Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: 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.

A Gaussian two-point lower bound

Example

Let n≥1 and σ>0. Observe independent X1,…,Xn∼N(θ,σ2), and estimate the scalar mean θ under squared-error loss. Restrict the parameter set to θ0=−σ4n,θ1=σ4n. The minimax risk over this two-point experiment is at least 3σ2128n.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The two-point Gaussian location experiment, with independent observations and arbitrary randomized estimators under squared-error loss.

[F1]

Standard normal and normal laws and Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance: the observation vector has the product law Nn(θ1,σ2In), with independent normal coordinates.

[F7]

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.

[F2]

KL divergence between equal-variance Gaussian location laws: equal-variance normal location laws satisfy D(N(a,τ2)∥N(b,τ2))=(a−b)2/(2τ2).

[F3]

Additivity of KL divergence for finite product laws: for finite product laws, KL divergence is the sum of the factor divergences.

[F4]

Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: under the event-supremum convention, ∥P−Q∥TV≤D(P∥Q)/2.

[F5]

Two-point Le Cam lower bound for squared-error risk: two scalar targets separated by Δ have minimax squared-error risk at least Δ2(1−∥P0−P1∥TV)/8.

[F6]

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

1.1F1F2F3F4F7givenalgebra

The finite parameter set defines a measurable experiment by [F7]. The target gap is Δ=θ1−θ0=σ/(2n). By [F2] and [F3], D(Pθ1∥Pθ0)=nΔ22σ2=18. Pinsker [F4] therefore gives ∥Pθ0−Pθ1∥TV≤(1/8)/2=1/4.

2.1F5F6step 1.1algebra∎

Apply [F5] with this gap and total-variation bound: inf⁡Kmax⁡j=0,1Rθj(K)≥Δ28(1−14)=σ24n⋅332=3σ2128n. This is the claimed minimax risk bound under [F6].

Depends on

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