Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-09-08 (gpt-6-astra)
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.

Sequential repetition amplifies completeness and soundness gaps

Statement

If a protocol has completeness c>1/2 and soundness s<1/2, then for every ε>0 a polynomially bounded odd number of sequential fresh-coin repetitions, accepting by strict majority, has completeness at least 1−ε and soundness at most ε.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: constants c>1/2>s, a target ε>0, and sequential independent verifier coins.

[F1]

Expectations are finite weighted sums by Expectation of a real random variable on a finite probability space. Grouping such sums by earlier histories uses The law of total probability for a finite partition, with zero-probability histories omitted.

Proof

1.1givenconstruct

Fix p with max⁡{s,1−c,0}<p<1/2. On a yes-input, use one honest strategy afresh in each repetition, ignoring previous copies. Let Yi indicate rejection in copy i. On a no-input, fix any adaptive cheating strategy and instead let Yi indicate acceptance. In both cases, conditional on the full history of earlier copies, Pr⁡(Yi=1∣history)≤p: on yes-inputs this is completeness, and on no-inputs the previous history fixes a legitimate strategy for the next fresh-coin copy, so soundness applies. The verifier is reset between copies.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra

Put t=1/(2p)>1. If the conditional success probability of Yi is u≤p, then the conditional average of t2Yi is 1−u+ut2≤1−p+pt2. Grouping finite sums by complete previous-copy histories and inducting on j therefore gives E[t2∑i=1jYi]≤(1−p+pt2)j, starting with expectation one at j=0. This argument allows dependence between copies.

3.1F1step 2.1algebra

On ∑i=1kYi≥k/2 one has t2∑iYi≥tk. Summing this pointwise bound over the finite coin space gives Pr⁡(∑iYi≥k/2)≤qk, where q=(1−p+pt2)/t=1/2+2p(1−p)=1−2(1/2−p)2 satisfies 0<q<1. For odd k, either a majority rejection on a yes-input or a majority acceptance on a no-input is contained in this event.

4.1step 1.1step 3.1choosealgebra∎

Write d=q−1−1>0. Induction using (1+d)k+1≥(1+kd)(1+d)≥1+(k+1)d gives qk≤1/(1+kd). Choose an odd integer k making this at most ε. For fixed c,s,ε it is a constant independent of input length, so the repeated verifier retains polynomial time, communication and randomness bounds. The yes-input honest strategy and the uniform bound against every no-input cheating strategy give the two asserted errors.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

9 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