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.
Adaptive conditional failure budgets compose by a union bound
Statement
Consider a procedure with finitely many stages and a finite probability space of execution histories. Let for every stage, and let be the event that stage is the first failing stage. If, after every successful history of positive probability that reaches stage , the conditional probability of failure at stage is at most , then No independence hypothesis is required. If fresh trials are mutually independent and each succeeds with probability at least , their miss probability is at most . For a common success probability , the expected number of trials capped at is , which tends to as .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite staged procedure and its conditional failure bounds.
Finite probability spaces, outcome weights, events, and event probabilities: event probabilities are sums of weights in a finite probability space.
Normalization, nonnegativity, monotonicity, complements, and differences in a finite probability space: probabilities are nonnegative, and probabilities of disjoint events add.
Pairwise and mutual independence of finite-valued random variables: events determined by distinct members of a mutually independent family factor.
for every real , hence : for and natural , .
Proof
The stage-failure events are part of the given execution model. The events are pairwise disjoint: one execution cannot have two different first failing stages. Their union is exactly the event that some stage fails, because every failing finite history has a least index at which failure first occurs.
For mutually independent trials with failure events , [F3] gives . Apply [F4] to obtain the stated exponential bound, including and .
For fixed , partition by the finite successful histories that reach stage . For each such history, the hypothesis gives ; histories of probability zero contribute zero. Summing the conditional probabilities weighted by gives . By [F2] and step 1.1, .
Let be the number of trials used by the capped repeat-until-success procedure, with if all trials fail. For , is the event that the first trials fail, so . For a finite nonnegative integer-valued variable, by summing its finite outcome weights; hence for the finite geometric sum is . By step 1.2, as , so this capped expectation tends to .
Depends on
- Heralded success and conditional verification contract
- Finite probability spaces, outcome weights, events, and event probabilities
- Normalization, nonnegativity, monotonicity, complements, and differences in a finite probability space
- Pairwise and mutual independence of finite-valued random variables
- $1+x\le\exp(x)$ for every real $x$, hence $(1-p)^m\le\exp(-mp)$
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
27 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
- Ronald de Wolf, Quantum Computing: Lecture Notes (standard reference, not scraped)
- J. Matoušek and J. Vondrák, The Probabilistic Method (standard reference, not scraped)