Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: 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.

Finite-grid risk control by monotone envelopes

Statement

Let n,M≥1, B>0, and α∈[0,B). On a probability space (Ω,F,P), let W1,…,Wn+1 be exchangeable random elements of [0,B]M with its Borel sigma-algebra, and write their coordinates as Li(λj) on a deterministic grid Λ={λ1<⋯<λM}; do not assume the original rows are nonincreasing. Assume Li(λM)≤α almost surely for every i. Define the finite tail-maximum losses L~i(λj)=max⁡j≤k≤MLi(λk). Apply the finite-grid risk-control rule to the transformed calibration rows and let λ~ be its selected parameter. Then E[Ln+1(λ~)]≤α. The expectation is over all calibration and test rows. If the rows have an actual regular conditional exchangeable law given a training sigma-algebra and the same bounds and endpoint condition hold almost surely in that law, the corresponding conditional expected-risk bound also holds almost surely.

Statement references

Finite nested decision families and bounded risk: exchangeable loss rows, bounds, grid, endpoint safety, and expected test risk.

Finite-sample expected-risk control on a finite grid: finite-grid risk control for exchangeable coordinatewise nonincreasing rows.

Regular conditional distribution: the actual conditional probability kernel used for the conditional clause.

Conditional expectation given a sigma algebra: conditional expected risk is identified by its integrals on conditioning events.

Angelopoulos et al., Conformal Risk Control, §2.4, Corollary 1

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite grid, exchangeable bounded loss rows, the endpoint condition, and the algorithm applied to their finite tail maxima. For the conditional clause, also an actual regular conditional distribution of the full row matrix given the stated sigma-algebra, with the stated sectionwise assumptions.

[F1]

The original rows are exchangeable and their coordinates are measurable and lie in [0,B]; the endpoint losses satisfy Li(λM)≤α almost surely. Finite nested decision families and bounded risk

[F2]

The maximum-grid risk-control theorem applies to exchangeable bounded loss rows that are nonincreasing along the finite grid and endpoint-safe. Finite-sample expected-risk control on a finite grid

[F3]

Expectation is monotone: if integrable real random variables X≤Y almost surely, then E[X]≤E[Y]. Linearity, monotonicity, and the modulus bound for expectation

[F4]

A regular conditional distribution is a probability kernel whose section evaluations satisfy the conditional-event identity for every conditioning event and measurable target set. Regular conditional distribution

[F5]

A conditional-expectation version is measurable, integrable, and has the same integrals as the original variable on every event in the conditioning sigma-algebra. Conditional expectation given a sigma algebra

[F6]

For nonnegative measurable functions increasing pointwise to a limit, their integrals increase to the integral of the limit. Monotone convergence for the integral

Proof

1.1givenF1constructalgebra

For each i, L~i(λj) is a maximum of finitely many measurable coordinates, so it is measurable and lies in [0,B]. The set of indices in the maximum shrinks as j increases, hence L~i(λj+1)≤L~i(λj). At the endpoint, L~i(λM)=Li(λM)≤α. The same deterministic row map is applied to every Wi, and it commutes with row permutations; therefore the transformed rows remain exchangeable. Each calibration threshold is a finite sum of transformed coordinates, and each first-pass or fallback event is a finite Boolean combination of Borel threshold sets. Thus the selected parameter λ~(W) and the losses g(W)=Ln+1(λ~(W)) and h(W)=L~n+1(λ~(W)) are Borel functions of the full matrix.

1.2F1F2given

By [F2], applying the calibration rule to the transformed rows gives E[L~n+1(λ~)]≤α.

2.1F3step 1.2algebra

For every grid index j, the maximum defining L~n+1(λj) includes Ln+1(λj), so Ln+1(λ~)≤L~n+1(λ~) almost surely. Both variables are bounded and integrable; [F3] and step 1.2 give E[Ln+1(λ~)]≤α.

2.2givenF2F3step 1.1construct

For the conditional clause, let Qω be the stated regular conditional distribution of the full matrix W=(W1,…,Wn+1) given T. For almost every ω, its row law is exchangeable, its coordinates lie in [0,B], and its endpoint losses are at most α almost surely. Applying the same Borel tail-maximum map to each row preserves exchangeability under Qω, gives nonincreasing bounded rows, and leaves the endpoint unchanged. The marginal assertion of [F2], applied under each such probability measure Qω to the transformed rows, gives ∫h dQω≤α. Since 0≤g≤h≤B pointwise, [F3] under Qω yields ∫g dQω≤α.

3.1F4F5F6step 1.1step 2.2construct∎

For each m≥1, put gm=2−m⌊2mg⌋. These are finite-valued Borel simple functions increasing pointwise to g. Write gm=∑rcm,r1Am,r for Borel level sets Am,r in the full matrix space. By the kernel identity [F4], for every H∈T, ∫H∫gm dQω dP(ω)=∫Hgm(W) dP. The kernel integrals of gm are T-measurable finite sums of kernel evaluations. By [F6], they increase to k(ω)=∫g dQω, and the right-hand integrals increase to ∫Hg(W) dP. Applying [F6] on both sides gives the same identity with g in place of gm. Thus k is T-measurable, bounded, and has the defining integral identities of a conditional-expectation version by [F5]. Step 2.2 gives k≤α almost surely, proving the conditional bound.

Depends on

Used by

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