• This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).

    If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
    1. the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
    2. the thread will be closed to further posts.
    3. the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
    Thank you for understanding.​

Math: Statistician proves Gaussian correlation inequality

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,773
Reaction score
15,242
Location
Massachusetts
A Long-Sought Proof, Found and Almost Lost

I have roughly the same chance of ever understanding this as your average invertebrate (excepting perhaps octopi; they're rather brainy). The "outsider" aspect of the story is interesting enough to make me read it through though.

Quanta Magazine said:
As he was brushing his teeth on the morning of July 17, 2014, Thomas Royen, a little-known retired German statistician, suddenly lit upon the proof of a famous conjecture at the intersection of geometry, probability theory and statistics that had eluded top experts for decades.

Known as the Gaussian correlation inequality (GCI), the conjecture originated in the 1950s, was posed in its most elegant form in 1972 and has held mathematicians in its thrall ever since. “I know of people who worked on it for 40 years,” said Donald Richards, a statistician at Pennsylvania State University. “I myself worked on it for 30 years.”

Royen hadn’t given the Gaussian correlation inequality much thought before the “raw idea” for how to prove it came to him over the bathroom sink. Formerly an employee of a pharmaceutical company, he had moved on to a small technical university in Bingen, Germany, in 1985 in order to have more time to improve the statistical formulas that he and other industry statisticians used to make sense of drug-trial data. In July 2014, still at work on his formulas as a 67-year-old retiree, Royen found that the GCI could be extended into a statement about statistical distributions he had long specialized in. On the morning of the 17th, he saw how to calculate a key derivative for this extended GCI that unlocked the proof. “The evening of this day, my first draft of the proof was written,” he said.

Not knowing LaTeX, the word processer of choice in mathematics, he typed up his calculations in Microsoft Word, and the following month he posted his paper to the academic preprint site arxiv.org. He also sent it to Richards, who had briefly circulated his own failed attempt at a proof of the GCI a year and a half earlier. “I got this article by email from him,” Richards said. “And when I looked at it I knew instantly that it was solved.”

Upon seeing the proof, “I really kicked myself,” Richards said. Over the decades, he and other experts had been attacking the GCI with increasingly sophisticated mathematical methods, certain that bold new ideas in convex geometry, probability theory or analysis would be needed to prove it. Some mathematicians, after years of toiling in vain, had come to suspect the inequality was actually false. In the end, though, Royen’s proof was short and simple, filling just a few pages and using only classic techniques. Richards was shocked that he and everyone else had missed it. “But on the other hand I have to also tell you that when I saw it, it was with relief,” he said. “I remember thinking to myself that I was glad to have seen it before I died.” He laughed. “Really, I was so glad I saw it.”

...

Proofs of obscure provenance are sometimes overlooked at first, but usually not for long: A major paper like Royen’s would normally get submitted and published somewhere like the Annals of Statistics, experts said, and then everybody would hear about it. But Royen, not having a career to advance, chose to skip the slow and often demanding peer-review process typical of top journals. He opted instead for quick publication in the Far East Journal of Theoretical Statistics, a periodical based in Allahabad, India, that was largely unknown to experts and which, on its website, rather suspiciously listed Royen as an editor. (He had agreed to join the editorial board the year before.)

With this red flag emblazoned on it, the proof continued to be ignored. Finally, in December 2015, the Polish mathematician Rafał Latała and his student Dariusz Matlak put out a paper advertising Royen’s proof, reorganizing it in a way some people found easier to follow. Word is now getting around. Tilmann Gneiting, a statistician at the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, just 65 miles from Bingen, said he was shocked to learn in July 2016, two years after the fact, that the GCI had been proved. The statistician Alan Izenman, of Temple University in Philadelphia, still hadn’t heard about the proof when asked for comment last month.

...
 

jjdebenedictis

is watching you via her avatar
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
7,063
Reaction score
1,643
Oh, that is such a cool story. And I can at least understand the hand-wavey explanation of the proof they give in the article. :)
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
That's cool. I hadn't heard of this yet either. Terrible, I know.

I'm not particularly surprised by the lackluster reception, either. Long-standing problems in mathematical fields often have multiple near-attempts at successful proofs before a correct one is found, so it's not un-typical that a new one is treated with skepticism. The choice of publication venue makes it even more understandable.

As a stats girl, I can say it's very cool and satisfying the proof lay in classical statistical tools rather than convex geometry, even if the mathematicians still want a proof using geometric methods. I'm not really a theory girl, though, so I'm not going to try to work my way through the arguments. I can imagine some interesting applications though, especially if it can successfully be applied to improving computation for high-dimensional problems.

Kuwi, resident statistician
 
Last edited:

Opty

Banned
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
4,448
Reaction score
918
Location
Canada
A Long-Sought Proof, Found and Almost Lost

I have roughly the same chance of ever understanding this as your average invertebrate (excepting perhaps octopi; they're rather brainy). The "outsider" aspect of the story is interesting enough to make me read it through though.
What'll really bake your noodle is to find out that it's "octopuses," not "octopi."

I only do dumbed-down, science research stats, so all of that stuff is totally over my head too.

I do think it was a dumb choice on his part to publish in a predatory journal. Any journal that a) charges authors $25 per page to publish their article and; b) asks someone to be on their editorial board just from submitting one paper is a total scam. But, predatory journals abound in these days of "publish or perish." It's a real shame.

He says he wasn't worried about advancing his career, which is why he chose that journal, but I think that choice was actually detrimental to the advancement of the proof. The end result was that rather than submitting to a real journal and waiting a few months for it to pass peer-review and then get published and likely internationally recognized, he instead published in a shit scam journal and his paper was effectively lost for two years. I'm glad it finally got the attention it deserves, though.