We provide moment bounds for expressions of the type
Stochastic networks for the clock were identified by ensemble methods using genetic algorithms that captured the amplitude and period variation in single cell oscillators of
 Award ID(s):
 1713746
 Publication Date:
 NSFPAR ID:
 10192589
 Journal Name:
 Scientific Reports
 Volume:
 10
 Issue:
 1
 ISSN:
 20452322
 Publisher:
 Nature Publishing Group
 Sponsoring Org:
 National Science Foundation
More Like this

Abstract where$$(X^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes X^{(d)})^T A (X^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes X^{(d)})$$ ${({X}^{\left(1\right)}\otimes \cdots \otimes {X}^{\left(d\right)})}^{T}A({X}^{\left(1\right)}\otimes \cdots \otimes {X}^{\left(d\right)})$ denotes the Kronecker product and$$\otimes $$ $\otimes $ are random vectors with independent, mean 0, variance 1, subgaussian entries. The bounds are tight up to constants depending on$$X^{(1)}, \ldots , X^{(d)}$$ ${X}^{\left(1\right)},\dots ,{X}^{\left(d\right)}$d for the case of Gaussian random vectors. Our proof also provides a decoupling inequality for expressions of this type. Using these bounds, we obtain new, improved concentration inequalities for expressions of the form .$$\Vert B (X^{(1)} \otimes \cdots \otimes X^{(d)})\Vert _2$$ $\Vert B({X}^{\left(1\right)}\otimes \cdots \otimes {X}^{\left(d\right)}){\Vert}_{2}$ 
Abstract We perform pathintegral molecular dynamics (PIMD), ringpolymer MD (RPMD), and classical MD simulations of H
O and D$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ O using the qTIP4P/F water model over a wide range of temperatures and pressures. The density$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ , isothermal compressibility$$\rho (T)$$ $\rho \left(T\right)$ , and selfdiffusion coefficients$$\kappa _T(T)$$ ${\kappa}_{T}\left(T\right)$D (T ) of H O and D$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ O are in excellent agreement with available experimental data; the isobaric heat capacity$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ obtained from PIMD and MD simulations agree qualitatively well with the experiments. Some of these thermodynamic properties exhibit anomalous maxima upon isobaric cooling, consistent with recent experiments and with the possibility that H$$C_P(T)$$ ${C}_{P}\left(T\right)$ O and D$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ O exhibit a liquidliquid critical point (LLCP) at low temperatures and positive pressures. The data from PIMD/MD for H$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ O and D$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ O can be fitted remarkably well using the TwoStateEquationofState (TSEOS). Using the TSEOS, we estimate that the LLCP for qTIP4P/F H$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ O, from PIMD simulations, is located at$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ MPa,$$P_c = 167 \pm 9$$ ${P}_{c}=167\pm 9$ K, and$$T_c = 159 \pm 6$$ ${T}_{c}=159\pm 6$ g/cm$$\rho _c = 1.02 \pm 0.01$$ ${\rho}_{c}=1.02\pm 0.01$ . Isotope substitution effects are important; the LLCP location in qTIP4P/F D$$^3$$ ${}^{3}$ O is estimated to be$$_2$$ ${}_{2}$ MPa,$$P_c = 176 \pm 4$$ ${P}_{c}=176\pm 4$ K, and$$T_c = 177 \pm 2$$ ${T}_{c}=177\pm 2$ g/cm$$\rho _c = 1.13 \pm 0.01$$ ${\rho}_{c}=1.13\pm 0.01$ . Interestingly, for the water model studied, differences in the LLCP location from PIMD and MD simulations suggest that nuclear quantum effectsmore »$$^3$$ ${}^{3}$ 
Abstract We continue the program of proving circuit lower bounds via circuit satisfiability algorithms. So far, this program has yielded several concrete results, proving that functions in
and other complexity classes do not have small circuits (in the worst case and/or on average) from various circuit classes$\mathsf {Quasi}\text {}\mathsf {NP} = \mathsf {NTIME}[n^{(\log n)^{O(1)}}]$ $\mathrm{Quasi}\mathrm{NP}=\mathrm{NTIME}\left[{n}^{{\left(\mathrm{log}n\right)}^{O\left(1\right)}}\right]$ , by showing that$\mathcal { C}$ $C$ admits nontrivial satisfiability and/or$\mathcal { C}$ $C$# SAT algorithms which beat exhaustive search by a minor amount. In this paper, we present a new strong lower bound consequence of having a nontrivial# SAT algorithm for a circuit class . Say that a symmetric Boolean function${\mathcal C}$ $C$f (x _{1},…,x _{n}) issparse if it outputs 1 onO (1) values of . We show that for every sparse${\sum }_{i} x_{i}$ ${\sum}_{i}{x}_{i}$f , and for all “typical” , faster$\mathcal { C}$ $C$# SAT algorithms for circuits imply lower bounds against the circuit class$\mathcal { C}$ $C$ , which may be$f \circ \mathcal { C}$ $f\circ C$stronger than itself. In particular:$\mathcal { C}$ $C$# SAT algorithms forn ^{k}size circuits running in 2^{n}/$\mathcal { C}$ $C$n ^{k}time (for allk ) implyN E X P does not have circuits of polynomial size.$(f \circ \mathcal { C})$ $(f\circ C)$# SAT algorithms for size$2^{n^{{\varepsilon }}}$ ${2}^{{n}^{\epsilon}}$ circuits running in$\mathcal { C}$ $C$ time (for some$2^{nn^{{\varepsilon }}}$ ${2}^{n{n}^{\epsilon}}$ε > 0) implyQ u a s i N P does not have circuits of polynomial size.$(f \circ \mathcal { C})$ $(f\circ C)$Applying
# SAT algorithms from the literature, one immediate corollary of our results is thatQ u a s i N P does not haveE M A J ∘A C C ^{0}∘T H R circuits of polynomialmore » 
Abstract In this paper, we study multistage stochastic mixedinteger nonlinear programs (MSMINLP). This general class of problems encompasses, as important special cases, multistage stochastic convex optimization with
nonLipschitzian value functions and multistage stochastic mixedinteger linear optimization. We develop stochastic dual dynamic programming (SDDP) type algorithms with nested decomposition, deterministic sampling, and stochastic sampling. The key ingredient is a new type of cuts based on generalized conjugacy. Several interesting classes of MSMINLP are identified, where the new algorithms are guaranteed to obtain the global optimum without the assumption of complete recourse. This significantly generalizes the classic SDDP algorithms. We also characterize the iteration complexity of the proposed algorithms. In particular, for a stage stochastic MINLP satisfying$$(T+1)$$ $(T+1)$L exact Lipschitz regularization withd dimensional state spaces, to obtain an optimal root node solution, we prove that the number of iterations of the proposed deterministic sampling algorithm is upper bounded by$$\varepsilon $$ $\epsilon $ , and is lower bounded by$${\mathcal {O}}((\frac{2LT}{\varepsilon })^d)$$ $O\left({\left(\frac{2LT}{\epsilon}\right)}^{d}\right)$ for the general case or by$${\mathcal {O}}((\frac{LT}{4\varepsilon })^d)$$ $O\left({\left(\frac{\mathrm{LT}}{4\epsilon}\right)}^{d}\right)$ for the convex case. This shows that the obtained complexity bounds are rather sharp. It also reveals that the iteration complexity depends$${\mathcal {O}}((\frac{LT}{8\varepsilon })^{d/21})$$ $O\left({\left(\frac{\mathrm{LT}}{8\epsilon}\right)}^{d/21}\right)$polynomially on the number of stages. We further show that the iteration complexity dependslinearly onT , if all the state spaces are finite sets, or ifmore » 
Abstract It has been recently established in David and Mayboroda (Approximation of green functions and domains with uniformly rectifiable boundaries of all dimensions.
arXiv:2010.09793 ) that on uniformly rectifiable sets the Green function is almost affine in the weak sense, and moreover, in some scenarios such Green function estimates are equivalent to the uniform rectifiability of a set. The present paper tackles a strong analogue of these results, starting with the “flagship degenerate operators on sets with lower dimensional boundaries. We consider the elliptic operators associated to a domain$$L_{\beta ,\gamma } = {\text {div}}D^{d+1+\gamma n} \nabla $$ ${L}_{\beta ,\gamma}=\text{div}{D}^{d+1+\gamma n}\nabla $ with a uniformly rectifiable boundary$$\Omega \subset {\mathbb {R}}^n$$ $\Omega \subset {R}^{n}$ of dimension$$\Gamma $$ $\Gamma $ , the now usual distance to the boundary$$d < n1$$ $d<n1$ given by$$D = D_\beta $$ $D={D}_{\beta}$ for$$D_\beta (X)^{\beta } = \int _{\Gamma } Xy^{d\beta } d\sigma (y)$$ ${D}_{\beta}{\left(X\right)}^{\beta}={\int}_{\Gamma}{Xy}^{d\beta}d\sigma \left(y\right)$ , where$$X \in \Omega $$ $X\in \Omega $ and$$\beta >0$$ $\beta >0$ . In this paper we show that the Green function$$\gamma \in (1,1)$$ $\gamma \in (1,1)$G for , with pole at infinity, is well approximated by multiples of$$L_{\beta ,\gamma }$$ ${L}_{\beta ,\gamma}$ , in the sense that the function$$D^{1\gamma }$$ ${D}^{1\gamma}$ satisfies a Carleson measure estimate on$$\big  D\nabla \big (\ln \big ( \frac{G}{D^{1\gamma }} \big )\big )\big ^2$$ $D\nabla (ln(\frac{G}{{D}^{1\gamma}})){}^{2}$ . We underline that the strong and the weak results are different in nature and, of course, at the levelmore »$$\Omega $$ $\Omega $