Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
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.

The excess-tail functional cannot upper-bound the trimmed mean

Statement refuted

Replacing the raw centered-tail functional in the univariate trimmed-mean bound by Eexc(u)=max⁡{E[∣Z−Qu/2(Z)∣1{Z≤Qu/2(Z)}],E[∣Z−Q1−u/2(Z)∣1{Z≥Q1−u/2(Z)}]} would falsely assert P(∣μ^−μ∣≤3Eexc(4ε)+2σlog⁡(4/δ)/N)≥1−δ for Split-sample univariate winsorized trimmed mean. This fails for a bounded absolutely continuous law.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: N=106, η=1/100, δ=1/10, w=1/1000, and X=S+U, where S is a uniform sign and U is independent uniform on [−w,w]; clean coordinates are iid copies. Assume Countable Choice as in the quantile supplier.

[F1]

Split-sample univariate winsorized trimmed mean sorts the second half at levels ε and 1−ε and averages the clipped first half.

[F2]

An absolutely continuous upper quantile has its specified tail mass uses exact continuous quantiles, with its Countable Choice hypothesis (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

[F3]

Chebyshev's inequality for random variables bounds a centered random variable's tail by its variance divided by the squared threshold.

Counterexample

Given: The displayed parameters and symmetric two-interval clean law. Replace the first 20000 negative first-half observations by +1, or all negatives if fewer; do not change the second half.

1.1F1F2givenalgebra

This law is absolutely continuous with density 1/(4w) on each interval [−1−w,−1+w] and [1−w,1+w], has mean zero and variance σ2=1+w2/3. The replacement rule is a measurable finite-coordinate rule and makes at most 20000=2ηN changes. Put ε=.08+12log⁡40/106, so .08<ε<.081<1/4, and δ≥e−N/4. At lower tail mass 2ε the quantile is −1−w+8wε. Integration over the lower interval gives E[(Q2ε−X)1{X≤Q2ε}]=(8wε)2/(8w)=8wε2; symmetry gives the same upper-tail excess. Hence 3Eexc(4ε)+2σlog⁡40/106<.0042, using log⁡40<4, ε<.081 and σ2<1.000001.

2.1F1F3step 1.1algebra∎

Let A be the event that the clean first-half sign average has absolute value at most .01, and let B be the event that the second-half negative-sign count lies between N/4 and 3N/4. The sign average has variance 1/N, so [F3] gives P(Ac)≤.01. The second-half count has variance N/4, so P(Bc)≤4/N. On A there are at least .495N negative first-half signs, so the replacement changes exactly 20000 of them. The resulting sign average is at least −.01+.04=.03. On B, the ranks in [F1] put α in the negative interval and β in the positive interval, since ε<.081<1/4. Every clipped value is at least its altered sign minus w: a negative value is at least −1−w, and a positive value, including a replacement +1, clips to at least 1−w. Therefore μ^≥.03−w=.029 on A∩B, whose probability is at least .989996. This exceeds the proposed threshold .0042 with probability greater than δ=.1, disproving the asserted coverage.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

18 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources