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.
Conditional Hoeffding bound for bounded martingale differences
Statement
Assume AC. Let satisfy almost surely. Let be finite -measurable random variables such that and almost surely for a deterministic . Then for every ,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses, objects, and conventions in the Statement.
Basic algebra and order properties of conditional expectation supplies conditional linearity, order, and preservation of constants.
Conditioning a known variable and an independent variable says a -measurable integrable variable conditions to itself.
The two-point convexity inequality for the exponential function gives the chord bound for the exponential.
The Axiom of Choice states AC, assumed here because F1, F2, and F5 use conditional expectations and chosen representatives.
Taking out what is known permits a finite -measurable factor to be taken outside conditional expectation when the input and product are integrable.
Proof
The inequalities and the deterministic width give , so . Conditional order and F2 yield Thus , making bounded and its conditional expectation well-defined.
On , step 1.1 forces , so the result is equality. On write and . F3 gives The ratios and lie in , while the -measurable divided difference is bounded by . Thus the right side is the sum of the two displayed bounded endpoint terms and ; conditional linearity, the known-variable rule, F5, and turn its conditional expectation into This justifies pulling out the potentially small-width coefficient rather than formally dividing inside a conditional expectation.
Put and . The last expression is For , direct differentiation gives and where . Integrating the second-derivative bound from to (with reversed limits when ) gives . Hence .
Combining the two measurable cases proves the conditional inequality. Random endpoints cause no hidden selection; only their deterministic width enters the final bound. AC is used exactly as recorded in F4.
Depends on
Used by
- Azuma-Hoeffding inequality Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
20 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
- Roch, Notes 20: Azuma's Inequality, Lemma 20.6 and Theorem 20.8 proof, pp. 2–3 (standard reference, not scraped)