Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-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-alphabet Fano inequality

Statement

Let X take values in an alphabet X of size m≥2, let Y be finite, and let X^ be an estimator in the same alphabet generated from Y, so the joint pmf factors as pXYX^=pXYpX^∣Y. Put Pe=P[X^≠X] and define

h2(t):=−tln⁡t−(1−t)ln⁡(1−t),0ln⁡0:=0.

Then

H(X∣Y)≤h2(Pe)+Peln⁡(m−1)≤ln⁡2+Peln⁡m.

For m=1, X is constant and H(X∣Y)=0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite joint pmf of X,Y,X^ with pXYX^=pXYpX^∣Y and ∣X∣=m≥1.

[F1]

Data processing for a finite Markov chain, with equality condition: if X→Y→X^, then I(X;X^)≤I(X;Y).

[F2]

Finite entropy and mutual-information chain rules: I(X;Y)=H(X)−H(X∣Y) and finite conditional entropy obeys the chain rule.

[F3]

Finite KL divergence is nonnegative with equality exactly at equal laws: finite KL divergence is nonnegative, with equality iff its two probability vectors agree.

[F5]

Finite distributions, entropy, divergence, and stochastic matrices: H(r)=−∑ri>0riln⁡ri, with 0ln⁡0=0.

Proof

1.1givenF1F2F5algebracases

If m=1, then X is constant and H(X∣Y)=0. Hence assume m≥2. The factorization in the hypotheses is the Markov condition X→Y→X^. By [F1], I(X;X^)≤I(X;Y); subtracting from the finite value H(X) and using [F2] gives H(X∣Y)≤H(X∣X^).

1.2F2F5givenalgebra

Set E=1{X≠X^}. Since E is determined by (X,X^), [F2] gives H(X∣X^)=H(E∣X^)+H(X∣E,X^). The law of E is Bernoulli with mass Pe at 1, so [F5] gives H(E)=h2(Pe).

2.1F2F3step 1.2algebra

The finite MI identity in [F2] gives H(E)−H(E∣X^)=I(E;X^). By [F3], this MI, which is KL between the joint law and product marginals, is nonnegative. Thus H(E∣X^)≤h2(Pe).

2.2F3step 1.2givenalgebra

On E=0, X=X^, so the conditional entropy of X given (E,X^) is zero. On E=1 and a fixed value of X^, at most m−1 values of X remain. For any pmf r on at most k=m−1 points, pad by zeros to a k-vector and compare with the uniform vector uk: [F3] gives 0≤D(r∥uk)=ln⁡k−H(r), so H(r)≤ln⁡(m−1). Averaging these conditional entropies yields H(X∣E,X^)≤Peln⁡(m−1).

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1step 2.2algebra

Combining steps 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2 gives H(X∣X^)≤h2(Pe)+Peln⁡(m−1); step 1.1 then gives the stated sharp bound.

4.1F3F4F5givenstep 3.1algebra∎

Since D((Pe,1−Pe)∥(1/2,1/2))=ln⁡2−h2(Pe)≥0 by [F3], h2(Pe)≤ln⁡2. Also m−1≤m and [F4] makes ln⁡(m−1)≤ln⁡m, so step 3.1 implies the weaker bound. If Pe=0 or 1, zero-probability conditional branches above are omitted and h2(Pe)=0 by convention.

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