Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck pending
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.

Finite DMC resolvability by random codebooks

Statement

Let W(z∣u) be a finite DMC, let PU be an input probability vector, and let PZ(z)=∑uPU(u)W(z∣u). On the joint support define J(u,z):=ln⁡(W(z∣u)/PZ(z)) and let I=I(U;Z). Set B=max⁡(0,max⁡PU(u)W(z∣u)>0J(u,z)). For R0>I and any γ with 0<γ<R0−I, draw Ln=⌈enR0⌉ independent words Un(ℓ)∼PUn and define the induced mixture

PZn(zn):=∏i=1nPZ(zi),QZn∣C:=1Ln∑ℓ=1LnWn(⋅∣Un(ℓ)).

There is a ρ∈(0,1), depending only on (PU,W,γ), for which

ECD(QZn∣C∥PZn)≤e−n(R0−I−γ)+(ln⁡2+nB)ρn,

and

EC TV⁡(QZn∣C,PZn)≤ρn+12e−n(R0−I−γ)/2,

where TV⁡(P,Q):=12∑z∣P(z)−Q(z)∣. Thus both expected deviations tend to zero. Here D is the directional finite KL divergence of Finite distributions, entropy, divergence, and stochastic matrices.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite DMC W, an input law PU, a rate R0>I(U;Z), and 0<γ<R0−I(U;Z).

[F1]

Finite discrete memoryless channels: Wn(zn∣un)=∏iW(zi∣ui).

[F2]

The DMC product laws are stochastic kernels: each block product law is a stochastic kernel.

[F3]

Finite mutual information: I(U;Z)=E[J(U,Z)] under PUW.

[F5]

Information-density concentration for a fixed finite DMC input law: for IID (Ui,Zi)∼PUW, Sn=∑iJ(Ui,Zi) has upper tail Pr⁡[Sn>n(I+γ)]≤ρn for some 0<ρ<1.

[F6]

Information units and logarithm-base convention: unmarked logarithms are natural, so the displayed KL divergence and rates use nats.

[F7]

Finite distributions, entropy, divergence, and stochastic matrices: finite KL is D(P∥Q)=∑pi>0piln⁡(pi/qi), with value +∞ if pi>0=qi for some coordinate.

Proof

1.1givenF1F2F7

Write QC for the mixture in the Statement. Any zn with QC(zn)>0 has PZn(zn)>0, since each sampled codeword has letters in supp⁡PU and any output reachable from such a letter has positive PZ mass. Hence all divergences below are well-defined and finite.

1.2F1F2F3F5given

For the total-variation bound, let Lℓ(zn):=Wn(zn∣Un(ℓ))/PZn(zn) on the support, let LC=Ln−1∑ℓLℓ, set T=en(I+γ), and truncate to L~ℓ=Lℓ1{Lℓ≤T} and L~C=Ln−1∑ℓL~ℓ. If αn:=Pr⁡[Sn>n(I+γ)], then the expected removed mass ∑znPZn(zn)EC[LC−L~C] is exactly αn, and the missing mass ∑znPZn(zn)(1−ECL~C) is also αn, because ∑znPZn(zn)ECLC=1. Since LC≥L~C and ECL~C≤1, the triangle inequality gives 2TV⁡(QC,PZn)≤∑znPZn(zn)((LC−L~C)+∣L~C−ECL~C∣+(1−ECL~C)). After expectation, the first and third terms together contribute αn to total variation (the factor 1/2 in its definition is included).

2.1F1F3F4F6givenstep 1.1algebra

For fixed C, expand D(QC∥PZn) as an expectation over a uniform index J and then Zn∼Wn(⋅∣Un(J)). Averaging over codebooks and using symmetry lets us take J=1. The divergence and all rates use natural-log nats by [F6]. Conditional on Un(1),Zn, the remaining codewords are independent and EUn(2),…,Un(Ln)[QC(Zn)PZn(Zn)]=eSn+Ln−1Ln. For any finite positive random variable A with law p and mean a, the vector qi=piAi/a is a probability vector; [F4] gives 0≤D(p∥q)=ln⁡a−E[ln⁡A]. Thus Eln⁡A≤ln⁡EA. Applying this finite Jensen inequality to the displayed likelihood ratio gives ECD(QC∥PZn)≤Eln⁡(1+eSn/Ln).

3.1F5F8step 2.1algebra

On Sn≤n(I+γ), Ln≥enR0 and [F8] bound the logarithm by e−n(R0−I−γ). On the complement, Sn≤nB by the definition of B, so ln⁡(1+eSn/Ln)≤ln⁡2+nB. The complement has probability at most ρn by [F5]. Splitting the expectation in step 2.1 across these two events proves the KL bound.

4.1F1F2F5step 1.2algebra∎

For fixed zn, let A=L~C(zn)−ECL~C(zn). The finite inequality E∣A∣≤EA2 follows by expanding 0≤E(∣A∣−E∣A∣)2. Independence of the Ln codewords makes the cross terms vanish, so EA2=1Ln(EU[L~1(zn)2]−(EUL~1(zn))2)≤EU[L~1(zn)2]Ln. Since 0≤L~1≤T and EUL1(zn)=∑unPUn(un)Wn(zn∣un)PZn(zn)=1, the numerator is at most T. Finite Cauchy–Schwarz with weights PZn(zn) then gives ∑znPZn(zn)EC∣A∣≤∑znPZn(zn)ECA2≤(∑znPZn(zn))1/2(∑znPZn(zn)ECA2)1/2≤T/Ln, where the middle inequality is finite Cauchy–Schwarz and ∑znPZn(zn)=1. Together with step 1.2, this fluctuation contributes at most 12T/Ln to expected total variation. Using [F5], αn≤ρn, and Ln≥enR0 gives the stated bound.

Depends on

Used by

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