Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-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.

Strong-mixing covariance bound in terms of tail quantiles

Statement

Let A,B be sub-sigma-algebras of a probability space and put a=sup⁡A∈A, B∈B∣P(A∩B)−P(A)P(B)∣. For any real random variable U, define its absolute tail quantile by QU(u)=inf⁡{t≥0:P(∣U∣>t)≤u},0<u<1. This is a nonnegative nonincreasing Borel function and, for every nonnegative Borel function ψ, ∫01ψ(QU(u)) du=Eψ(∣U∣). If U,V are square-integrable real random variables measurable respectively with respect to A,B, then ∣Cov⁡(U,V)∣≤4∫0aQU(u)QV(u) du. In particular, if ∣U∣≤A and ∣V∣≤B almost surely, the right-hand side is at most 4ABa. For complex U,V with these bounds and the same measurability, ∣E(UV)−EUEV∣≤16ABa. For two collections of observations separated by n time steps in a process Y, the coefficient a of their sigma-algebras is at most αY(n) as defined in Strong, uniform, and maximal-correlation mixing coefficients. An integral whose upper endpoint is zero is zero.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The sigma-algebras, quantiles, moment and measurability hypotheses in the Statement.

[F1]

The strong-mixing coefficient is the supremum of the event-probability differences for the specified separated sigma-algebras. (Strong, uniform, and maximal-correlation mixing coefficients)

[F2]

Covariance is E(UV)−EUEV for square-integrable real variables. (Moments, variance, and covariance on a probability space)

[F3]

Cauchy–Schwarz bounds the expectation of the absolute product of two square-integrable real variables. (Cauchy-Schwarz for random variables)

[F4]

A nonnegative random variable is the integral of its threshold indicators, and its expectation is its integrated tail probability. (Layer-cake formulas for random variables)

[F5]

Nonnegative product-measurable functions on sigma-finite product spaces admit either order of integration. (Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product)

[F6]

Finite measures agreeing on a generating pi-system and on the whole space are equal. (Finite measures agreeing on a generating pi-system and on the whole space are equal)

Proof

1.1F6givenalgebra

For a finite real U, write T(t)=P(∣U∣>t) for t≥0. The tail tends to zero at infinity, is nonincreasing and is right-continuous. Thus QU(u) is finite for u>0, is nonincreasing, and is Borel measurable. More precisely, QU(u)>t if and only if u<T(t): if T(t)≤u, then t belongs to the set defining the infimum; if T(t)>u, right-continuity supplies an ε>0 with T(t+ε)>u, so that infimum exceeds t. Consequently Lebesgue measure on (0,1) gives λ{u:QU(u)>t}=T(t) for every t≥0. The laws of QU under λ and of ∣U∣ therefore agree on all closed left rays and both have total mass one. These rays form a pi-system and generate the Borel sigma-algebra: their differences give half-open intervals, and countable unions of those give all open intervals. By [F6] the laws agree, proving the stated integral identity. In particular ∫01QU2=EU2.

1.2F2F3F4F5given

Suppose first U,V≥0 and U,V∈L2. Their first moments and E(UV) are finite by [F3]. The threshold-indicator identities and [F5] give E(UV)=∫0∞∫0∞P(U>s,V>t) ds dt and EUEV=∫0∞∫0∞P(U>s)P(V>t) ds dt. Both integrands have finite integrals, so their difference represents the covariance and the integral triangle inequality applies. The absolute threshold-indicator covariance is bounded by a, by P(U>s), and by P(V>t), since the joint probability and the product probability both lie between zero and either marginal probability.

2.1F5step 1.1step 1.2algebra

Put TU(s)=P(U>s) and TV(t)=P(V>t). By [F5] and step 1.1, ∫0∞∫0∞min⁡{a,TU(s),TV(t)} ds dt=∫0aQU(u)QV(u) du. Indeed the minimum is ∫0a1{u<TU(s)}1{u<TV(t)} du, and each inner threshold set has length its quantile. The right-hand side is finite by Cauchy–Schwarz on (0,1) and the squared-quantile identity in step 1.1; this particular integral Cauchy–Schwarz inequality follows by integrating (QU−cQV)2≥0 and minimizing the resulting quadratic, with the zero-norm case immediate. Step 1.2 therefore proves the covariance bound with constant one for nonnegative U,V.

3.1F2step 2.1algebra

For real U,V, expand Cov⁡(U+−U−,V+−V−) into four terms. Each nonnegative part has a tail quantile at most the corresponding absolute quantile, because its tail probabilities are smaller. The result of step 2.1 bounds each term by ∫0aQUQV; the triangle inequality gives the asserted factor four. If ∣U∣≤A and ∣V∣≤B, their absolute quantiles are bounded by A,B, so the bound becomes 4ABa, including a=0 or either zero bound.

4.1F1step 3.1algebra∎

For complex U,V, expand E(UV)−EUEV into the four real bilinear covariance terms of their real and imaginary parts. Each real part is bounded in absolute value by A or B, so step 3.1 and the complex triangle inequality give 16ABa. Finally, for observations separated by n, both collection sigma-algebras are sub-sigma-algebras of the past and future fields appearing in [F1]; their event supremum is therefore at most αY(n). All assertions follow.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

26 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