Noncentral concentration conjecture for empirical relative entropy

Let PP be a distribution on a finite alphabet of size kk, let P^n,k\hat{P}_{n,k} be its empirical distribution from nn independent samples, and let D(P^n,kP)D(\hat{P}_{n,k} \\| P) denote the relative entropy. For ϵ>0\epsilon>0, Noncentral concentration conjecture.

P(D(P^n,kP)ϵ)(1+k1n)n2enϵ.\mathbb{P}\left( D(\hat{P}_{n,k} \\| P) \geq \epsilon \right) \leq \left( 1 + \frac{k-1}{n}\right)^n 2e^{-n\epsilon}.

This conjectured bound is motivated by the behavior of the mean relative entropy and is stated as non-trivial to prove or disprove for general nn and kk. It would imply a threshold of order k/nk/n when k=o(n)k=o(n), matching the known lower-bound order.

Progress summary

Solved

A reader-written asymptotic argument claims the conjecture is false for a fixed five-symbol uniform distribution, but the disproof has not been independently verified.

Mardia, Jiao, Tánczos, Nowak, and Weissman stated the noncentral concentration conjecture in 2018, motivated by the mean relative entropy and its expected threshold when k=o(n)k=o(n).

Known results

  • Mardia et al. (2018) established improved method-of-types concentration bounds, but left the conjecture open for general nn and kk.
  • Bhatt and Pensia (2019) obtained a different moment-generating-function bound, yielding exponential decay for ϵ>(k1)/n\epsilon>(k-1)/n.
  • Mardia et al. (2022) proved a gamma-type centered moment-generating-function bound and concentration around ED(P^P)\mathbb{E}D(\hat P\|P), settling a related centered conjecture rather than this noncentral one.

Posted attempt

A reader-written attempt claims a complete disproof: for k=5k=5 and uniform PP, taking ϵn=162/n\epsilon_n=162/n gives an asymptotic tail 163e162163e^{-162}, exceeding the conjectured bound’s limit 2e4e1622e^4e^{-162}. It also claims analogous failures for every odd k5k\geq5. This attempt has not been independently verified.

Current status (as of August 2026): The exact conjecture has a posted but unverified counterexample claim; no verified proof or disproof is recorded, so the mathematical question remains open.

Sources
Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Jay Mardia, Jiantao Jiao, Ervin Tánczos, Robert D. Nowak and Tsachy Weissman, “Concentration Inequalities for the Empirical Distribution”, arXiv:1809.06522 (2019).

Solutions 1

Counterexample

The proposed inequality is false, even for a fixed five-symbol uniform distribution.

The exact conjectured bound is

Pr ⁣(D(P^n,kP)ε)2(1+k1n)nenε.\Pr\!\left(D(\widehat P_{n,k}\Vert P)\ge\varepsilon\right) \le 2\left(1+\frac{k-1}{n}\right)^n e^{-n\varepsilon}.

Take k=5k=5, P=(1/5,1/5,1/5,1/5,1/5)P=(1/5,1/5,1/5,1/5,1/5), and εn=162/n>0\varepsilon_n=162/n>0. The multinomial central limit theorem and Taylor expansion of relative entropy give

2nD(P^n,5P)χ42.2nD(\widehat P_{n,5}\Vert P)\Longrightarrow\chi^2_4.

Indeed, writing NiN_i for the cell counts,

2nD(P^n,5P)=i=15(Nin/5)2n/5+oPr(1),2nD(\widehat P_{n,5}\Vert P) =\sum_{i=1}^5\frac{(N_i-n/5)^2}{n/5}+o_{\Pr}(1),

and the limiting normalized count vector is Gaussian with covariance I51511TI_5-\frac15\mathbf1\mathbf1^{\mathsf T}, the orthogonal projection onto a four-dimensional subspace.

Continuity of the chi-square distribution therefore yields

limnPr ⁣(D(P^n,5P)162n)=Pr(χ42324)=163e162.\lim_{n\to\infty} \Pr\!\left(D(\widehat P_{n,5}\Vert P)\ge\frac{162}{n}\right) =\Pr(\chi_4^2\ge324) =163e^{-162}.

In contrast, the conjectured upper bound converges to

limn2(1+4n)ne162=2e4e162.\lim_{n\to\infty}2\left(1+\frac4n\right)^n e^{-162} =2e^4e^{-162}.

Since e<3e<3,

2e4<234=162<163.2e^4<2\cdot3^4=162<163.

Consequently the asserted bound fails for every sufficiently large nn.

More generally, for every odd alphabet size k=2r+15k=2r+1\ge5, the same limit at ε=c/n\varepsilon=c/n forces any hypothetical bound Pr(Dc/n)Ckec\Pr(D\ge c/n)\le C_k e^{-c}, uniform in n,c>0n,c>0, to satisfy

Ckj=0r1cjj!for every c>0.C_k\ge\sum_{j=0}^{r-1}\frac{c^j}{j!} \quad\text{for every }c>0.

Since this polynomial is unbounded, no finite alphabet-dependent prefactor can make such an exponential bound valid uniformly.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·