Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)
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.

Coordinate-free Fourier inverse maps have an odd-mesh risk floor

Example

Consider the complete original Fourier architecture and diagonal inverse question reproduced below. For every odd integer m≥3, every N≥1, and every admissible bounded parameter class with a measurable empirical minimizer, its risk satisfies RN,mERM(S,B)≥R2(3p−2p)24 32(p+s)>0. The same bound holds for every measurable learner whose realized predictor belongs to the stated coordinate-free Fourier class, whether or not it minimizes empirical risk. On the other hand, the unrestricted risk tends to zero as m→∞ for fixed p,s,R,σ>0, independently of N. Thus no growth of N,S,B can make this original architecture attain the vanishing unrestricted risk along an odd-mesh subsequence. This is a partial resolution: no complete joint bounded-class rate, or corresponding fixed positive even-mesh floor, is asserted. The original question is retained under Original question with explicit positive coordinate indices and empty-class conventions.

Original question

Let T=R/(2πZ) carry normalized Lebesgue measure and fix the real orthonormal Fourier basis ϕ1(x)=1,ϕ2k(x)=2cos⁡(kx),ϕ2k+1(x)=2sin⁡(kx)(k≥1). Use this basis to identify the real Hilbert space ℓ2(N>0) with L2(T;R). Fix integers N,m≥1 and parameters s,p,R,σ>0, and define Θs(R)={θ∈ℓ2:∑j≥1j2sθj2≤R2},(Apθ)j=j−pθj,Xp(R)=ApΘs(R). The inverse map G†:Xp(R)→ℓ2 is G†(Apθ)=θ. For m≥1, let Pm retain the first m Fourier coefficients and let Im:Rm→ℓ2 append zero coordinates.

Fix a globally Lipschitz nonpolynomial function σ0:R→R, called the activation. For x∈Rm, form the scalar input field uˉ0(x;z)=∑j=1mxjϕj(z). A pointwise affine lift u0(x;z)=Vinuˉ0(x;z)+bin, with Vin∈Rc0 and bin∈Rc0, creates c0 channels. For fields uℓ(z)∈Rcℓ with positive integer channel counts cℓ, apply an integer number D≥1 of layers indexed by ℓ=0,…,D−1: uℓ+1(z)=σ0 ⁣(Wℓuℓ(z)+bℓ+(Kℓuℓ)(z)). Here σ0 acts coordinatewise, Wℓ∈Rcℓ+1×cℓ and bℓ∈Rcℓ+1 are pointwise channel weights, and Kℓ is a Fourier multiplier meaning (Kℓu)^(k)=Rℓ,ku^(k), where u^(k)=(2π)−1∫02πu(z)e−ikz dz is computed componentwise, with matrices Rℓ,k∈Ccℓ+1×cℓ satisfying Rℓ,−k=Rℓ,k‾ and Rℓ,k=0 for ∣k∣>q for some integer cutoff q≥0. A pointwise affine output map v(x;z)=aout⊤uD(z)+bout gives a real scalar field, and the network output is Ψm(x)=(⟨v(x;⋅),ϕj⟩L2)j=1m. Let FS,B(m) be the union of these maps over architectures whose depth, channel counts, Fourier cutoff, and number of real scalar parameters are each at most the integer S≥1, with every trainable parameter bounded in absolute value by B>0. A parameter array used at mesh size m is the same array at every other mesh size. For fixed S, there are finitely many allowed architecture indices; equip their disjoint union of bounded real parameter boxes with its Borel structure.

Write P(K) for the Borel probability laws on a Borel set K. For a Borel probability law μ on Θs(R), draw independent training truths θi∼μ and observations Xi,m=PmApθi+ηi,m,Yi,m=Pmθi,ηi,m∼N(0,σ2m−1Im),i=1,…,N, with all noises independent, and write DN,m=((Xi,m,Yi,m))i=1N. A selector is Borel into the finite disjoint union of architecture indices and their bounded parameter boxes, and its realized map minimizes the empirical loss. For each N,m,S,B with FS,B(m)≠∅, assume there is at least one such selector τ that, from DN,m, returns a minimizer of 1N∑i=1N∥Ψ(Xi,m)−Yi,m∥22 over Ψ∈FS,B(m); let TN,m(S,B) be the set of all such selectors, and set it to ∅ when FS,B(m)=∅. At test time, draw an independent θ∼μ and ηm∼N(0,σ2m−1Im), and define RN,mERM(S,B)=inf⁡τ∈TN,m(S,B)sup⁡μ∈P(Θs(R))E∥Imτ(DN,m)(PmApθ+ηm)−θ∥ℓ22. Use the convention inf⁡∅=+∞, so an empty architecture class has infinite ERM risk. Also define RN,mall by the same infimum over all Borel predictors from (DN,m,Xm) to Rm, with Xm=PmApθ+ηm. Determine matching minimax upper and lower rates for RN,mERM(S,B) jointly in N,m,S,B,p,s,R,σ. In particular, characterize the joint growth regimes of m=mN and S=SN that separate statistical estimation, neural-operator approximation, and continuum truncation error, and determine when the bounded shared-parameter Fourier architecture attains the unrestricted rate RN,mall.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The original real Fourier basis ϕ1=1, ϕ2=2cos⁡z, ϕ3=2sin⁡z and all higher complete cosine/sine pairs; the architecture has only constant pointwise channel weights and biases, Fourier multipliers and a scalar pointwise Lipschitz activation. Its parameters may depend on all training data but are fixed during test evaluation.

[A1]

Translation Tαu(z)=u(z−α) is an isometry of L2(T), sends ϕ2 to ϕ3 for α=π/2, and preserves each full two-dimensional cosine/sine frequency pair. The first-m-coordinate subspace is translation-invariant when m is odd.

[A2]

A vector with distribution N(0,τ2Im) is invariant under every orthogonal matrix: its density is a constant times e−∥x∥2/(2τ2), and orthogonal changes of variables preserve norm and volume.

[A3]

∥x−a∥2+∥x−b∥2≥∥a−b∥2/2 by completing the square.

Verification

Given: The original architecture, training and test model, and [A1]–[A3].

1.1A1givenconstructalgebra

Each Fourier multiplier commutes with translation because the kth translated Fourier coefficient is multiplied by the scalar e−ikα, which commutes with its channel matrix. Every constant channel matrix, constant bias and coordinatewise scalar activation also commutes with translation. By induction through the lift, all layers and output map, the realized scalar output field is translation-equivariant. The layer fields are in L2: a globally Lipschitz activation has linear growth, the pointwise weights are finite and the finite Fourier multipliers are bounded. For odd m, projection onto the first m coefficients commutes with translation by [A1]. Hence the zero-extended output map F=ImΨm satisfies F(Uαx)=TαF(x), where Uα is the orthogonal translation matrix on the retained coefficients. This holds for every individual parameter array, also after data-dependent selection.

1.2A1A2givenconstructalgebra

Put a=R3−(p+s), choose θc=a2pe2 and θs=a3pe3, and let μ=(δθc+δθs)/2. These truths lie in the ellipsoid because their weighted squared norms are at most a232(p+s)=R2. Their forward coefficient vectors are respectively ae2 and ae3, related by U=Uπ/2. Conditional on any training sample, the test truth is still an independent equal-probability draw from these two values. Couple the corresponding test noises as η and Uη; by [A2] both have the required N(0,σ2m−1Im) law.

1.3givenconstructalgebra

To see unrestricted vanishing without training, put km=min⁡{m,max⁡{1,⌊m1/(2(2p+1))⌋}}. Output jpXm,j for j≤km and zero otherwise. Its risk for every truth is at most σ2m−1∑j≤kmj2p+R2(km+1)−2s≤σ2m−1km2p+1+R2(km+1)−2s→0. It is a Borel predictor and is allowed in the unrestricted class. This proves the contrast with the positive odd-mesh architecture floor.

2.1A1A3step 1.1step 1.2algebra

For fixed training data, let F be its selected predictor. By step 1.1, F(ae3+Uη)=Tπ/2F(ae2+η). Translating the first output and truth preserves their norm. Consequently the conditional average of the two squared risks is 12E[∥Tπ/2F(ae2+η)−Tπ/2θc∥2+∥Tπ/2F(ae2+η)−θs∥2], which is at least ∥Tπ/2θc−θs∥2/4=a2(3p−2p)2/4 by [A3]. This lower bound is independent of the training sample. Integrating over it, taking the worst law and then the infimum over selectors proves the stated floor.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1step 1.3algebra∎

The mismatch arises because the diagonal inverse rescales the first cosine and sine by different factors 2p and 3p, while the coordinate-free architecture must respect translation between them. It is independent of finite training or parameter-size limitations. The proof deliberately uses odd m so both the input noise law and retained output subspace are translation-invariant; it supplies no identical assertion for even m, whose last frequency pair is incomplete.

Scope of the resolution

The odd-mesh consistency subquestion is answered negatively, and the unrestricted vanishing comparison is proved. The full requested joint N,m,S,B minimax rate is not resolved here; in particular even meshes break the complete-pair symmetry used by the lower bound, and different activations/parameter budgets may have distinct approximation behavior. This is not the EIT question: the generalized EIT architecture has coordinate/chart lifting, so this coordinate-free translation obstruction is not transferred to it.

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · 0 levels

Nothing. This result depends on no other item in the library.

Sources