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.
A Gaussian two-point lower bound
Example
Let and . Observe independent , and estimate the scalar mean under squared-error loss. Restrict the parameter set to The minimax risk over this two-point experiment is at least
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The two-point Gaussian location experiment, with independent observations and arbitrary randomized estimators under squared-error loss.
Standard normal and normal laws and Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance: the observation vector has the product law , with independent normal coordinates.
Statistical experiments and Parameter-measurable statistical models as kernels: the model assigns one probability law to each parameter; because this parameter set is finite with its power-set sigma-algebra, the assignment is a measurable probability kernel.
KL divergence between equal-variance Gaussian location laws: equal-variance normal location laws satisfy .
Additivity of KL divergence for finite product laws: for finite product laws, KL divergence is the sum of the factor divergences.
Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: under the event-supremum convention, .
Two-point Le Cam lower bound for squared-error risk: two scalar targets separated by have minimax squared-error risk at least .
Loss functions and risk, Randomized procedures as probability kernels, and Bayes risk and minimax risk: risk is the kernel expectation of the loss; minimax risk takes the infimum over randomized procedures of their maximum risk.
Proof
The finite parameter set defines a measurable experiment by [F7]. The target gap is . By [F2] and [F3], Pinsker [F4] therefore gives .
Apply [F5] with this gap and total-variation bound: This is the claimed minimax risk bound under [F6].
Depends on
- The Axiom of Choice
- Bayes risk and minimax risk
- Loss functions and risk
- Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance
- Parameter-measurable statistical models as kernels
- Randomized procedures as probability kernels
- Standard normal and normal laws
- Statistical experiments
- KL divergence between equal-variance Gaussian location laws
- Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation
- Additivity of KL divergence for finite product laws
- Two-point Le Cam lower bound for squared-error risk
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
63 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
- Philippe Rigollet and Jan-Christian Hütter, High-Dimensional Statistics: Lecture Notes, Chapter 4, §§4.3 and 4.5 (standard reference, not scraped)
- John Duchi, Lecture Notes on Statistics and Information Theory, Chapter 8, §8.3, Example 8.3.1 (standard reference, not scraped)