Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge 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.

Finite-description compression bound for trained classifiers

Statement

The following corrected finite-description form of Arora, Ge, Neyshabur, and Zhang's compression bound applies to a measurable sample-dependent score classifier. Let (X,ΣX) be a nonempty measurable space, let Y={1,…,K} have the discrete sigma-algebra with K≥2, put ΣZ=ΣX⊗2Y on Z=X×Y, and let P be a probability law on (Z,ΣZ). Let m≥1 and draw S=((X1,Y1),…,(Xm,Ym)) independently and identically distributed (IID) with law P, with sample space Zm carrying ΣZ⊗m. Fix integers q≥0, r≥1, a helper string s independent of S, finite nonempty parameter sets D1,…,Dq with ∣Dj∣≤r, a nonempty code set A⊆∏j=1qDj (with the empty product a singleton when q=0), a distortion tolerance ϵ>0, and a confidence level 0<δ<1. For any score map u with measurable coordinates, write hu(x) for the classifier that chooses the least index attaining the largest coordinate of u(x). For each a∈A, let gs,a:X→RK have measurable coordinates and put hs,a:=hgs,a. Equip RK with its Borel sigma-algebra. Let F:Zm×X→RK be measurable for ΣZ⊗m⊗ΣX, write fS(x)=F(S,x), and let α:Zm→A be measurable for the discrete sigma-algebra on A. Suppose that, for Pm-almost every S, max⁡k∈Y∣fS(Xi)k−gs,α(S)(Xi)k∣≤ϵ(1≤i≤m) With natural logarithms, define RP(h):=P{(x,y):h(x)≠y},R^S(h):=1m∑i=1m1{h(Xi)≠Yi}, MfS(x,y):=fS(x)y−max⁡j≠yfS(x)j,L^γ(fS;S):=1m∑i=1m1{MfS(Xi,Yi)≤γ},γ≥0. Then, with probability at least 1−δ over S, RP(hs,α(S))≤L^2ϵ(fS;S)+qlog⁡r+log⁡(1/δ)2m. In particular, the coordinatewise distortion ϵ only guarantees preservation of an observed label when its original score margin is strictly greater than 2ϵ. The conclusion bounds the selected compressed classifier hs,α(S); it does not bound the original classifier hfS unless a separate all-domain loss-preservation argument is supplied. The theorem assumes a suitable fixed-helper compressor and makes no claim that a network compression construction exists or that layer-stability or cushion hypotheses hold.

Statement references

Margin-preserving compression of score classifiers: defines the finite codebook, fixed helper string, score distortion, least-index tie rule, margin, and empirical margin loss.

Measurable spaces and measurable sets: a measurable space is a set equipped with a sigma-algebra.

A measurable function between measurable spaces: measurability is the preimage condition.

The product sigma-algebra and its finite iterates: product sigma-algebras are generated by measurable rectangles and finite products are formed recursively.

Arithmetic and lattice operations preserve measurability whenever they are defined: finite arithmetic operations, absolute values, and maxima preserve measurability of real-valued functions.

Identical distribution and IID families: IID observations are mutually independent and share a common law.

Basic identities for a probability measure: finite unions of events have probability at most the sum of their probabilities.

The Hoeffding MGF bound for a variable in a unit interval: for 0≤Y≤1, Eexp⁡(λ(Y−EY))≤exp⁡(λ2/8) for every real λ; its proof is choice-free.

Measurable coordinatewise functions preserve independence: applying measurable coordinate maps to independent random elements preserves independence.

Expectations factor over finite products of independent random variables: expectations of finite products of nonnegative Borel functions of independent real variables factor.

Markov's inequality for random variables: for a nonnegative random variable X and a>0, P(X≥a)≤E[X]/a.

The exponential addition formula exp⁡(x+y)=exp⁡(x)exp⁡(y): exp⁡(x+y)=exp⁡(x)exp⁡(y).

The exponential function is strictly increasing: the exponential is continuous and strictly increasing.

Sums, scalar multiples, products, absolute values, maxima, minima and quotients with nonvanishing denominator of continuous functions are continuous, as are constants, the identity and every polynomial function: sums, scalar multiples, constants, and the identity function are continuous.

A composite of continuous functions is continuous, with no side hypothesis of the kind the composition of limits needs: a composite of continuous real functions is continuous.

The Borel sigma-algebra of a topological space: the Borel sigma-algebra is generated by open sets.

Law or distribution of a random element: the law of a random element is its pushforward probability measure.

Change of variables for expectation: E[g(X)]=∫g dPX for a nonnegative measurable g and a random element X with law PX.

The real exponential function and the number e by a power series: defines the real exponential function used in the MGF and Markov argument.

The expectation of an indicator is the probability of the event: the expectation of the indicator of an event equals its probability.

The natural logarithm as the inverse of the exponential function: defines log⁡ as the inverse of the exponential on positive reals.

Order, continuity, range, and the product, quotient, and reciprocal laws for the natural logarithm: supplies the product, quotient, reciprocal, and monotonicity laws for log⁡.

The exponential is positive and satisfies exp⁡(−x)=1/exp⁡(x): exp⁡(−x)=1/exp⁡(x)>0 for every real x.

Arora et al., §2, Theorem 2.1 and Remarks 1–4: fixes the finite code family and helper-string model, and explicitly states that its conclusion concerns the compressed classifier.

Arora et al., supplementary material, Appendix A.1: gives the finite-code Hoeffding/union-bound route; the local proof corrects its margin step.

Shalev-Shwartz and Ben-David, Chapter 4 §4.2: independently proves finite-class bounded-loss uniform convergence by Hoeffding's inequality and a union bound.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The measurable spaces and law P, an IID sample of size m≥1, a fixed helper string and finite nonempty codebook with at most r values in each of q parameter positions, measurable training and compression maps, distortion ϵ>0 on Pm-almost every sample, and 0<δ<1.

[F1]

For a finite family of events E1,…,En, P(⋃j=1nEj)≤∑j=1nP(Ej). Basic identities for a probability measure

[F2]

The helper string, codebook, and decoders are fixed independently of S, with at most rq codes. Margin-preserving compression of score classifiers

[F3]

The measurable code selector may depend on S and the coordinatewise distortion condition applies at every observed input on each successful sample. Margin-preserving compression of score classifiers

[F4]

The natural logarithm is strictly increasing and satisfies log⁡(xy)=log⁡x+log⁡y, log⁡(x/y)=log⁡x−log⁡y, and log⁡1=0 for positive x,y. Order, continuity, range, and the product, quotient, and reciprocal laws for the natural logarithm

[F5]
[F6]

exp⁡(−x)=1/exp⁡(x)>0 for every real x. The exponential is positive and satisfies exp⁡(−x)=1/exp⁡(x)

[F7]

IID observations are mutually independent and share the same law. Identical distribution and IID families

[F8]

The sample space and finite products carry sigma-algebras generated by measurable rectangles. The product sigma-algebra and its finite iterates

[F9]

Measurability is defined by measurable preimages; compositions are measurable by successive preimages. A measurable function between measurable spaces

[F10]

Finite sums, scalar multiples, absolute values, and finite maxima of measurable real-valued functions are measurable. Arithmetic and lattice operations preserve measurability whenever they are defined

[F11]

If U is measurable and 0≤U≤1 almost surely, then Eexp⁡(λ(U−EU))≤exp⁡(λ2/8) for every real λ. The Hoeffding MGF bound for a variable in a unit interval

[F12]

Measurable coordinatewise functions of independent random elements remain independent. Measurable coordinatewise functions preserve independence

[F13]

For independent real random variables and nonnegative Borel functions gi, the expectation of their finite product factors into the product of expectations. Expectations factor over finite products of independent random variables

[F14]

If V is a nonnegative random variable and a>0, then P(V≥a)≤E[V]/a. Markov's inequality for random variables

[F15]

exp⁡(x+y)=exp⁡(x)exp⁡(y) for real x,y. The exponential addition formula exp⁡(x+y)=exp⁡(x)exp⁡(y)

[F16]

The exponential is continuous and strictly increasing on R. The exponential function is strictly increasing

[F17]

The law of a random element is its pushforward probability measure. Law or distribution of a random element

[F18]

For a random element with law P and a nonnegative measurable g, E[g(X)]=∫g dP. Change of variables for expectation

[F19]

The real exponential function is the power-series function denoted by exp⁡. The real exponential function and the number e by a power series

[F22]

The Borel sigma-algebra is generated by open subsets of R. The Borel sigma-algebra of a topological space

[F23]

The expectation of an indicator of a measurable error event is its probability, so ∫ℓa dP=RP(hs,a). The expectation of an indicator is the probability of the event

[A1]

The bounded-variable MGF bound uses finite product and scalar integral arguments and does not assume the Axiom of Choice. The Hoeffding MGF bound for a variable in a unit interval

Proof

1.1givenF2F3F8F9F10algebra

For each sample coordinate i, the projections S↦(Xi,Yi) and S↦Xi are measurable by [F8]. The map Ti:S↦(S,Xi) is measurable because the preimage of a measurable rectangle B×C is B∩{S:Xi∈C} and such rectangles generate the product sigma-algebra [F8]; composition with F is measurable by [F9], so S↦fS(Xi) is measurable. For each fixed a, S↦gs,a(Xi) is measurable by [F9]. The selector α takes values in the finite set A by [F2], so the preimage of a Borel set under S↦gs,α(S)(Xi) is a finite union of intersections of measurable selector fibers and fixed-code preimages. By [F10], each coordinatewise distortion comparison is measurable, and the finite intersection over coordinates and sample positions makes the compression-success event measurable. The zero-one loss ℓa(x,y)=1{hs,a(x)≠y} is measurable by the verified measurability properties in [F3]; composing it with the sample projections and taking a finite average shows that each R^S(hs,a) is measurable. Since A is finite and α measurable, both selected risk maps S↦RP(hs,α(S)) and S↦R^S(hs,α(S)) are measurable. The margins MfS(Xi,Yi) are measurable by [F10], hence so is their finite threshold average L^2ϵ(fS;S). Thus every event in the Statement and proof is measurable.

1.2givenF3F10algebra

On a sample satisfying the compression condition, if MfS(Xi,Yi)>2ϵ, then for each j≠Yi the coordinatewise distortion bound [F3] gives gs,α(S)(Xi)Yi−gs,α(S)(Xi)j≥fS(Xi)Yi−fS(Xi)j−2ϵ≥MfS(Xi,Yi)−2ϵ>0. Thus the decoded classifier predicts Yi at that observation. Each decoded training-error indicator is therefore at most 1{MfS(Xi,Yi)≤2ϵ}, and averaging gives R^S(hs,α(S))≤L^2ϵ(fS;S).

2.1givenF7F9F10F12F16F17F18F19F20F21F22F23step 1.1algebra

Fix a∈A, write Zi=(Xi,Yi) and Ui=ℓa(Zi), and put μ=RP(hs,a)=∫ℓa dP by [F23]. Each Zi has law P by [F7] and [F17], so [F18] gives EUi=μ. The Ui are independent by [F12], since ℓa is measurable by step 1.1. The function x↦λ(x−μ) is continuous by [F20], and [F16] and [F21] make gλ(x):=exp⁡(λ(x−μ)) continuous. Its preimage of every open set is open; preimages preserve complements and countable unions, so [F22] makes preimages of all Borel sets Borel by [F9]. Thus gλ is a nonnegative Borel function.

3.1givenA1F11F13F15step 2.1algebra

By finite-product factorization [F13], exponential addition [F15], and the bounded-variable MGF estimate [F11], Eexp⁡ ⁣(λ∑i=1m(Ui−μ))=∏i=1mEexp⁡(λ(Ui−μ))≤exp⁡(mλ2/8) for every real λ. This finite MGF argument uses no choice principle by [A1].

4.1givenF6F14F16step 3.1algebra

For t>0, put λ=−4t. On {∑i(Ui−μ)≤−mt}, strict increase of the exponential [F16] gives exp⁡(λ∑i(Ui−μ))≥exp⁡(4mt2)>0 by [F6]. Markov's inequality [F14] and step 3.1 therefore give Pm{RP(hs,a)−R^S(hs,a)≥t}≤exp⁡(mλ2/8)/exp⁡(4mt2)=exp⁡(−2mt2).

5.1givenF1F2F4F5F6step 4.1algebra

Set τ=log⁡(rq/δ)/(2m). Since rq≥1 and 0<δ<1, we have rq/δ>1, so strict increase of log⁡ and log⁡1=0 in [F4] give τ>0. Applying step 4.1 to each fixed code at t=τ and using [F5]–[F6] gives failure probability at most exp⁡(−2mτ2)=exp⁡(−log⁡(rq/δ))=δ/rq. The union bound [F1] over at most rq codes by [F2] yields, with probability at least 1−δ, one event on which every a∈A satisfies RP(hs,a)≤R^S(hs,a)+τ. For q=0, log⁡(rq)=log⁡1=0; for q≥1, repeated use of the product law [F4] gives log⁡(rq)=qlog⁡r. The quotient law gives log⁡(rq/δ)=qlog⁡r+log⁡(1/δ), so τ is the displayed complexity term.

6.1givenstep 5.1step 1.2∎

The event from step 5.1 holds simultaneously for every fixed code, so it also holds for the sample-dependent choice α(S). The compression condition fails only on a Pm-null set. Intersecting the step 5.1 event with its full-measure success set and applying step 1.2 gives the stated risk inequality with probability at least 1−δ.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

108 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