Alphabeta Math
Open problemQuestion: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablePipeline-generated‡ sources checked 2026-10-22‡ unresolved
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.

This problem is unresolved. Its sources and status may be reviewed, but no solution is accepted here. It cannot be used as a proof premise.

Sharp deterministic stability for limited-angle reconstruction

Open problem

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice. Let Ω⊂R2 be any bounded open set with nonempty interior, and let Θ⊂S1 be any nonempty proper open antipodally symmetric set whose complement contains a nonempty open arc. Write θ⊥=(−θ2,θ1) and define RΘf(θ,s)=∫Rf(sθ+tθ⊥) dt for θ∈Θ, s∈R. Equip L2(Θ×R) with the norm ∥g∥2=(∫Θ∫R∣g(θ,s)∣2 ds dθ)1/2, where ds is Lebesgue measure and dθ is arc-length measure, and equip L2(R2) with Lebesgue measure. The line data of every compactly supported smooth input are regarded as elements of this data space. For M>0 define KM(Ω)={f∈Cc∞(Ω;C):∥f∥H1≤M} with ∥f∥H12=∥f∥22+∥∂1f∥22+∥∂2f∥22. For deterministic noise radius δ>0, define the worst-case reconstruction error EΩ,Θ,M(δ)=inf⁡Φ:L2(Θ×R)→L2(R2)sup⁡f∈KM(Ω), η∈L2(Θ×R)∥η∥2≤δ∥Φ(RΘf+η)−f∥2. Determine the sharp asymptotic order of EΩ,Θ,M(δ) as δ↓0, with matching upper and lower bounds and a deterministic reconstruction rule attaining the upper bound, for every such Ω and Θ. In particular, determine the dependence of the sharp modulus on the geometry and aperture of the measured normal set.

Status

Status as of 2026-10-19: the broad deterministic minimax question above remains unresolved in the checked source record. Salo proves the full-angle Fourier-slice and compact-support uniqueness baseline. Krishnan and Quinto prove compact-support uniqueness for limited-angle data while exhibiting nonzero Schwartz null functions; they also describe the visible covector condition. The local results on this page establish a no-Hölder lower-bound mechanism for each fixed compact support and blind arc, but none of the checked sources supplies matching deterministic minimax bounds for every bounded Ω, every such Θ, and this fixed H1 ball. The analytic double-fibration result cited above is context only and is not a proof of this Euclidean noise question.

Related statistical result checked 2026-10-21: Hohmann and Holzmann, Corollary 3.2, proves the logarithmic minimax mean-squared risk rε(Θi(κ,L))∼(ξ/2)2κLlog⁡(1/ε)−2κ for 0<η<π/2, angle weight λ=1[−η,η], and γ>−1/2, in their Gaussian white-noise sequence model for the Radon SVD between weighted L2 spaces on the unit disk and detector space and over their spectral ellipsoid classes Θi(κ,L). Its model and parameter classes do not settle the deterministic adversarial L2-noise minimax error on the unweighted H1 class for arbitrary Ω and Θ posed here.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

28 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