The convexification effect of Minkowski summation (Q1755914)

Summary: Let us define for a compact set \(A\subset\mathbb{R}^n\) the sequence \[ A(k)=\left\{\frac{a_1+\cdots+a_k}{k}:a_1,\dots,a_k\in A\right\}=\frac{1}{k}(\underbrace{A+\cdots+A}_{k\mathrm{ times}}). \] It was independently proved by Shapley, Folkman and Starr [\textit{R. M. Starr}, Econometrica 37, 25--38 (1969; Zbl 0172.44602)] and by \textit{W. R. Emerson} and \textit{F. P. Greenleaf} [Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 145, 171--204 (1969; Zbl 0214.38003)] that \(A(k)\) approaches the convex hull of \(A\) in the Hausdorff distance induced by the Euclidean norm as \(k\) goes to \(\infty\). We explore in this survey how exactly \(A(k)\) approaches the convex hull of \(A\), and more generally, how a Minkowski sum of possibly different compact sets approaches convexity, as measured by various indices of non-convexity. The non-convexity indices considered include the Hausdorff distance induced by any norm on \(\mathbb{R}^n\), the volume deficit (the difference of volumes), a non-convexity index introduced by \textit{R. Schneider} [Pac. J. Math. 58, 617--625 (1975; Zbl 0275.52002)], and the effective standard deviation or inner radius. After first clarifying the interrelationships between these various indices of non-convexity, which were previously either unknown or scattered in the literature, we show that the volume deficit of \(A(k)\) does not monotonically decrease to 0 in dimension 12 or above, thus falsifying a conjecture of \textit{S. Bobkov} et al. [Contemp. Math. 545, 35--53 (2011; Zbl 1235.46033)], even though their conjecture is proved to be true in dimension 1 and for certain sets \(A\) with special structure. On the other hand, Schneider's index possesses a strong monotonicity property along the sequence \(A(k)\), and both the Hausdorff distance and effective standard deviation are eventually monotone (once \(k\) exceeds \(n\)). Along the way, we obtain new inequalities for the volume of the Minkowski sum of compact sets (showing that this is fractionally superadditive but not supermodular in general, but is indeed supermodular when the sets are convex), falsify a conjecture of \textit{N. Dyn} and \textit{E. Farkhi} [Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 25, No. 3--4, 363--377 (2004; Zbl 1074.41011)], demonstrate applications of our results to combinatorial discrepancy theory, and suggest some questions worthy of further investigation.