Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-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.

A multimodal quartic receives an exact spatial branch-and-bound gap certificate

Example

Let f(x)=x4−x2 on D0=[−1,1], with exact dyadic interval evaluation, ε=9/10, and node budget N=3. This polynomial has two global minimizers, while a natural interval extension gives a simple certified gap after one split.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The unconstrained interval [−1,1], f(x)=x4−x2 represented by the DAG t=x×x, u=t×t, f=u−t, exact interval operation results for the displayed dyadic endpoints, and the procedure Finite-budget certified spatial branch and bound with N=3 and the interval oracle Outward-rounded interval enclosures for factorable expression DAGs on boxes.

[F1]

A finite interval-DAG evaluation encloses every exact objective value; a verified upper/lower pair with gap at most epsilon is a global certificate. Outward interval and Lipschitz midpoint bounds are sound and consistent under refinement, A spatial branch-and-bound gap certificate proves global epsilon-optimality

Verification

1.1givenF2algebra

The identity f(x)=(x2−12)2−14 shows f(x)≥−14, with equality at x=±1/2. If s=1/2, then s≥0 and s2=1/2 by [F2], so s>0. We have s<1: otherwise either s=1, contradicting s2=1/2, or 1<s, which by strict monotonicity of squaring on nonnegatives gives 1<s2=1/2, also impossible. Hence both minimizers lie in [−1,1], and they are distinct because s>0. Squaring is monotone on the nonnegatives

1.2givenF1algebra

At the root box, the DAG product t=x×x encloses as [−1,1] under ordinary interval multiplication; then u=t×t also encloses as [−1,1], so f=u−t encloses as [−2,2]. The root midpoint is 0, with exact feasible value f(0)=0; its initial gap is 0−(−2)=2>9/10, so the root cannot yet be closed as a global certificate.

2.1givenF1step 1.2algebra

The root uses the first call. Bisect at zero and evaluate the lower child on the second call and the upper child on the third call, completing both reports within N=3. On each child [−1,0] and [0,1], ordinary interval multiplication gives t=x×x∈[0,1], then u=t×t∈[0,1], so f=u−t has lower bound −1. The child midpoints are −1/2 and 1/2, and both give f=1/16−1/4=−3/16, so the incumbent becomes U=−3/16 and the global lower bound is L=−1.

3.1F1step 2.1algebra∎

The gap is U−L=13/16<9/10. The feasible midpoint and the complete two-leaf ledger therefore certify epsilon-global optimality. Its actual objective is 1/16 above the minimum, within the declared tolerance.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

21 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