Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

✓ 2 results · all verified · 2 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full by a delegated reviewing agent on the owner's instruction; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs; all 2 also cleared it.

Regularized nonlinear Levenberg–Marquardt — Examples and Counterexamples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Logical flowchart

3 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

4 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck pendingjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)verified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

A scalar regularized LM step controls noise at fixed damping

Example

Assume Countable Choice. Let ε,α,δ>0, let σ∈(0,1), and consider the scalar forward map Fε:R→R, Fε(t)=εt at a current point x with exact datum y=Fε(x) and noisy datum yδ satisfying 0<r:=yδ−Fε(x)≤δ. The regularized linearized step with fixed damping α is the unique minimizer of h⟼12∣εh−r∣2+α2∣h∣2, namely hα=εr/(ε2+α); hence ∣hα∣≤δ/(2α), uniformly in ε. The unregularized Gauss–Newton increment, defined by εh0=r, is h0=r/ε and satisfies only ∣h0∣≤δ/ε. If instead α is selected by the residual-forcing equality ∣εhα−r∣=σr, then α=σε2/(1−σ) and hα=(1−σ)r/ε, so the forcing-selected increment is not uniformly bounded over ε↓0 at a fixed noise bound. For the finite-dimensional safeguarded LM trial on this same scalar linear residual, with exact arithmetic, D=1, current damping λ=α, damping floor 0<λmin⁡≤α, factors γ=2, η1=1/4, η2=3/4, trust radius Δ>∣hα∣, one-attempt budget, and a supplied exact reduced QR factorization of the augmented matrix, the trial is accepted with ratio 1 and unchanged damping.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice; ε,α,δ>0; 0<σ<1; Fε(t)=εt; exact datum y=Fε(x); and 0<r=yδ−Fε(x)≤δ.

[A1]

Countable Choice is the axiom required by the general Hilbert-space regularized LM definition (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

[F1]

The regularized LM method selects αn by the displayed residual-forcing equality (Regularized nonlinear Levenberg–Marquardt with discrepancy stopping).

[F2]

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).

[F3]

An exact safeguarded trial is accepted only when the actual-to-predicted ratio is at least η1; damping is reduced only when the ratio is at least η2 and the scaled step reaches the trust boundary (Finite-budget Levenberg-Marquardt with a trust-ratio safeguard).

[F4]

Each positive real has a positive square root, and 2εα≤ε2+α follows from (ε−α)2≥0 (Square roots exist: a unique a≥0 with (a)2=a; the positives are {x2:x≠0}).

Verification

1.1givenalgebra

Completing the square gives 12∣εh−r∣2+α2∣h∣2=ε2+α2(h−εrε2+α)2+r22−ε2r22(ε2+α). Since ε2+α>0, the unique minimizer is hα=εr/(ε2+α).

2.1F4givenstep 1.1algebra

By [F4], 2εα≤ε2+α, so ∣hα∣=εr/(ε2+α)≤r/(2α)≤δ/(2α), with a bound independent of ε. The unregularized linearized equation εh0=r instead gives ∣h0∣=r/ε≤δ/ε, which is unbounded as ε↓0 for fixed r>0.

2.2F1step 1.1algebra

The linearized residual after the regularized step is εhα−r=−αr/(ε2+α). Since r>0, the residual-forcing equality is equivalent to α/(ε2+α)=σ, hence α=σε2/(1−σ) and hα=(1−σ)r/ε. This forcing-selected step grows like 1/ε when r is held fixed; the fixed-α bound above does not give a uniform bound for this varying-parameter family.

2.3F2F4step 1.1givenconstructalgebra

For the finite safeguarded procedure, the augmented matrix is the column A=(ε,α)T. Put s:=ε2+α, Q:=A/s, and R:=(s). Then s>0, QTQ=1, and QR=A, so A=QR is an exact reduced QR factorization. Its augmented residual vector is b=(−r,0)T, and the exact damped least-squares minimizer is the same p=hα from step 1.1.

3.1A1F3step 1.1step 2.2step 2.3givenalgebra∎

Take residual map g(t)=εt−yδ, Jacobian J=ε, D=1, current damping λ=α, a floor 0<λmin⁡≤α, factors γ=2, η1=1/4, η2=3/4, trust radius Δ>∣hα∣, and one allowed attempt. The exact gradient is nonzero since JTg(x)=−εr≠0. The model residual equals the actual residual because g is affine. The predicted reduction is positive because ∣εhα−r∣=αr/(ε2+α)<r, so the actual-to-predicted ratio is 1. 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 λ=α.

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.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck pendingjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)verified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Zero-noise discrepancy stopping need not be finite

Statement refuted

Assume Countable Choice. Let U=R, write Bs(a):={t∈R:∣t−a∣<s}, and let F(t)=t, exact solution x†=1 with exact datum y=1, initial value x0=15/16, noise bound δ=0 and datum yδ=1, forcing fraction σ=1/2, and discrepancy factor τ=3. For n≥0, define hn as the minimizer of h⟼12∣h+xn−1∣2+αn2∣h∣2 for some αn>0 satisfying ∣hn+xn−1∣=σ∣xn−1∣, and set xn+1=xn+hn. The claim that this iteration reaches the zero discrepancy threshold τδ=0 after finitely many updates is false. Indeed, B2(x0)⊂U, x†∈B1(x0), ∣F′(t)∣≤1, and for all u,v∈B2(x0), ∣F(u)−F(v)−F′(u)(u−v)∣≤∣u−v∣ ∣F(u)−F(v)∣. Also e0:=∣x0−x†∣=1/16<min⁡{1,1/8,1/4}, and τ=3>1/σ=2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice; F(t)=t on R; x†=y=yδ=1; x0=15/16; δ=0; σ=1/2; τ=3; and the residual-forcing update in the Counterexample section.

[A1]

Countable Choice is assumed by the general Hilbert-space LM definition through its adjoint interface (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

[F1]

The LM step minimizes the damped linearized residual and selects αn so the linearized residual is multiplied by σ (Regularized nonlinear Levenberg–Marquardt with discrepancy stopping).

[F2]

The stopping theorem requires δ>0 and does not assert finite stopping at δ=0 (Local regularized LM discrepancy stopping has logarithmic iteration count).

[F3]

The product condition compares the two-point remainder to the product of the distance and data residual (Product-type tangential cone condition).

Counterexample

1.1givenF2F3algebra

The derivative of F(t)=t is F′(t)=1, so F(u)−F(u~)−F′(u)(u−u~)=0 for every u,u~∈R. Thus the product condition holds on B2(x0)⊂R with c=1, and ∣F′(t)∣=1=M. The exact solution lies in B1(x0) and B2(x0)⊂U. Also e0=∣x0−x†∣=1/16<1, while στ−1c(1+τ)=18,1−σ2c=14, so the theorem's local smallness clauses hold. Its positive-noise clause does not hold because δ=0.

1.2A1F1givenalgebra

Let rn:=1−xn. If rn>0, the objective is 12(h−rn)2+αn2h2. Completing the square gives the unique minimizer hn=rn/(1+αn) and rn−hn=αnrn/(1+αn). The forcing equation with σ=1/2 therefore requires αn=1 and gives hn=rn/2.

2.1F2step 1.2giveninductionalgebra∎

Since x0=1−1/16, r0=1/16>0. Whenever rn>0, step 1.2 gives rn+1=1−xn+1=rn−hn=rn/2. By induction, rn=2−n/16>0 for every finite n. Therefore ∣F(xn)−yδ∣=rn>0=τδ 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.

Sources