Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-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.

Coarse and fine Euler paths coupled by a bridge split

Example

Assume AC as in the Gaussian and Brownian interfaces.

For the scalar SDE dXt=Xtdt+dWt on one interval of length h>0, let ΔW∼N(0,h) and independently Z∼N(0,h/4). Couple the two fine increments by the Brownian bridge split ΔW1=ΔW/2+Z and ΔW2=ΔW/2−Z. From initial value y0, one coarse Euler step and two fine Euler steps give Yc=(1+h)y0+ΔW, Yf=(1+h/2)2y0+(1+h/2)ΔW1+ΔW2, and hence Yf−Yc=h24y0+h4ΔW+h2Z. For y0=0, the coupled difference is centered with variance h3/8.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, the Euler update for b(x)=x, σ(x)=1, the parent ΔW, and the independent midpoint innovation Z.

[F1]

A scalar Euler–Maruyama step is Yk+1=Yk+b(Yk)h+σ(Yk)ΔWk on an interval of length h. Euler–Maruyama recursion

[F2]

The bridge children are ΔW/2+Z and ΔW/2−Z with a fresh independent Z∼N(0,h/4). Dyadic Brownian bridge increment tree

[F3]

The children have the exact joint independent N(0,h/2) law and sum to the parent. Exact increment laws in the dyadic Brownian bridge tree

[A1]

AC is inherited through the Euler, Gaussian, and bridge-sampling interfaces; the finite update calculation makes no further selection. The Axiom of Choice

Proof

1.1F1givenalgebra

Applying [F1] once with b(y)=y and σ(y)=1 gives Yc=y0+hy0+ΔW=(1+h)y0+ΔW.

2.1F1givenstep 1.1algebra

Applying [F1] on the first fine half-step gives Y1/2=(1+h/2)y0+ΔW1. The second half-step gives Yf=(1+h/2)Y1/2+ΔW2, so substitution yields the displayed fine formula.

3.1F2F3step 1.1step 2.1algebra

Substitute [F2] into Yf and subtract Yc from step 1.1: Yf−Yc=((1+h/2)2−(1+h))y0+((1+h/2)(ΔW/2+Z)+(ΔW/2−Z)−ΔW)=h24y0+h4ΔW+h2Z. For y0=0, independence and the variances in [F2] give Var⁡(Yf−Yc)=(h/4)2h+(h/2)2(h/4)=h3/8. The identity ΔW1+ΔW2=ΔW makes this a path-consistent coupling, not two independent simulations.

4.1A1F2F3step 3.1given∎

The case h=0 is excluded; for every h>0 the fine difference has strictly positive variance at y0=0. A nonzero initial value changes the mean by h2y0/4 but not that variance. This example checks an exact finite-dimensional coupling only; it is not a general MLMC or convergence rate theorem.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

9 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