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 reversible Cheeger inequality

Statement

Let Ω be a finite set with ∣Ω∣≥2. Let P=(P(x,y))x,y∈Ω be an irreducible row-stochastic matrix and let π be a strictly positive stationary probability satisfying detailed balance π(x)P(x,y)=π(y)P(y,x). For S⊆Ω, put Q(S,Sc)=∑x∈S, y∉Sπ(x)P(x,y), and define the conductance ϕ=min⁡0<π(S)≤1/2Q(S,Sc)π(S). If 1=λ1>λ2≥⋯ are the eigenvalues of P in the weighted inner product ⟨f,g⟩π=∑xπ(x)f(x)g(x)‾, then the algebraic gap satisfies 1−λ2≥ϕ22. No absolute-gap or aperiodicity assertion is made.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite state set, a row-stochastic irreducible matrix P, and a strictly positive stationary probability π satisfying the displayed detailed-balance equations.

[F1]

A transition matrix is row-stochastic: P(x,y)≥0 and ∑yP(x,y)=1 (Transition matrices and n-step probabilities).

[F2]

Stationarity means ∑xπ(x)P(x,y)=π(y) (Invariant and stationary distribution for a Markov kernel).

[F3]

Detailed balance makes π(x)P(x,y) symmetric in x,y (Reversible measure and detailed balance).

Proof

1.1givenF1F2F3algebra

Set qxy=π(x)P(x,y). By [F3], qxy=qyx; by [F1] its row sums are π(x), and by [F2] its column sums are also π(y). For a real-valued function f define E(f)=12∑x,yqxy(f(x)−f(y))2. Expanding the square and using these row and column sums gives E(f)=⟨f,(I−P)f⟩π.

2.1givenF1F2F5step 1.1algebra

Suppose f≥0 and its support has π-mass at most 1/2. For t≥0, let St={x:f(x)2>t}. The finite layer-cake identities give ∫0∞π(St) dt=∑xπ(x)f(x)2 and ∫0∞Q(St,Stc) dt=12∑x,yqxy∣f(x)2−f(y)2∣. Every nonempty St is admissible in the definition of ϕ, so the latter integral is at least ϕ∥f∥2,π2. Apply [F5] to the finite weighted sum with weights qxy/2 and the factors f(x)−f(y) and f(x)+f(y). It bounds the integral above by E(f)⋅12∑x,yqxy(f(x)+f(y))2; using (a+b)2≤2a2+2b2 and the row and column sums makes the second factor at most 2∥f∥2,π2. If f≠0, division yields E(f)≥(ϕ2/2)∥f∥2,π2; for f=0 it is immediate.

2.2givenF1F2F3step 1.1choosealgebra

Let g be a real function with ∑xπ(x)g(x)=0. A weighted median m exists by sorting the finitely many values of g until their cumulative π-mass reaches 1/2; hence each of g+=(g−m)+ and g−=(m−g)+ has support mass at most 1/2. For every pair x,y, ((g−m)(x)−(g−m)(y))2≥(g+(x)−g+(y))2+(g−(x)−g−(y))2. Therefore step 1.1 gives E(g)=E(g−m)≥E(g+)+E(g−).

3.1step 2.1step 2.2algebra

Apply steps 2.1 and 2.2 to g+ and g−. Their squared norms sum to ∥g−m∥2,π2=∥g∥2,π2+m2≥∥g∥2,π2 because g has mean zero. Thus E(g)≥(ϕ2/2)∥g∥2,π2.

4.1givenF2F3F4F5step 3.1algebra∎

Detailed balance makes P self-adjoint for ⟨⋅,⋅⟩π, since exchanging x,y in the finite sum proves ⟨f,Pg⟩π=⟨Pf,g⟩π. Constants are 1-eigenvectors. For any complex-valued f, weighted Cauchy–Schwarz and the row sums give ∣Pf(x)∣2=∣∑yP(x,y)f(y)∣2≤∑yP(x,y)∣f(y)∣2. Summing against π(x) and using stationarity gives ∥Pf∥2,π≤∥f∥2,π. Thus every eigenvalue is at most 1 and 1 is the top eigenvalue. If a real function satisfies Pf=f, choose a state where it attains its maximum. Its value is a convex average of neighboring values, so every state reached with positive transition probability has the same maximum; irreducibility propagates this to every state. Thus the real 1-eigenspace consists only of constants. For a complex 1-eigenvector, its real and imaginary parts are real 1-eigenvectors, so the same conclusion holds. By [F4], choose an orthonormal eigenbasis with first vector the normalized constant vector and eigenvalues 1=λ1>λ2≥⋯. Expanding any mean-zero vector in the remaining basis vectors shows directly that its Rayleigh quotient for I−P is a weighted average of 1−λj, whose minimum is 1−λ2. Step 3.1 bounds every real mean-zero quotient below by ϕ2/2; applying that inequality to the real and imaginary parts gives the same bound for complex vectors. This proves the claim. A possible negative eigenvalue near −1 does not affect the algebraic gap.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

23 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