Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: 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.

Clean block-sparse Gaussian covariance has squared operator lower rate s log(ep/s) over n

Statement

Assume AC. Fix M>0 and integers 1≤s≤p/2. There are constants cM,c1>0 such that if slog⁡(ep/s)/n≤c1, then inf⁡Σ^sup⁡Σ∈Fp,s(M)PΣ⊗n ⁣{∥Σ^−Σ∥op2≥cMslog⁡(ep/s)n}≥c1. The infimum is over Borel maps (Rp)n→Rp×p. This is the single-common-block class, not a row-sparsity class.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, M>0, integers p,n≥1 and 1≤s≤p/2, and clean iid observations with law Np(0,Σ) for an unknown Σ∈Fp,s(M).

[F1]

Single-block sparse covariance class and restricted directions: all off-diagonal entries of a candidate covariance lie in one common block of size at most s.

[F2]

Kullback–Leibler divergence between nondegenerate centered Gaussian laws: the KL divergence between positive-definite centered Gaussian laws is 12[tr⁡(Σ1−1Σ0)−p+log⁡(det⁡Σ1/det⁡Σ0)].

[F3]

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

[F4]

Fano’s packing bound with a reference-distribution KL bound: for a uniform finite family with pairwise target separation Δ in a metric space and reference law Q, the average squared-metric risk of any estimator kernel is at least Δ24(1−(KQ+log⁡2)/log⁡N), where KQ=N−1∑j=1ND(Pj∥Q). A classifier with the discrete metric has risk equal to its error probability.

[F5]

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

[F6]

Two-point Le Cam lower bound for squared-error risk: for two scalar targets at distance Δ, every estimator has maximum squared-error risk at least Δ28(1−∥P0−P1∥TV). With binary targets 0,1 and binary actions, this is a testing-error lower bound.

Proof

1.1F1F2F3algebra

Suppose s=1 and p≥3. For 1≤j≤p, let Σj=(M/2)I+hejejT, where h=γMlog⁡p/n. These matrices are diagonal, so [F1] places them in Fp,1(M). Since log⁡p/n≤c1, choose γc1≤1/2 so their largest eigenvalue is at most M. Their pairwise operator distance is h. Relative to Q0=Np(0,(M/2)I), [F2] and t=2h/M≤1 give D(Np(0,Σj)∥Q0)=12[t−log⁡(1+t)]≤t2/4. The inequality follows by integrating x/(1+x)≤x from 0 to t. By [F3], each n-sample KL is at most γ2log⁡p.

1.2F2F3F5F6F7algebra

The remaining case with s=1 is p=2. Let Σ0=(M/2)I and Σ1=(M/2)I+he1e1T, where h=γMlog⁡(2e)/n. The sample-size condition and small γ make both matrices members of F2,1(M). With t=2h/M≤1/2, [F2] gives D(N2(0,Σ0)∥N2(0,Σ1))=12[log⁡(1+t)+(1+t)−1−1]≤t2/4. The derivative of the bracket is t/(1+t)2≤t, proving the inequality. By [F3], choose γ small enough that the n-sample KL is at most 1/2. Pinsker [F5] gives total variation at most 1/2; [F6] then gives maximum binary testing error at least 1/16. A wrong nearest covariance decision forces error at least h/2, and its decision cells are Borel by finite distance comparisons, so [F7] gives an admissible test kernel. Thus one law has probability at least 1/16 of squared error at least h2/4=γ2M2log⁡(2e)/(4n), which is the required rate.

1.3F1constructalgebra

Suppose s≥2, and put k=s−1 and m=⌊(p−1)/k⌋. Since p≥2s, m≥2. Partition km of the p−1 coordinates other than coordinate 1 into k disjoint groups of size m. For each word ω∈[m]k, select its indexed coordinate in every group and form the unit vector vω∈Rp with value k−1/2 on those k coordinates and zero elsewhere. There are mk words. Greedily retain a word and delete its Hamming ball of radius ⌊k/100⌋. Each ball has at most ∑j≤k/100(kj)(m−1)j≤exp⁡ ⁣(kh(1/100)+(k/100)log⁡m) words. To obtain the binomial sum bound, put α=1/100; in 1=∑j=0k(kj)αj(1−α)k−j, each weight for j≤αk is at least e−kh(α), and (m−1)j≤mαk.

2.1F4F7step 1.1algebra

Use the p diagonal matrices from step 1.1 as the packing and Q0⊗n as reference. Choose γ so their average KL is at most 110log⁡p. The Fano factor 1−110−log⁡2/log⁡p>1/4 for p≥3, so [F4] gives classification error greater than 1/16. Classify an estimator by its nearest covariance, resolving ties by least index. This rule is Borel because its decision cells are finite intersections of strict or weak comparisons of continuous distances, and [F7] turns it into a deterministic test kernel. If it is misclassified, the triangle inequality forces operator error at least h/2. Thus the supremum tail probability is greater than 1/16 at threshold h2/4. Because log⁡(ep)=1+log⁡p≤2log⁡p, h2/4≥γ2M2log⁡(ep)/(8n), giving the required rate after reducing cM if needed.

2.2step 1.3algebra

The retained code W has pairwise Hamming distance greater than k/100 and log⁡∣W∣≥k[(99/100)log⁡m−h(1/100)]≥910klog⁡m≥980slog⁡(ep/s). Here h(1/100)<350 and log⁡m≥log⁡2>69100. Also m≥p/(2s) because (p−1)/(s−1)≥p/s and ⌊x⌋≥x/2 for x≥2. Thus log⁡(ep/s)=1+log⁡(p/s)≤1+log⁡2+log⁡m≤4log⁡m, and k≥s/2. Further ∣W∣≥3: if k=1, then m≥3 and no word is removed by a radius-zero ball; if k≥2, the displayed bound gives log⁡∣W∣≥95log⁡2>log⁡3. Distinct code vectors satisfy ∥vω−vω′∥22=2dH(ω,ω′)/k>1/50.

3.1F1step 2.2algebra

Define Σω=(M/2)I+a(e1vωT+vωe1T), where a=γMslog⁡(ep/s)/n. The off-diagonal entries lie in the block formed by coordinate 1 and the k=s−1 selected coordinates, so Σω∈Fp,s(M) by [F1]. The perturbation has eigenvalues a,−a on span⁡{e1,vω} and zero on its orthogonal complement. Choose γc1≤1/4, so a≤M/4; then every Σω is positive definite and has top eigenvalue at most M. For distinct codewords, ∥Σω−Σω′∥op=a∥vω−vω′∥2>a/8.

4.1F2F3step 2.2step 3.1algebra

Let Q0=Np(0,(M/2)I). The relative perturbation has eigenvalues 2a/M,−2a/M and zero otherwise. By [F2], D(Np(0,Σω)∥Q0)=−12log⁡(1−(2a/M)2)≤4(a/M)2. The scalar inequality follows by integrating (1−x)−1≤2 from 0 to x=(2a/M)2≤1/2. By [F3], the n-sample KL to Q0⊗n is at most 4γ2slog⁡(ep/s). Since log⁡∣W∣≥910slog⁡(ep/s)/8, choose γ2≤93200 so this KL is at most 110log⁡∣W∣.

5.1F4F7step 2.2step 3.1step 4.1algebra

The Fano factor obeys 1−110−log⁡2log⁡∣W∣≥1−110−log⁡2log⁡3>14. Thus [F4] gives every classifier error greater than 1/16. Nearest-covariance classification from any estimator is wrong only when its operator error is at least half the separation from step 3.1, hence at least a/16. The finite nearest-code rule is Borel by finite distance comparisons, so [F7] makes it a classifier kernel. The supremum tail probability at threshold a2/256 is therefore greater than 1/16, proving the rate for s≥2.

6.1step 2.1step 1.2step 5.1algebra∎

Choose c1≤1/16 and cM≤γ2M2/256. The bounds from steps 2.1, 1.2, and 5.1 cover the cases s=1,p≥3, s=1,p=2, and s≥2, respectively, and give probability at least c1 at threshold cMslog⁡(ep/s)/n. Taking the infimum over estimators and combining the cases proves the claim.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

88 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