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.

Conditional type packing bounds for source-indexed DM-MAC codebooks

Statement

Let Q,S1,S2,X1,X2,Y have the finite law PQPS1S2PX1∣S1QPX2∣S2QWY∣X1X2. Fix a deterministic qn and a transmitted tuple (s1n,s2n,x1n,x2n,yn) such that (qn,s1n,s2n,x1n,x2n,yn) is support-restricted strongly typical for this law within tolerance δ. For every source sequence sjn, independently generate a user-j codeword with law ∏iPXj∣SjQ(⋅∣sji,qi); all entries and both users' codebooks are independent. A decoder tests joint typicality at tolerance δ.

There is a finite constant K and a function ω(δ)↓0 such that the conditional expected numbers N1,N2,N12 of wrong typical candidates differing in source 1 only, source 2 only, and both sources, respectively, satisfy EN1≤(n+1)Ke−n[I(X1;Y∣X2,S2,Q)−H(S1∣S2)−ω(δ)],EN2≤(n+1)Ke−n[I(X2;Y∣X1,S1,Q)−H(S2∣S1)−ω(δ)],EN12≤(n+1)Ke−n[I(X1,X2;Y∣Q)−H(S1,S2)−ω(δ)]. The expectations are over the unexposed wrong source-indexed codebook entries. The constants depend only on the target law and alphabets, not on the particular typical transmitted tuple.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The stated finite law, source-indexed conditional codebooks, a typical transmitted tuple, and a finite DM-MAC.

[F1]

Finite strongly typical sets with support restriction: support-restricted strong typicality bounds every positive empirical atom relative to its target probability and excludes zero-probability atoms.

[F2]

Finite type-class cardinality bounds: an empirical type class on an alphabet of size m has at most enH(P^) elements, and at most (n+1)m types occur.

[F3]

Finite conditional entropy: conditional entropy is a finite weighted sum over positive-mass conditioning atoms.

[F4]

Finite entropy and mutual-information chain rules: finite conditional entropy obeys the chain rule.

[F5]

Finite conditional mutual information identities and equality: finite conditional mutual information is nonnegative and equals the corresponding conditional entropy difference.

[F6]

Two-user discrete memoryless multiple-access channel: given the two inputs, the channel output law is W(y∣x1,x2).

[F7]

Finite mutual information: finite mutual information is defined by the joint-to-product KL sum in nats.

[F8]

Finite conditional mutual information: finite conditional mutual information averages the conditional mutual information over positive-mass conditioning values.

Proof

1.1F1F2construct

For a fixed conditioning block, group candidate tuples by their joint empirical type with that block. If the wrong set is S={1}, the varying letters are (S1,X1) and the fixed block is (Q,S2,X2,Y); for S={2} interchange indices. The number of joint types is at most (n+1)K by [F2]. For any one type, splitting its positions according to the fixed conditioning letters gives a product of conditional type classes, each of size at most the exponential of its empirical conditional entropy by [F2]. Thus the candidate count is at most (n+1)Kexp⁡[nHP^(SS,XS∣Q,SSc,XSc,Y)].

2.1F1F2F3step 1.1algebra

For each such candidate, its codeword probability is the product of the conditional kernels PXj∣SjQ. On a support-restricted δ-typical type, its negative log probability divided by n differs from ∑j∈SH(Xj∣Sj,Q) by at most ω1(δ): write the logarithm as the finite sum of empirical frequencies times −ln⁡PXj∣SjQ(xj∣sj,q); the summands are bounded on the finite positive support, and [F1] controls every frequency. Also HP^(SS,XS∣Q,SSc,XSc,Y) differs from the target conditional entropy by at most ω2(δ), because finite-alphabet entropy is continuous, including at zero via −tln⁡t→0. Multiplying the count from step 1.1 by the largest candidate probability gives exponent at most HP(SS,XS∣Q,SSc,XSc,Y)−∑j∈SH(Xj∣Sj,Q)+ω(δ).

3.1F4F5F6F7F8step 2.1algebra

For S={1}, expand the conditional entropy in step 2.1 by [F4]. Since X2 is conditionally independent of S1 given (S2,Q), and X1 is conditionally independent of (S2,X2) given (S1,Q), the factorization in the Given law gives H(S1,X1∣Q,S2,X2,Y)−H(X1∣S1,Q)=H(S1∣S2)−I(S1,X1;Y∣X2,S2,Q). The channel factorization [F6] implies I(S1;Y∣X1,X2,S2,Q)=0, so the last mutual information is I(X1;Y∣X2,S2,Q). Combining with step 2.1 proves the N1 bound. Exchanging indices proves the N2 bound.

4.1F4F5F6F7F8step 2.1algebra∎

For S={1,2}, the same conditional entropy expansion gives H(S1,S2,X1,X2∣Q,Y)−H(X1∣S1,Q)−H(X2∣S2,Q)=H(S1,S2)−I(X1,X2;Y∣Q), because Q is independent of the source pair, the two codebook kernels factor given (S1,S2,Q), and the channel depends on the source only through (X1,X2). Substitution in step 2.1 proves the N12 bound.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

16 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