Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generated
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.

Gaussian smoothing converges weakly at the endpoint

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice. Fix d≥1, T>0, and a Borel probability measure μ on Rd supported in B‾(0,R) for some finite R≥0. Let g:[0,T]→(0,∞) be continuously differentiable and satisfy 0<gmin⁡≤g(t)≤gmax⁡<∞; set v(t)=∫0tg(r)2 dr. On a complete filtered probability space with the usual conditions, let X0 be measurable at time zero with law μ and independent of future Brownian increments. Let W be a standard adapted d-dimensional Brownian motion whose increment Wt−Ws is independent of Fs and has law Nd(0,(t−s)Id) for 0≤s<t≤T. Let X be the unique strong solution of Xt=X0+∫0tg(r) dWr, and write μt=Law⁡(Xt). For Borel probability laws α,β with finite second moments, write W2(α,β) for the square root of the infimum of ∫∣x−y∣2 dπ(x,y) over Borel probability couplings π of α and β. For every 0<ϵ≤T,

E∣Xϵ−X0∣2=d v(ϵ),W2(μϵ,μ)≤d v(ϵ).

As ϵ↓0, Xϵ→X0 in probability and μϵ converges weakly to μ, meaning that ∫f dμϵ→∫f dμ for every bounded continuous real function f on Rd. This estimate controls endpoint truncation only: it gives no bound for learned-score error or numerical-discretization error, and asserts no density or score regularity at ϵ=0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The probability space, Brownian motion, initial random vector, coefficient, and strong solution in the statement.

[A1]

The full Axiom of Choice is assumed by the inherited Brownian and Itô interfaces. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

The deterministic Itô increment ∫stg(r) dWr is independent of Fs and has law Nd(0,(v(t)−v(s))Id). A deterministic Itô integral has independent Gaussian increments

[F2]

The strong-solution equation identifies Xt−X0 with the corresponding Itô integral. Itô SDE data and strong solution

[F3]

Under the stated globally Lipschitz and linear-growth SDE hypotheses there is a unique strong solution with continuous paths. Global strong well-posedness for Lipschitz Itô SDEs

[F4]

The positive-time law μt has the stated Gaussian-mixture density, and μ0=μ. Gaussian-smoothed data law and transition density

[F5]

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

[F6]

Weak convergence of Borel probability laws is tested by bounded continuous real functions. Weak convergence of borel probability measures

[F7]

For laws with finite second moments, W2 is the square root of the infimum of quadratic costs over their Borel couplings. The Euclidean quadratic Wasserstein space

[F8]

The Borel sigma-algebra on a finite-dimensional Euclidean product is the product of its Borel sigma-algebras. The Borel product of R^m and R^n is the Borel sigma-algebra of R^{m+n}

Proof

Given: The statement's hypotheses and notation.

1.1A1F1F2F3givenalgebra

The coefficients b(t,x)=0 and σ(t,x)=g(t)Id are jointly Borel, globally Lipschitz in x with constant zero, and satisfy ∣b∣+∥σ∥F=d g(t)≤d gmax⁡. The initial support gives E∣X0∣2≤R2, and the complete usual filtered space, adapted Brownian increments, and independence of X0 are hypotheses of the statement. Thus [F3] supplies the unique continuous strong solution. By [F2], Xϵ−X0=∫0ϵg(r) dWr. The characteristic-function identity in [F1] identifies this vector with Nd(0,v(ϵ)Id), whose coordinate variances sum to d v(ϵ). Thus E∣Xϵ−X0∣2=d v(ϵ). Also v(ϵ)≤gmax⁡2ϵ→0. For every a>0, ∣Xϵ−X0∣2≥a21{∣Xϵ−X0∣>a}; taking expectations gives P(∣Xϵ−X0∣>a)≤d v(ϵ)/a2→0.

2.1F4F5F7F8step 1.1given

The support condition gives E∣X0∣2≤R2, and step 1.1 gives E∣Xϵ∣2≤2R2+2d v(T)<∞. Hence both laws lie in the quadratic Wasserstein space. The measurable pair (Xϵ,X0) has a Borel law on Rd×Rd by [F8]; by [F5] its marginals are μϵ and μ, and [F4] identifies μϵ as the smoothed law from the definition. Thus it is a coupling. Its cost is E∣Xϵ−X0∣2=d v(ϵ). Taking the infimum in [F7] proves W2(μϵ,μ)≤d v(ϵ).

3.1F5F6step 1.1given∎

Fix bounded continuous f and let K=B‾(0,R+1). Its restriction to compact K is uniformly continuous; define ωK(δ)=sup⁡{∣f(x)−f(y)∣:x,y∈K, ∣x−y∣≤δ}, which tends to zero as δ↓0. For 0<δ<1, on the event ∣Xϵ−X0∣≤δ, both vectors belong to K, so their f-values differ by at most ωK(δ). On the complementary event the difference is at most 2∥f∥∞. Step 1.1 and Markov's inequality therefore give ∣∫f dμϵ−∫f dμ∣≤ωK(δ)+2∥f∥∞d v(ϵ)δ2. For fixed δ the second term tends to zero as ϵ↓0; then letting δ↓0 proves convergence for every such f. This is weak convergence by [F6]. The estimates establish only the endpoint statements in the theorem.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

53 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