How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Regularized nonlinear Levenberg–Marquardt — Examples and Counterexamples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Algebraic Closure, Embeddings, and Separability
- Algebraic Extensions, Extension Degree, and Finite Fields
- Banach-Space Differential Calculus and Banach Manifolds
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Bounded Linear Operators and Quotient Spaces
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Complex Norms and Realification
- Complexification, Realification and Real Structures
- Composition Series, the Jordan–Hölder Theorem and Solvable Groups
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Cyclic Groups and Direct Products
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Diagonalisation and the Minimal Polynomial
- Direct Matrix Factorisations: LU, Cholesky and QR
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Dual Spaces Adjoint Operators and Annihilators
- Dual Spaces, Bilinear and Quadratic Forms, and Sylvester's Law of Inertia
- Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors and the Characteristic Polynomial
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite-precision direct factorizations and least squares
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Gauss-Newton and Levenberg-Marquardt methods
- Gaussian Elimination, Elementary Matrices and Reduced Row Echelon Form
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Hilbert Space Geometry and Riesz Representation
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Inner Product Spaces, Gram-Schmidt, Projections and Adjoints
- Inverse maps, identifiability, and stability
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Matrix Norms, Condition Numbers and Numerical Stability
- Metric Spaces
- Mixed Partials, Taylor Formulae, and Extrema
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Nonlinear maps and tangential cone control
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Normed and Banach Spaces
- Norming and Separation under Hahn–Banach
- Numerical Inverse Problems and Regularization Error
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Primes, Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Regularized nonlinear Levenberg–Marquardt
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Splitting Fields
- Suprema and Infima
- Sylow's Theorems, p-Groups and Nilpotent Groups
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- The Analytic Hahn Banach Theorem
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Determinant of a Linear Operator, Cofactors and Cramer's Rule
- The Exponential Function
- The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
- The Fundamental Theorem of Finite Abelian Groups
- The Galois Correspondence
- The Inverse and Implicit Function Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Moore--Penrose Pseudoinverse and Regularised Least Squares
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Spectral Theorem, Positive Operators and Singular Value Decomposition
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Trust region and cubic regularization methods
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Logical flowchart
3 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
4 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
A scalar regularized LM step controls noise at fixed damping
Example
Assume Countable Choice. Let , let , and consider the scalar forward map , at a current point with exact datum and noisy datum satisfying . The regularized linearized step with fixed damping is the unique minimizer of namely ; hence , uniformly in . The unregularized Gauss–Newton increment, defined by , is and satisfies only . If instead is selected by the residual-forcing equality , then and , so the forcing-selected increment is not uniformly bounded over at a fixed noise bound. For the finite-dimensional safeguarded LM trial on this same scalar linear residual, with exact arithmetic, , current damping , damping floor , factors , , , trust radius , one-attempt budget, and a supplied exact reduced QR factorization of the augmented matrix, the trial is accepted with ratio and unchanged damping.
Example references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Countable Choice; ; ; ; exact datum ; and .
Countable Choice is the axiom required by the general Hilbert-space regularized LM definition (The Axiom of Countable Choice ()).
The regularized LM method selects by the displayed residual-forcing equality (Regularized nonlinear Levenberg–Marquardt with discrepancy stopping).
In exact mode the safeguarded LM trial minimizes the damped least-squares objective with the supplied scaling matrix (Finite-budget Levenberg-Marquardt with a trust-ratio safeguard).
An exact safeguarded trial is accepted only when the actual-to-predicted ratio is at least ; damping is reduced only when the ratio is at least and the scaled step reaches the trust boundary (Finite-budget Levenberg-Marquardt with a trust-ratio safeguard).
Each positive real has a positive square root, and follows from (Square roots exist: a unique with ; the positives are ).
Verification
Completing the square gives Since , the unique minimizer is .
By [F4], , so , with a bound independent of . The unregularized linearized equation instead gives , which is unbounded as for fixed .
The linearized residual after the regularized step is . Since , the residual-forcing equality is equivalent to , hence and . This forcing-selected step grows like when is held fixed; the fixed- bound above does not give a uniform bound for this varying-parameter family.
For the finite safeguarded procedure, the augmented matrix is the column . Put , , and . Then , , and , so is an exact reduced QR factorization. Its augmented residual vector is , and the exact damped least-squares minimizer is the same from step 1.1.
Take residual map , Jacobian , , current damping , a floor , factors , , , trust radius , and one allowed attempt. The exact gradient is nonzero since . The model residual equals the actual residual because is affine. The predicted reduction is positive because , so the actual-to-predicted ratio is . The trial lies inside the trust radius, hence it is accepted and does not meet the boundary condition for lowering damping; it returns the same damping .
Remarks
The fixed-damping bound and the residual-forcing parameter rule are different comparisons. The finite safeguarded procedure is used here for its exact finite-dimensional damped-step mechanics; its trust-ratio update does not replace the residual-forcing rule in the regularizing Hilbert-space iteration.
Zero-noise discrepancy stopping need not be finite
Statement refuted
Assume Countable Choice. Let , write , and let , exact solution with exact datum , initial value , noise bound and datum , forcing fraction , and discrepancy factor . For , define as the minimizer of for some satisfying , and set . The claim that this iteration reaches the zero discrepancy threshold after finitely many updates is false. Indeed, , , , and for all , Also , and .
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Countable Choice; on ; ; ; ; ; ; and the residual-forcing update in the Counterexample section.
Countable Choice is assumed by the general Hilbert-space LM definition through its adjoint interface (The Axiom of Countable Choice ()).
The LM step minimizes the damped linearized residual and selects so the linearized residual is multiplied by (Regularized nonlinear Levenberg–Marquardt with discrepancy stopping).
The stopping theorem requires and does not assert finite stopping at (Local regularized LM discrepancy stopping has logarithmic iteration count).
The product condition compares the two-point remainder to the product of the distance and data residual (Product-type tangential cone condition).
Counterexample
The derivative of is , so for every . Thus the product condition holds on with , and . The exact solution lies in and . Also , while so the theorem's local smallness clauses hold. Its positive-noise clause does not hold because .
Let . If , the objective is . Completing the square gives the unique minimizer and . The forcing equation with therefore requires and gives .
Since , . Whenever , step 1.2 gives . By induction, for every finite . Therefore at every finite index, so no discrepancy crossing occurs. This refutes the stated finite-stopping extension to zero noise.
Remarks
The positive-noise theorem remains unchanged. This example isolates the boundary case it excludes: exact data with a zero threshold may require infinitely many contractive steps to attain residual zero.