Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-14
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.

Azuma-Hoeffding inequality

Statement

Assume AC. Let (Mk,Fk)k=0n be a martingale. Suppose finite Fk1-measurable Ak,Bk and deterministic ck0 satisfy AkMkMk1Bk,BkAkck almost surely. Then for every t>0, P(MnM0t)exp ⁣(2t2k=1nck2), and the analogous lower-tail bound holds, with the zero-denominator expression interpreted as 0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The hypotheses, objects, and conventions in the Statement.

[F1]

Conditional Hoeffding bound for bounded martingale differences controls each conditional exponential moment.

[F2]

Tower property of conditional expectation iterates those controls through the filtration.

[F3]

Markov's inequality for random variables supplies the exponential Markov bound.

[F4]

The Axiom of Choice is inherited from the conditional-expectation and martingale interfaces.

[F5]

Taking out what is known permits the bounded Fk1-measurable accumulated exponential to be taken outside conditional expectation.

Proof

1.1

Let Dk=MkMk1 and V=k=1nck2. For λ>0, F1, F2, and F5 give Eeλk=1nDk=E ⁣[eλk<nDkE(eλDnFn1)]eλ2cn2/8Eeλk<nDkeλ2V/8. The final inequality follows by finite induction, with the empty sum at time 0.

F1F2F5
2.1

Markov applied to eλ(MnM0) yields P(MnM0t)exp(λt+λ2V/8). If V>0, the quadratic is minimized at λ=4t/V, giving exp(2t2/V).

F3step 1.1
3.1

If V=0, every ck=0. F1's hypotheses then force every Dk=0 almost surely, so the event is empty for t>0, agreeing with the stated convention. Apply step 1.1, step 2.1 to M, whose endpoints are Bk,Ak, to obtain the lower-tail bound. AC has exactly the inherited role in F4.

F1F4step 1.1step 2.1

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

17 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