Paper detail

Factorization Norms and Hereditary Discrepancy

The $γ_2$ norm of a real $m\times n$ matrix $A$ is the minimum number $t$ such that the column vectors of $A$ are contained in a $0$-centered ellipsoid $E\subseteq\mathbb{R}^m$ which in turn is contained in the hypercube $[-t, t]^m$. We prove that this classical quantity approximates the \emph{hereditary discrepancy} $\mathrm{herdisc}\ A$ as follows: $γ_2(A) = {O(\log m)}\cdot \mathrm{herdisc}\ A$ and $\mathrm{herdisc}\ A = O(\sqrt{\log m}\,)\cdotγ_2(A) $. Since $γ_2$ is polynomial-time computable, this gives a polynomial-time approximation algorithm for hereditary discrepancy. Both inequalities are shown to be asymptotically tight. We then demonstrate on several examples the power of the $γ_2$ norm as a tool for proving lower and upper bounds in discrepancy theory. Most notably, we prove a new lower bound of $Ω(\log^{d-1} n)$ for the \emph{$d$-dimensional Tusnády problem}, asking for the combinatorial discrepancy of an $n$-point set in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with respect to axis-parallel boxes. For $d>2$, this improves the previous best lower bound, which was of order approximately $\log^{(d-1)/2}n$, and it comes close to the best known upper bound of $O(\log^{d+1/2}n)$, for which we also obtain a new, very simple proof.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.