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.
Isotropic ridgeless risk limit when the signal is zero
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let be one infinite iid array of real random variables with mean zero, variance one, and finite fourth moment. Let with , and let be its upper-left block. Let have independent centered components of variance , independent of , and let be independent of , centered, and have covariance . Set , , , and Then almost surely
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The nested real iid design, positive aspect ratio , independent centered noise with covariance , centered test feature with covariance , and the Axiom of Choice from the Statement.
The Axiom of Choice permits a choice function for every family of nonempty sets (The Axiom of Choice).
For the nested real iid finite-fourth-moment design and every deterministic signal sequence of fixed norm , the design-conditional risk tends almost surely to for and to for (Isotropic minimum-norm risk limits under a positive spectral gap).
The conditional risk for a deterministic signal is its squared projection onto plus the signal-independent noise term (Exact bias and noise decomposition of isotropic prediction risk).
Iid entries are independent and share one common distribution (Identical distribution and IID families).
Proof
For each , let be the first standard basis vector in . For , let denote the conditional risk with signal , and put and .
Applying [F2] to each auxiliary signal gives and . Applying [F1] with norms and gives almost-sure limits for both risks; the intersection of these two probability-one events still has probability one. The iid law is common in both applications by [F3].
The exact identities in step 2.1 give . If , both risk limits in [F1] equal , so tends to that quantity. If , their limits are respectively and ; their indicated combination is .
For the zero signal in the Statement, [F2] identifies with the same . Step 3.1 therefore gives both asserted limits.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
25 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
- Hastie, Montanari, Rosset, and Tibshirani, Surprises in High-Dimensional Ridgeless Least Squares Interpolation (standard reference, not scraped)