Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: 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.

Masked-diffusion KL reduces to weighted cross-entropy

Statement

Let V be a finite nonempty vocabulary, let m∉V, let L,N≥1, and let 1=α0>⋯>αN=0. Draw X=(X1,…,XL) from any probability law on VL. Conditional on X, at step j each clean coordinate survives with probability rj=αj/αj−1 using fresh Bernoulli innovations independent across coordinates and steps, and otherwise becomes m; an already masked coordinate remains masked. Thus Zj is the state after step j. For j=1,…,N, put cj=(αj−1−αj)/(1−αj),dj=(1−αj−1)/(1−αj). Let hi,j:S→Δ(V) be any predictors, where S=(V∪{m})L and Δ(V) is the set of probability vectors on V. Define the learned reverse kernel Pj to have product rows: an unmasked coordinate is copied, while a masked coordinate assigns mass dj to m and mass cjhi,j(z)(v) to each v∈V. For every positive-probability current state zj, the true conditional law q(Zj−1∣Zj=zj,X) also has product rows: it copies every unmasked coordinate and, at a masked coordinate i, assigns mass cj to Xi and dj to m. For 1≤i≤L, let Mj,i={Zj,i=m}, which has probability 1−αj>0, and let Pj,imask be the conditional law of (Zj,Xi) given Mj,i. View hi,j as a predictor in the finite supervised problem with feature Zj, label Xi, action space Δ(V), its singleton predictor class, and loss ℓ(p,v)=−log⁡p(v), with −log⁡0=+∞. Its population risk under Pj,imask is Rj,i=E[ℓ(hi,j(Zj),Xi)∣Mj,i]. For finite-alphabet probability vectors P=(pa) and Q=(qa), write DKL(P∥Q)=∑a:pa>0palog⁡(pa/qa), with zero source terms set to zero and positive source mass against zero reference mass set to +∞. Define the extended-nonnegative conditional reverse-KL contribution Lj=EX,Zj[DKL(q(Zj−1∣Zj,X)∥Pj(Zj,⋅))]. Then ∑j=1NLj=∑j=1N∑i=1L(αj−1−αj)Rj,i as an equality of extended nonnegative quantities. If a predictor assigns zero mass to the true token on a positive-probability masked event, both sides are +∞; finite cross-entropy is not assumed.

Statement references

Finite Kullback–Leibler divergence: for finite probability vectors, D(P∥Q)=∑x:px>0pxlog⁡(px/qx), with +∞ when px>0=qx.

Finite product KL is the sum of coordinate KLs: the finite KL of product probability vectors is the sum of their coordinate KLs, including the singular-support case.

Posterior of a finite masking chain: conditional on the clean string, the true reverse posterior is a product of copy rows and two-point mask/unmask rows.

Finite-grid masked reverse sampler: the learned reverse rows copy unmasked tokens and use the same mask/unmask probability with clean-token vector hi,j.

Supervised prediction problems: a supervised problem specifies measurable feature, label, action spaces, a joint law, a predictor class and a nonnegative measurable loss.

Population and empirical risk: population risk is the extended nonnegative integral of the loss under the data law.

Population and empirical risks are measurable: the finite-state loss and conditional risk are measurable and defined.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite masking chain, its true posterior, the learned product reverse kernel, finite-alphabet KL, and the finite conditional prediction problems in the Statement. Prove the summed reverse-KL/cross-entropy identity.

[F1]

Finite masking diffusion chain: forward corruption is independent across positions conditional on X; a clean token survives to step j with probability αj, and the mask is absorbing.

[F2]

Posterior of a finite masking chain: for s=j−1<t=j, a masked coordinate has true clean probability cj=(αj−1−αj)/(1−αj) and mask probability dj=(1−αj−1)/(1−αj); an unmasked coordinate is copied; the posterior factors across positions given X,Zj.

[F3]

Finite-grid masked reverse sampler: from a masked coordinate the learned row assigns mass dj=1−cj to m and mass cjhi,j(z)(v) to each clean token v; learned position rows are conditionally independent.

[F4]

Finite Kullback–Leibler divergence: finite relative entropy is directional, zero source masses contribute zero, and positive source mass against zero target mass gives +∞.

[F5]

Supervised prediction problems: the finite feature and label spaces, Borel action simplex Δ(V), singleton predictor, conditional joint law, and cross-entropy loss form a supervised prediction problem.

[F6]

Population and empirical risk: its population risk is the extended conditional expectation Rj,i.

[F7]

Population and empirical risks are measurable: finite-state measurable predictors and losses have a defined measurable risk.

[F8]

Finite product KL is the sum of coordinate KLs: finite product KL is the sum of its coordinate KL terms, with +∞ preserved when a factor has singular support.

Proof

1.1F2F3F4F5F7F8given

Equip the finite feature space S and label space V with their power-set sigma-algebras, and equip Δ(V) with the Borel sigma-algebra inherited from RV. Every predictor hi,j:S→Δ(V) is measurable because its domain is finite and discrete. For each v∈V, the coordinate map p↦p(v) is continuous, and g(t)=−log⁡t for t>0, with g(0)=+∞, is Borel measurable on [0,1]. Therefore p↦−log⁡p(v) is Borel measurable and nonnegative. Since V is finite and discrete, the loss (p,v)↦−log⁡p(v) is measurable on Δ(V)×V. This verifies the loss-measurability requirement in [F5] and the finite-state measurability used in [F7]. Now fix a step j, clean string x, and observed positive-probability state zj. The true and learned conditional laws both factor over positions by [F2] and [F3]. Applying [F8] to these finite product rows makes their joint conditional KL the sum of the coordinate KLs, preserving the singular +∞ case described by [F4].

2.1F2F3F4step 1.1algebra

If zj,i≠m, the true and learned coordinate rows are the same point mass, so their KL is zero. If zj,i=m, put cj=(αj−1−αj)/(1−αj)>0 and dj=(1−αj−1)/(1−αj). The true row has mass cj at xi and dj at m; the learned row has mass cjhi,j(zj)(v) at v∈V and dj at m. If hi,j(zj)(xi)>0, the only nonzero KL terms are cjlog⁡(cj/(cjhi,j(zj)(xi)))=−cjlog⁡hi,j(zj)(xi) and, when dj>0, djlog⁡(dj/dj)=0. If hi,j(zj)(xi)=0, [F4] gives +∞, which is the same extended value as cj[−log⁡hi,j(zj)(xi)]. Thus the full conditional KL is ∑i1Mj,icj[−log⁡hi,j(zj)(xi)].

3.1F1F5F6F7step 2.1algebra

For each i, [F1] gives Pr⁡(Mj,i∣X=x)=1−αj, independent of x. Averaging the ith term of step 2.1 over the forward corruption therefore gives cj(1−αj)E[−log⁡hi,j(Zj)(Xi)∣Mj,i]=(αj−1−αj)Rj,i by [F5]–[F7]. This argument conditions on a positive event and does not assume the clean coordinates of X are independent.

4.1F1F2step 2.1step 3.1algebra∎

Sum the step 3.1 identity over the finite positions and all j=1,…,N. The coefficient identity cj(1−αj)=αj−1−αj holds because αj<1. At j=1, α0=1 gives d1=0, which is the zero mask-retention term already omitted in step 2.1; at j=N, αN=0 gives Pr⁡(MN,i)=1, so the conditional risk in step 3.1 is defined on the whole terminal event. Extended nonnegative sums preserve the +∞ cases from step 2.1, giving the stated equality.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

25 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