Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
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.

Chernoff repetition bound for common-kernel recovery

Statement

Let G be a finite abelian group with N:=∣G∣≥2, let H≤G, and start with a current subgroup K0 satisfying H≤K0≤G. At each of M fresh independent trials, if the current subgroup Kt−1 strictly contains H, draw a uniform χt∈H⊥ and replace Kt−1 by Kt=Kt−1∩ker⁡χt; after reaching H, leave the subgroup equal to H. Each cut reduces the current order by a factor of at least two. For 0<δ<1, put s:=⌈log⁡2N⌉,M:=⌈4s+16ln⁡(1/δ)⌉. Then the failure event KM≠H has probability at most δ. If H=K0, the failure probability is zero.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite adaptive process in the Statement; every fresh sample is independent of earlier trials.

[F1]

The annihilator is H⊥={χ∈G^:χ(h)=1 for every h∈H} (Character annihilator of a subgroup). Whenever Kt−1>H, a uniform sample from this set cuts Kt−1 with conditional probability at least 1/2, preserves H, and reduces its order by a factor of at least two (A Fourier sample cuts a larger common kernel).

[F2]

For X∼Bin(M,1/2) with mean μ=M/2, P(X≤(1−η)μ)≤e−μη2/2 for 0≤η≤1. (Chernoff bound for independent bernoulli trials)

Proof

1.1givenF1algebra

If s cuts have occurred, repeated halving gives ∣K∣≤N/2s≤1. Since H≤K and a subgroup contains the identity, this forces K=H. Consequently, on the event KM≠H, the process remained strictly above H for all M trials and fewer than s actual cuts occurred.

1.2givenF1construct

Couple each trial, while Kt−1>H, by first drawing its cut indicator Ct with conditional probability pt≥1/2 and then drawing χt from the uniform distribution conditioned on that indicator. If Ct=1, draw an auxiliary Yt∈{0,1} with conditional probability P(Yt=1∣Ct=1,past)=1/(2pt); if Ct=0, set Yt=0. Then Yt≤Ct and P(Yt=1∣past)=1/2. After the process reaches H, draw fresh independent Yt∼Bernoulli(1/2). Thus the Yt are independent Bernoulli(1/2) variables, and on every failure outcome ∑tYt≤∑tCt<s.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2algebra

Let X:=∑t=1MYt and μ=M/2. The coupling and Step 1.1 give P(KM≠H)≤P(X<s). Since μ≥2s+8ln⁡(1/δ), we have s≤μ/2, so {X<s}⊆{X≤μ/2}.

3.1F2step 2.1algebra∎

Apply [F2] with η=1/2 to obtain P(X≤μ/2)≤e−μ/8. The bound on μ implies e−μ/8≤e−ln⁡(1/δ)=δ. Hence P(KM≠H)≤δ. If H=K0, the process stays at H by definition, giving the stated zero failure probability.

Remarks

The failure event is stated as KM≠H. “Fewer than s cuts before reaching H” would incorrectly count early successful termination as failure.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

23 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