2}$ (e.g. $\frac{1}{3},...,\frac{1}{3}$, and the infinite family $\frac{k-1}{k},\frac{1}{k},...,\frac{1}{k}$ for each $k \geq 2$), it seems inescapable to engage in case analysis. However, the current state of the literature seems to lack this approach.

\section{Set up}

Fix a vector $\mathbf{a}=(a_{1},a_{2},... ,a_{n}) $ with $ \sum_{i=1}^{n} a_{i}^{2} =1 $ and $ a_{1} \geq a_{2} \geq ... \geq a_{n} > 0 $. Let $\epsilon_{i}$ for $i=1,...,n$ be i.i.d. random variables with $\mathbb{P}(\epsilon_{i}=+1)=\mathbb{P}(\epsilon_{i}=-1)= \frac{1}{2}$, i.e. independent \emph{Rademacher random variables}. Denote $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})=\mathbb{P}( |\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}| \leq 1 )$. To show that $\mathbb{P}( \mathbf{a} ) \geq 0.46$, we consider the following four cases depending in which interval $a_{1}$ lies: $[0,0.25],[0.25,0.49],[0.49,0.67]$, and $[0.67,1]$.

We will use induction on the dimension $n$. Note that for $n=1,2$ the result is trivial. For $n=3$, it follows easily too, by noting that all of the sums $a_{1}-a_{2}+a_{3}, -a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3},-a_{1}+a_{2}-a_{3}, a_{1}-a_{2}-a_{3}$ have absolute value at most $1$. Thus we will further assume $n \geq 4$. The only time we will appeal to the induction hypothesis is in the proof of \Cref{p1bound}.

We write $\mathbb{P}(N(0,1)\geq x)$ for the probability that a standard normal attains a value of at least $x$.

Several times, we will use the following result of Bentkus and Dzindzalieta \cite{bentkus}.

\begin{lem}\label{auxlem}
Let $ a_{1} \geq a_{2} \geq ... \geq a_{n} > 0 $ be such that $ \sum_{i=1}^{n} a_{i}^{2}  \leq 1 $, and let $\epsilon_{i}$ for $i=1,...,n$ be i.i.d. Rademacher random variables. Then we have for any $x \in \mathbb{R}$

$$\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i} \geq x\right) \leq 3.18 \ \mathbb{P}(N(0,1) \geq x).$$
\end{lem}

\section{Easy cases - $a_{1}$ small or large}

In this section, we handle the more straightforward cases when either $a_{1}+a_{2} \leq 1, a_{3} \leq 0.25$ or when $a_{1} \geq 0.67$. Here we only need simple mirroring arguments, accompanied by the tail bound provided by \Cref{auxlem}.

\begin{Prop}\label{smalla}
If $a_1+a_2 \le 1$ and $a_3\le 0.25$, then $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})\ge 0.46$.
\end{Prop}

\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{smalla}] Define the following random process $ (X_{t})_{t=0}^{n} $. Let $ X_{0}=0 $, and for $1\le t \leq n $, let $X_{t}=\sum_{i=1}^{t} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}$. Let
$$
T=\begin{cases}\text{inf}\{1 \leq t \leq n: |X_{t}|>0.75\} &\text{ if } \{1 \leq t \leq n: |X_{t}|>0.75\}  \neq \emptyset \text{, }\\
n+1 &\text{ otherwise.}\end{cases}
$$
Then $T$ is a stopping time.
Also define random process $ (Y_{t})_{t=0}^{n} $ by setting $Y_{t}=X_{t}$ for $0 \leq t \leq T$ and $ Y_{t}=2X_{T}-X_{t} $ for $n \ge t>T$. Now, $ Y_{n} $ has the same distribution as $X_n=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}$.

\begin{clm}\label{protomirror} $\mathbb{P}(|X_{n}|>1 \text{ and } |Y_{n}|>1) < 0.08$.
\end{clm}

\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{protomirror}]

Consider the event $|X_n|>1$, and $|Y_n|>1$. We shall show that in this case we have either $|X_n| > 2.5$ or $|Y_n| > 2.5$. By construction it follows that $1 \le T \le n$. Furthermore, we have $0.75 \leq |X_T|\leq 1$, where the upper bound follows from the condition $a_1+a_2\leq 1$ in the case $T=1,2$, and from the condition $ a_3 \leq 0.25$ in the case $3\leq T \leq n$. On the one hand by construction we have $2 \geq 2|X_T|=|X_n+Y_n|$ and on the other hand by assumption we have $2<|X_n|+|Y_n|$. It follows that $|X_n+Y_n| \neq |X_n|+|Y_n|$ which implies that $X_n,Y_n$ have different signs which implies that $|X_n+Y_n|=||X_n|-|Y_n||$.  Therefore, putting all together we have that \begin{align*}
    1.5&\leq 2|X_T|\\
    &=|X_n+Y_n|\\
    &=||X_n|-|Y_n||\\
    &= \max(|X_n|,|Y_n|) - \min(|X_n|,|Y_n|) \\
    &< \max(|X_n|,|Y_n|) -1.
\end{align*}
We get that either $|X_n| > 2.5$ or $|Y_n| > 2.5$. We conclude with the following sequence of inequalities.
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}(|X_{n}|>1 \text{ and } |Y_{n}|>1) &\leq \mathbb{P}(|X_{n}|>2.5 \text{ or } |Y_{n}|>2.5) \\
&\leq 2 \, \mathbb{P}(|X_{n}|>2.5) \\
&\leq 6.36 \, \mathbb{P}(|N(0,1)|>2.5)  <0.08,
\end{align*}
where the second inequality follows from the union bound and from the fact that $X_{n},Y_{n}$ have the same distribution and the third inequality follows from \Cref{auxlem}.

\end{proof}

Returning to the proof of the proposition, since $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})=\mathbb{P}(|X_{n}| \leq 1)=\mathbb{P}(|Y_{n}| \leq 1)$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})&=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{P}(|X_{n}| \leq 1)+\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{P}(|Y_{n}| \leq 1) \\
&\geq \frac{1}{2}(1-\mathbb{P}(|X_{n}|>1 \text{ and } |Y_{n}|>1)) \\
&\geq \frac{1}{2}(1-0.08) \\
&=0.46,
\end{align*}

which concludes the proof of \Cref{smalla}.
\end{proof}

\begin{Prop}\label{abig}
If $a_1\ge 0.67$ then $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})\ge 0.46$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{abig}]
Note that $$\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})=\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| \leq 1\right) \geq \frac{1}{2} \mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=2}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| \leq 1.67 \right).$$ Consider the unit vector $(b_{2},...,b_{n})$ with $b_{i}=\dfrac{a_{i}}{\sqrt{1-a_{1}^{2}}}$ for $i=2,...,n$, and apply \Cref{auxlem} to conclude that
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=2}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| \leq 1.67\right) &\geq \mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=2}^{n} \epsilon_{i} b_{i}\right| \leq \frac{1.67}{\sqrt{1-0.67^2}} \right)\\
&\geq 1-3.18 \,\mathbb{P}(|N(0,1)|>2.24) \approx 0.9202.
\end{align*}
and hence that $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a}) \geq 0.46$.
\end{proof}

So far we resolved the case in which $a_1 \geq 0.67$ and the case in which $a_1+a_2\leq 1$ and $a_3 \leq 0.25$, so it is enough to consider the following two cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item $ 0.25 \leq a_{3} \leq a_{1} \leq 0.49$
\item $0.49 \leq a_{1} \leq  0.67$
\end{itemize}
Each of these cases shall be treated in a separate section.

\section{First intermediate case - $0.25 \leq a_{3} \leq a_{1} \leq 0.49$}

In this section we prove the following proposition.

\begin{Prop}\label{bigone}
If $0.25 \leq a_{3} \leq a_{1} \leq 0.49$, then $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})\ge 0.46$.
\end{Prop}

The strategy is to produce a carefully designed partition of the probability space generated by the possible outcomes of $|\sum_{i\geq 3} \epsilon_i a_i|$. In order to bound the probabilities of these events, the idea is to rely one some mirroring and reflection constructions. Finally, we reduce the problem to an easy linear program.

Assume throughout this section that $0.25 \leq a_{3} \leq a_{1} \leq 0.49$. Let $S=\sum_{i=3}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}$. Consider the following seven intervals which partition the positive half-line in this order: $I_{1}= [ 0,1-a_{1}-a_{2} ], I_{2}= (1-a_{1}-a_{2},1-a_{1}+a_{2} ], I_{3}= ( 1-a_{1}+a_{2},1+a_{1}-a_{2} ], I_{4}= (1+a_{1}-a_{2},1+a_{1}+a_{2} ], I_{5}= (1+a_{1}+a_{2}, 3-3a_{1}+a_{2} ], I_{6}= (3-3a_{1}+a_{2},3+3a_{1}-5a_{2} ], I_{7}= (3+3a_{1}-5a_{2}, \infty)  $. For $i=1,...,7$, denote $p_{i}= \mathbb{P}(|S| \in I_{i})$.

Considering the four choices for $(\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2})$, by the way this intervals are constructed and by the restrictions on $a_1,a_2,a_3$ we have that
$$\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \ \ \Big| \ \ |S| \in I_{j} \right)=\mathbb{P}\left(|\epsilon_1a_1+\epsilon_2a_2+S|>1 \ \ \Big|\ \ |S|\in I_j\right)=\begin{cases}
0 \text{ if }j=1\\
\frac14 \text{ if } j=2\\
\frac12 \text{ if } j=3\\
\frac34 \text{ if } j=4\\
1\text{ if } j\geq 5.
\end{cases}
$$
Thus we can express
\begin{align}\label{expression}
\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \right) &= \sum_{j=1}^7 \mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \ \ \Big| \ \ |S| \in I_{j} \right) \mathbb{P}(|S|\in I_j)	\\
&=\frac{1}{4}p_{2}+\frac{1}{2}p_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}p_{4}+p_{5}+p_{6}+p_{7}.\nonumber
\end{align}

We shall bound from above this expression, by exploiting various constraints that the $p_{i}$'s satisfy and reducing to a linear program. We collect the constraints into separate lemmas.

Firstly, as the events $\{ |S| \in I_{i} \}$ for $i=1,...,7$ partition our probability space, we know that \begin{equation}\label{fullprob}p_{1}+...+p_{7}=1.\end{equation} Computing the second moment of $S$, we find
\begin{align}
1-a_{1}^{2}-a_{2}^{2}&=\mathbb{E}(S^{2})\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^{7} \mathbb{P}(|S|\in I_i) \mathbb{E}(S^{2} \, \,| \,\,\, |S| \in I_{i})\nonumber \\
&\geq\sum_{i=1}^{7} p_i (\inf I_i)^2 \label{secmom}\\
&= (1-a_{1}-a_{2})^{2} p_{2} + (1-a_{1}+a_{2})^{2} p_{3} +(1+a_{1}-a_{2})^{2} p_{4} \nonumber \\
&\ \ \ \
+ (1+a_{1}+a_{2})^{2} p_{5} +(3-3a_{1}+a_{2})^{2} p_{6}+(3+3a_{1}-5a_{2})^{2} p_{7}\nonumber
\end{align}

\begin{lem}\label{345}
$p_{3}+p_{4}+p_{5} \leq \frac{1}{2}$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the random process $(S_{t})_{t=3}^{n}$, given by $S_{t}=\sum_{i=3}^{t} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}$ for $n \ge t \ge 3$. Let

$$
T_{1}=\begin{cases}\text{inf}\{t \geq 3: |S_{t}|>1-a_{1} \} &\text{ if } \{t \geq 3: |S_{t}|>1-a_{1} \}  \neq \emptyset \text{, }\\
n+1 &\text{ otherwise}\end{cases}
$$
Then $T_{1}$ is a stopping time.
Also define random process $ (U_{t})_{t=3}^{n} $ by setting $U_{t}=S_{t}$ for $3 \leq t \leq T_{1}$ and $ U_{t}=2S_{T_{1}}-S_{t} $ for $n \geq t>T_{1}$. Now,  $ U_{n} $ has the same distribution as $S=S_n$. The conclusion of the claim follows if we show that at most one of $|S_n|, |U_n|$ can lie in the interval $I_{3} \cup I_{4} \cup I_{5}$.

Indeed, if $T_1=n+1$, then $U_n=S_n\in I_1\cup I_2$. Otherwise, if $T_1 \leq n$, then $|S_{T_{1}}|\in(1-a_1,1-a_1+a_2]$. Assume for the sake of contradiction that we have both $|S_n|,|U_n| \in I_3\cup I_{4} \cup I_{5}$. On the one hand, by construction we have $2(1-a_1+a_2) \geq 2|S_{T_1}|=|S_n+U_n|$ and on the other hand, by assumption we have  $2(1-a_1+a_2)< |S_n|+|U_n|$. It follows that $|S_n+U_n| \neq |S_n|+|U_n|$, which implies that $S_n,U_n$ have different signs which implies that $|S_n+U_n|=||S_n|-|U_n||$. Putting all together we have that $$2(1-a_1) \leq 2|S_{T_1}|=|S_n+U_n|=||S_n|-|U_n|| < \sup(I_3\cup I_{4} \cup I_{5})-\inf(I_3\cup I_{4} \cup I_{5}) = 2(1-a_1),$$
which gives the desired contradiction.

\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{456}
$p_{4}+p_{5}+p_{6} \leq \frac{1}{2}$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is completely analogous to the proof of previous claim, with the stopping time $T_{2}$ defined by
$$
T_{2}=\begin{cases}\text{inf}\{t \geq 3: |S_{t}|>1+a_{1}-2a_{2} \} &\text{ if } \{t \geq 3: |S_{t}|>1+a_{1}-2a_{2} \}  \neq \emptyset \text{, }\\
n+1 &\text{ otherwise}\end{cases}
$$

\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{p1bound}
$p_{1} \geq 0.115  \cdot \mathbbm{1}_{a_{1}+a_{2} \leq 0.665}$
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
 Let
 $$
\widetilde{T}=\begin{cases}\text{inf}\left\{t \geq 4: \left|\sum_{i=4}^{t}\epsilon_{i}a_{i}\right|>0.335 \right\}  &\text{ if } \left\{t \geq 4: \left|\sum_{i=4}^{t}\epsilon_{i}a_{i}\right|>0.335 \right\}  \neq \emptyset \text{, }\\
n+1 &\text{ otherwise}\end{cases}
$$
Then $\widetilde{T}$ is a stopping time.
Further write
$$S=\sum_{i=3}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}=S_{a}+S_{b}+S_{c} \text{, and }$$
$$S_{(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c)}=\tau_a S_a + \tau_b S_b + \tau_c S_c  \text{ for any } (\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c) \in \{\pm 1\}^3,$$
where $S_{a}= \epsilon_{3}a_{3}$, $S_{b}=\sum_{i=4}^{\widetilde{T}} \epsilon_{i}a_{i} $, and $S_{c}=\sum_{i=\widetilde{T}+1}^{n} \epsilon_{i}a_{i}$ if $\widetilde{T}<n$ and $S_{c}=0$ otherwise. Note that $S_{(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c)}$ has the same distribution as $S$.

Assume $a_1+a_2\leq 0.665$ and recall $a_3>0.25$. In order to show that $\mathbb{P}(|S| \leq 1-a_1-a_2) \geq 0.115$ it is enough to show that $ \mathbb{P}(|S| \leq 0.335) \geq 0.115.$

\begin{Obs}\label{twocond}
The conclusion follows if we show that $\mathbb{P}(|S_{c}| \leq 0.91) \geq 0.46$ and that if $|S_c| \leq 0.91$ then there exists $(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c) \in \{\pm 1\}^3$ such that $|S_{(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c)}| \leq 0.335$.
\end{Obs}

Indeed, let $E$ be the event that $|S_c| \leq 0.91$; we have $\mathbb{P}(E) \geq 0.46$. For every point $p \in E$ there exists $(\tau_a^p, \tau_b^p, \tau_c^p) \in \{\pm 1\}^3$ such that $|S_{(\tau_a^p, \tau_b^p, \tau_c^p)}(p)| \leq 0.335$. Note that by construction $|S_{(-\tau_a^p, -\tau_b^p, -\tau_c^p)}(p)| \leq 0.335$. Therefore, there exists $(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c) \in \{\pm 1\}^3$ and an event $F \subset E$ with $\mathbb{P}(F) \geq 0.115$ such that for every point $p \in F$ we have $|S_{(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c)}(p)| \leq 0.335$. As $S_{(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c)}$ has the same distribution as $S$, it follows that $\mathbb{P}(|S| \leq 0.335) \geq 0.115$.

\begin{clm}
$\mathbb{P}(|S_{c}| \leq 0.91) \geq 0.46$.
\end{clm}
\begin{proof}
 Note that the value of $\widetilde{T}$ is independent of the values of $\epsilon_i$ for $i>\widetilde{T}$, so fix a particular value of $\widetilde{T}$. If $\sum_{i=\widetilde{T}+1}^{n}a_{i}=0$, of course the statement is trivial. Otherwise consider the unit vector $(b_i)_{i=\widetilde{T}+1}^{n}$ defined by $b_i=a_i\left(\sqrt{1-\sum_{j=1}^{\widetilde{T}}a_j^2}\right)^{-1}$. By the induction hypothesis applied to this vector, we find
$$\mathbb{P}(|S_{c}| \leq 0.91) \geq\mathbb{P}\left(|S_c|\leq\sqrt{1-\sum_{j=1}^{\widetilde{T}}a_j^2}\right)= \mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=\widetilde{T}+1}^n \epsilon_ib_i\right|\leq 1\right)\geq 0.46,$$
where the first inequality follows from the fact that $\widetilde{T}\geq4$ and $a_1,a_2,a_3\geq 0.25$.
\end{proof}

\begin{clm} If $|S_c| \leq 0.91$, then there exists $(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c) \in \{\pm 1\}^3$ such that $|S_{(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c)}| \leq 0.335$.
\end{clm}
\begin{proof}
Assume for the sake of contradiction that $|S_{(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c)}| > 0.335$ for all $(\tau_a, \tau_b, \tau_c) \in \{\pm 1\}^3$. Furthermore, assume without loss of generality that $S_{a}, S_{b}, S_{c} \geq 0$. Recall that $S_a=a_3, S_b \in [0, 0.335+a_3], S_c \in [0,0.91]$, that $0.25<a_3\leq \frac{a_1+a_2}{2} \leq 0.3325$ and furthermore that if $S_c>0$, then $S_b \in (0.335, 0.335+a_3]$.

We have $S_a-S_b+S_c \geq a_3-(0.335+a_3)+0=-0.335$ and hence $S_a-S_b+S_c > 0.335$. Similarly, we have $S_a+S_b-S_c \geq -0.335$ by the following dichotomy; if $S_c=0$, then $S_a+S_b-S_c \geq 0.25 + 0 -0 \geq 0.25$, and if $S_c>0$, then $S_a+S_b-S_c \geq 0.25+0.335-0.91>-0.335$. Hence  $S_a+S_b-S_c \geq 0.335$. Combining these inequalities we get $2S_a=2a_3 \geq 0.67$ which contradicts the hypothesis that $a_3 \leq 0.3325$. The conclusion follows.
\end{proof}

The two claims combined with \Cref{twocond} conclude the proof of the \Cref{p1bound}.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{linprog}
For any parameters $a_{1},a_{2}$ such that $0.25 \leq a_{2} \leq a_{1} \leq 0.49 $, the output $L(a_{1},a_{2})$ of the following linear program satisfies $L(a_{1},a_{2}) \leq 0.54$.
\begin{center}
   $L(a_{1},a_{2}):=\max \{ \frac{1}{4}x_{2}+\frac{1}{2}x_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}x_{4}+x_{5}+x_{6}+x_{7}$ subject to
 \begin{gather*}
 x_1,..., x_7 \geq 0\\
 x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3}+x_{4}+x_{5}+x_{6}+x_{7}=1\\
 x_{3}+x_{4}+x_{5} \leq \frac{1}{2} \\
 x_{4}+x_{5}+x_{6} \leq \frac{1}{2} \\
 (1-a_{1}-a_{2})^{2} x_{2} + (1-a_{1}+a_{2})^{2} x_{3} +(1+a_{1}-a_{2})^{2} x_{4}
+ \\
+ (1+a_{1}+a_{2})^{2} x_{5} +(3-3a_{1}+a_{2})^{2} x_{6}+(3+3a_{1}-5a_{2})^{2} x_{7} \leq 1-a_{1}^{2}-a_{2}^{2} \\
x_{1} \geq 0.115 \cdot \mathbbm{1}_{a_{1}+a_{2} \leq 0.665}\}
 \end{gather*}
 \end{center}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
While we could solve this linear program problem directly, we will instead reduce it to a finite number of cases as follows. Set the margin of error $e=0.005$ and for parameters $a_1',a_2' \in \frac{1}{100} \mathbb{Z}$ of our choice consider the output $L'(a_1',a_2')$ of the following linear program.
\begin{center}
   $L'(a_{1}',a_{2}') := \max \big\{\frac{1}{4}x_{2}+\frac{1}{2}x_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}x_{4}+x_{5}+x_{6}+x_{7}$ subject to
 \begin{gather*}
 x_1,..., x_7 \geq 0 \\
 x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3}+x_{4}+x_{5}+x_{6}+x_{7}=1\\
 x_{3}+x_{4}+x_{5} \leq \frac{1}{2} \\
 x_{4}+x_{5}+x_{6} \leq \frac{1}{2} \\
(1-a'_{1}-a'_{2}-2e)^{2} x_{2} + (1-a'_{1}+a'_{2}-2e)^{2} x_{3} +(1+a'_{1}-a'_{2}-2e)^{2} x_{4} \\
+ (1+a'_{1}+a'_{2}-2e)^{2}x_{5}   +(3-3a'_{1}+a'_{2}-4e)^{2} x_{6}\\
+(3+3a'_{1}-5a'_{2}-8e)^{2} x_{7} \leq 1-(a'_{1}-e)^{2}-(a'_{2}-e)^{2} \\
x_{1} \geq 0.115 \cdot \mathbbm{1}_{a'_{1}+a'_{2}+2e \leq 0.665} \}.
 \end{gather*}
  \end{center}

\begin{Obs}\label{lp1}
If we set $a_1'$ ($a_2'$ resp.) to be $a_1$ ($a_2$ resp.) rounded to the nearest one hundredth then we have $L'(a_1',a_2') \geq L(a_1,a_2)$, as every individual constraint in the linear program $L'$ is at most as strict as its counterpart in the linear program $L$. Given the constraint $0.49 \geq a_{1} \geq a_{2} \geq 0.25$, we deduce the constraint  $0.49 \geq a_1'\geq a_2'\geq 0.25$.
\end{Obs}

A simple computer check shows that for all parameters $a_1',a_2' \in \frac{1}{100}\mathbb{Z}$ that satisfy $0.49 \geq a_1'\geq a_2'\geq 0.25$ we have $L'(a_1',a_2') \leq 0.54$. Using \Cref{lp1} we conclude that $L(a_1,a_2) \leq 0.54$ as desired.
\end{proof}

We conclude this section with the proof of the main proposition.

\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{bigone}]
By \Cref{fullprob}, \Cref{secmom}, \Cref{345}, \Cref{456}, and \Cref{p1bound}, the parameters $p_i$  satisfy the constraints in \Cref{linprog}, so that the set of $\textbf{x}$'s over which $L(a_1,a_2)$ is maximized includes $\textbf{p}$. Finally, by \Cref{expression} and \Cref{linprog}, we conclude that $$\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \right) =\frac{1}{4}p_{2}+\frac{1}{2}p_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}p_{4}+p_{5}+p_{6}+p_{7} \leq L(a_1,a_2) \leq 0.54 .$$
\end{proof}

\begin{comment}

\vd{Now, for any vector $\mathbf{a}$ in our range, we know that the corresponding probabilities $p_1,..., p_7 $ satisfy constraints derived above, but also that } $\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \right) =\frac{1}{4}p_{2}+\frac{1}{2}p_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}p_{4}+p_{5}+p_{6}+p_{7}$. \vd{Hence, we know that for any such vector $\mathbf{a}, \, \mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \right)$ is no larger than the optimal solution to the following linear programming problem, where $a_1, a_2$ are parameters which satisfy the additional constraint $0.49 \geq a_1 \geq a_2 \geq 0.25$.}

+ \\
+ (1+a_{1}+a_{2})^{2} p_{5} +(3-3a_{1}+a_{2})^{2} p_{6}+(3+3a_{1}-5a_{2})^{2} p_{7} \leq 1-a_{1}^{2}-a_{2}^{2} \\
p_{1} \geq 0.115 \cdot \mathbbm{1}_{a_{1}+a_{2} \leq 0.665}
 \end{gather*}
 \end{center}

While we could try to solve this linear programming problem directly, we will instead use the following observation. If we let $a_1'$ ($a_2'$ resp.) be $a_1$ ($a_2$ resp.) rounded to the nearest one hundredth, then evidently $|a_1'-a_1|\leq 0.005$, $|a_2'-a_2|\leq 0.005$. For any parameters $a_1,a_2$ satisfying $0.49 \geq a_{1} \geq a_{2} \geq 0.25$ which round up to $a_1',a_2'$ satisfying $0.49 \geq a_1'\geq a_2'\geq 0.25$, the following linear programming problem defined by the parameters $a_1',a_2'$ will have a solution at least as large as the previous problem. For notational convenience let $e=0.005$.

\begin{center}
  maximize $\frac{1}{4}p_{2}+\frac{1}{2}p_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}p_{4}+p_{5}+p_{6}+p_{7}$ subject to
 \begin{gather*}
 p_1,..., p_7 \geq 0 \\
 p_{1}+p_{2}+p_{3}+p_{4}+p_{5}+p_{6}+p_{7}=1\\
 p_{3}+p_{4}+p_{5} \leq \frac{1}{2} \\
 p_{4}+p_{5}+p_{6} \leq \frac{1}{2} \\
(1-a'_{1}-a'_{2}-2e)^{2} p_{2} + (1-a'_{1}+a'_{2}-2e)^{2} p_{3} +(1+a'_{1}-a'_{2}-2e)^{2} p_{4} \\
+ (1+a'_{1}+a'_{2}-2e)^{2}p_{5}   +(3-3a'_{1}+a'_{2}-4e)^{2} p_{6}\\
+(3+3a'_{1}-5a'_{2}-8e)^{2} p_{7} \leq 1-(a'_{1}-e)^{2}-(a'_{2}-e)^{2} \\
p_{1} \geq 0.115 \cdot \mathbbm{1}_{a'_{1}+a'_{2}+2e \leq 0.665} \\
 \end{gather*}
  \end{center}

Hence, solving this linear programming problem for all the (finitely many) possible values for $a_1'$ and $a_2'$, we find an upper bound on $\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \right)$.
Using a computer, we find that among all the values $a_1'$ and $a_2'$ constrained by $0.49 \geq a_1'\geq a_2'\geq 0.25$, the linear program has largest solution when $a_1'=0.33$ and $a_2'=0.33$, and this solution is approximately $0.5354$. This concludes the proof of \Cref{bigone}.
\end{comment}

\section{Second intermediate case - $0.49 \leq a_{1} \leq 0.67$}

In this section, we solve the last case we have not tackled yet.

\begin{Prop}\label{bigtwo}
If $0.49 \leq a_{1} \leq 0.67$ then $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})\ge 0.46$.
\end{Prop}

We shall follow a similar strategy to the previous section employing the same set of techniques. However, in this section we shall use the linear program only to further reduce the range of vectors $\mathbf{a}$ we are examining. We conclude the remaining cases using additional analytic arguments.

Assume throughout this section that $0.49 \leq a_{1} \leq 0.67$. For $i>1$, we call the term $ a_{i} $ \emph{big} if $ a_{1}+a_{i} > 1 $, and we call it \emph{small} otherwise.

\begin{lem}\label{anysmall} If we have any small term $ a_{j} $ such that $ a_{j} \geq 0.25 $, then $\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \right)\leq 0.54$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Assume we have such an $a_{j}$. Let $U=\sum_{\substack{2\le i \le n \\ i\neq j}} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}$, i.e. the sum of all the signed terms except $a_{1}$ and $a_{j}$. Consider the following five intervals which partition the positive half-line in this order: $I_{1}= [ 0,1-a_{1}-a_{j} ], I_{2}= (1-a_{1}-a_{j},1-a_{1}+a_{j} ], I_{3}= ( 1-a_{1}+a_{j},1+a_{1}-a_{j} ], I_{4}= (1+a_{1}-a_{j},1+a_{1}+a_{j} ], I_{5}= (1+a_{1}+a_{j}, \infty)  $. For $i=1,...,5$, write $p_{i}= \mathbb{P}(|U| \in I_{i})$, so that, analogous to \Cref{expression}, we may write
\begin{equation}\label{expression2}
\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \right) = 	\frac{1}{4}p_{2}+\frac{1}{2}p_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}p_{4}+p_{5}.
\end{equation}

Analogous to the previous section we get (after noticing the events $\{|U| \in I_i\}$ form a partition of our probability space and after computing the second moment)
\begin{align}\label{sum2}
    1&=p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5\\
  \label{secmom2}  1-a_{1}^{2}-a_{j}^{2}&\geq  (1-a_{1}-a_{j})^{2} p_{2} + (1-a_{1}+a_{j})^{2} p_{3}\\
    &\ \ \ \ \ + (1+a_{1}-a_{j})^{2} p_{4}
+ (1+a_{1}+a_{j})^{2} p_{5}  \nonumber
\end{align}

\begin{clm}\label{linprog2}
For any parameters $a_{1},a_{j}$ such that $0.49 \leq a_{1} \leq 0.67 $ and $0.25\leq a_j\leq 1-a_1$, the output $M(a_{1},a_{j})$ of the following linear program satisfies $M(a_{1},a_{j}) \leq 0.54$.
\end{clm}
\begin{center}
  $M(a_{1},a_{j}) :=\max\{\frac{1}{4}x_{2}+\frac{1}{2}x_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}x_{4}+x_{5}$ subject to
 \begin{gather*}
 x_1,..., x_5 \geq 0 \\
 x_1+x_{2}+x_{3}+x_{4}+x_{5}=1\\
(1-a_{1}-a_{j})^{2} x_{2} + (1-a_{1}+a_{j})^{2} x_{3}+ (1+a_{1}-a_{j})^{2} x_{4}
+ (1+a_{1}+a_{j})^{2} x_{5}  \leq 1-a_{1}^{2}-a_{j}^{2} \}\\
 \end{gather*}
\end{center}
\begin{proof}
While we could solve this linear program problem directly, we will instead reduce it to a finite number of cases as follows. Set the margin of error $e=0.005$ and for parameters $a_1',a_j' \in \frac{1}{100} \mathbb{Z}$ of our choice consider the output $M'(a_1',a_j')$ of the following linear program.

\begin{center}
  $M'(a_1',a_j'):=\max\{\frac{1}{4}x_{2}+\frac{1}{2}x_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}x_{4}+x_{5}$ subject to
 \begin{gather*}
 x_1,..., x_5 \geq 0 \\
 x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3}+x_{4}+x_{5}=1\\
g(a'_{1},a'_{j},e)^{2} x_{2} + (1-a'_{1}+a'_{j}-2e)^{2} x_{3}+ \\ +(1+a'_{1}-a'_{j}-2e)^{2} x_{4}
+ (1+a'_{1}+a'_{j}-2e)^{2} x_{5}  \leq 1-(a'_{1}-e)^{2}-(a'_{j}-e)^{2} \}\\
 \end{gather*}
\end{center}

where $g(a'_{1},a'_{j},e)=1-a'_{1}-a'_{j}-2e$ if $1-a'_{1}-a'_{j}-2e>0$, and $g(a'_{1},a'_{j},e)=0$ otherwise.

\begin{Obs}\label{lp2}
If we set $a_1'$ ($a_j'$ resp.) to be $a_1$ ($a_j$ resp.) rounded to the nearest one hundredth then we have $M'(a_1',a_j') \geq M(a_1,a_j)$, as every individual constraint in the linear program $M'$ is at most as strict as its counterpart in the linear program $M$. Given the constraint $0.49 \leq a_{1} \leq 0.67 $ and $0.25\leq a_j\leq \min\{1-a_1,a_1\}$, we deduce the constraint  $0.49 \leq a_1'\leq 0.67$ and $0.25\leq a_j'\leq \min\{1.01-a_1',a_1'\}$.
\end{Obs}

A simple computer check shows that for all parameters $a_1',a_j' \in \frac{1}{100}\mathbb{Z}$ that satisfy $0.49 \leq a_1'\leq 0.67$ and $0.25\leq a_j'\leq \min\{1.01-a_1',a_1'\}$ we have $M'(a_1',a_j') \leq 0.54$. Using \Cref{lp2}, we conclude that $M(a_1,a_j) \leq 0.54$ as desired.

\end{proof}

We return to the proof of the lemma. By \Cref{sum2}, and \Cref{secmom2}, the parameters $p_i$  satisfy the constraints in \Cref{linprog2}, so that the set of $\textbf{x}$'s over which $M(a_1,a_j)$ is maximized includes $\textbf{p}$. Finally, by \Cref{expression2} and \Cref{linprog2}, we conclude that $$\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \right) =\frac{1}{4}p_{2}+\frac{1}{2}p_{3}+ \frac{3}{4}p_{4}+p_{5} \leq M(a_1,a_j) \leq 0.54 .$$

\end{proof}

\begin{Obs}
It was crucial that $a_{j}$ was a small term. If it was big instead, for the interval
$I_1'=[0,a_{1}+a_{j}-1 )$ around the origin, we have

\begin{equation*}
\mathbb{P}\left(\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}\right| > 1 \   \Big|\ |U|\in I_1' \right)=\frac12.
\end{equation*}
This is in contrast with $\mathbb{P}(|\sum_i \epsilon_ia_i|>1 \,\, \big| \,\, |U|\in I_1)=0$, which we used in the proof of \Cref{anysmall}.
\end{Obs}

Henceforth we shall assume that there exist no small terms of size at least $0.25$ and we shall use a mirroring argument similar to the one we used in Section 3 to conclude. Let $k$ be such that the terms $a_{2},...,a_{k}$ are big and the terms $a_{k+1},...,a_{n}$ are small. We will need the following easy lemma.

\begin{lem}\label{sumlem}
 If $2 \leq l \leq k$, then we have $a_{2}+a_{3}+...+a_{l-1}+2a_{l} \leq 2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
 Using the fact that $\sum_{i=2}^{l}a_{i}^{2} \leq 1-a_{1}^{2}$ and that $a_{l}$ is the smallest term out of $a_{2},...,a_{l}$, we get $a_{l} \leq \sqrt{\frac{1-a_{1}^{2}}{l-1}}$. Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we get
\begin{align*}
a_{2}+a_{3}+...+a_{l-1}+2a_{l} &\leq (a_{2}+...+a_{l}) + \sqrt{\frac{1-a_{1}^{2}}{l-1}} \\
&\leq  \sqrt{(l-1)(a_{2}^{2}+...+a_{l}^{2})} + \sqrt{\frac{1-a_{1}^{2}}{l-1}} \\
&\leq \sqrt{l-1}\sqrt{1-a_{1}^{2}} + \sqrt{\frac{1-a_{1}^{2}}{l-1}}
\end{align*}

Next, note that as each big term is bigger than $1-a_{1}$, so
$$1-a_1^2\geq a_2^2+a_3^2+\dots+a_l^2\geq (l-1)(1-a_1)^2$$
and thus $l-1\leq \frac{1-a_{1}^{2}}{(1-a_{1})^{2}}=\frac{1+a_{1}}{1-a_{1}}$.

Combining these two with the fact that the function $x+\frac{1}{x}$ is increasing on the interval $[1,\infty) $, we find

\begin{align*}
\sqrt{l-1}\sqrt{1-a_{1}^{2}} + \sqrt{\frac{1-a_{1}^{2}}{l-1}}  &\leq \sqrt{1-a_{1}^{2}} \left(\sqrt{\frac{1+a_{1}}{1-a_{1}}}+\sqrt{\frac{1-a_{1}}{1+a_{1}}}\right) \\
 &\leq (1+a_{1})+(1-a_{1}) =2
\end{align*}

This concludes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of \Cref{bigtwo}] Define the following random process $ (A_{t})_{t=0}^{n} $. We set $ A_{0}=0 $, $A_{1}=\epsilon_{1} a_{1}$ and for $ n\geq t \geq 2 $, $A_{t}=\epsilon_{1} a_{1}+\sum_{i=n-t+2}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}$. Let
$$
T=\begin{cases}\text{inf}\{1 \leq t \leq n: |A_{t}|>1-a_{n-t+1}\} &\text{ if } \{1 \leq t \leq n: |A_{t}|>1-a_{n-t+1}\}  \neq \emptyset \text{, }\\
n+1 &\text{ otherwise}\end{cases}
$$
Then $T$ is a stopping time.
Note that if $T\leq n$, then $|A_T|\leq1$. Also define the random process $ (B_{t})_{t=0}^{n} $ by setting $B_{t}=A_{t}$ for $t \leq T$ and $ B_{t}=2A_{T}-A_{t} $ for $n\ge t>T$. Note that $ B_{n} $ has the same distribution as $A_n=\sum_{i=1}^{n} \epsilon_{i} a_{i}$.

\begin{clm} If $|A_{n}|>1 \text{ and } |B_{n}|>1$, then $|A_{n}|>2.5$ or $|B_{n}|>2.5$.
\end{clm}

\begin{proof}
Assume $|A_n|,|B_n|>1$. Clearly $T\leq n-1 $ as otherwise if $T=n,n+1$, then by construction we have $|A_n|,|B_n|\leq1$. Now for $T \leq n-1$, note that we have $|A_T|\leq 1$ and hence
\begin{equation*}
|A_n|+|B_n|>2 \geq 2 |A_T| = |A_n+B_n|
\end{equation*}
It follows that $A_n$ and $B_n$ must have opposite signs.

We argue $T < n-k+1$. Indeed, assume for the sake of contradiction that $ n-k+1\leq T<n$, and furthermore assume that $A_{T}>1-a_{n-T+1}$. As $n-T+1\leq k$, by \Cref{sumlem} we have that
$$A_n,B_n\geq A_{T}-(a_{2}+...+a_{n-T+1}) > 1-(a_{2}+...+2a_{n-T+1}) \geq -1.$$
This gives the desired contradiction as $A_{n}$ and $B_{n}$ have modulus strictly greater than $1$ and opposite signs.

For $T < n-k+1$, we get that $a_{n-T+1}$ is a small term, so $|A_{T}|>0.75$. As $A_n,B_n$ have opposite signs we have $|A_n+B_n|=||A_n|-|B_n||$. Therefore, putting all together we have that \begin{align*}
    1.5&\leq 2|A_T|\\
    &=|A_n+B_n|\\
    &=||A_n|-|B_n||\\
    &= \max(|A_n|,|B_n|) - \min(|A_n|,|B_n|) \\
    &< \max(|A_n|,|B_n|) -1.
\end{align*}
This concludes the claim.
\end{proof}

Similarly to the proof of \Cref{smalla}, we now have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}(|A_{n}|>1 \text{ and } |B_{n}|>1) &\leq \mathbb{P}(|A_{n}|>2.5 \text{ or } |B_{n}|>2.5) \\
&\leq 2 \, \mathbb{P}(|A_{n}|>2.5) \\
&\leq 6.36 \, \mathbb{P}(|N(0,1)|>2.5)  <0.08,
\end{align*}
where the second inequality follows from the union bound and from the fact that $A_{n},B_{n}$ have the same distribution and the third inequality follows from \Cref{auxlem}.

We conclude that, since $\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})=\mathbb{P}(|A_{n}| \leq 1)=\mathbb{P}(|B_{n}| \leq 1)$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{P}(\mathbf{a})&=\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{P}(|A_{n}| \leq 1)+\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{P}(|B_{n}| \leq 1) \\
&\geq \frac{1}{2}(1-\mathbb{P}(|A_{n}|>1 \text{ and } |B_{n}|>1)) \\
&\geq \frac{1}{2}(1-0.08) \\
&=0.46.
\end{align*}
This finishes the proof of \Cref{bigtwo}.
\end{proof}

We conclude this section, and thus also the entire proof with some remarks. We believe that with the ideas presented here, by doing a more careful analysis in which one considers a more refined partition of the parameter space, the bound of $0.46$ could probably be further improved. However, with the current partition into cases, the bound that we get is close to optimal. Hence, to prove the full conjecture with the bound of $0.5$, new ideas will be needed.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

We would like to thank our PhD supervisor B\'ela Bollob\'as for advice regarding the final version of this note.