Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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.

Validity of identity-corrected random-permutation Monte Carlo p-values

Statement

In a setup as in Measurable finite-group permutation setups, suppose every null law is invariant. Fix B≥0 and use either design of Identity-corrected random-permutation Monte Carlo p-value. With replacement, let W be the unordered transformation multiset, with multiplicity, represented by (e,g1,…,gB), where the gb are independent uniform draws from G. Without replacement, let W={e}∪S, where S is a uniformly selected B-subset of G∖{e} and B≤∣G∣−1. In both cases define pB(X,W):=#{g∈W:T(g⋅X)≥T(X)}B+1, counting multiplicity in the with-replacement case.

Let W be the finite set of possible transformation multisets for the with-replacement design or subsets for the without-replacement design, and let ν be the induced design law. On X×W use the joint experiment whose law at θ is P~θ(A):=∑w∈Wν(w) Pθ({x:(x,w)∈A}) for A in the product sigma-algebra. Then P~θ(pB(X,W)≤u)≤u(θ∈Θ0, 0≤u≤1). Thus pB is a valid p-value on the joint experiment and its cutoff has null rejection probability at most α. When a nonempty disjoint alternative is specified, the cutoff test has size at most α and is level α. The proof treats the uniform-subset design separately; the without-replacement formula is not inferred from the with-replacement case. If B=∣G∣−1 without replacement, W=G and the formula reduces to the full-orbit value of Exact finite-group permutation p-values and tests.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite group acting measurably, a measurable score, invariant null laws, an integer B≥0, and either independent uniform draws with replacement or a uniform B-subset of nonidentity transformations without replacement. Prove superuniformity including ties and the test conclusion.

[F1]

Measurable finite-group permutation setups: each null law is invariant under every group element and the score is measurable.

[F2]

Identity-corrected random-permutation Monte Carlo p-value: the with-replacement design uses the distinguished identity plus B IID uniform group draws; the without-replacement design adjoins the identity to a uniform subset of G∖{e}.

[F3]

Independent random elements: the simulation design and its auxiliary randomization are independent of the observed data; in the with-replacement proof the selected position is uniform and independent of the list, while in the without-replacement proof the selected element is uniform conditional on the sampled set.

[F4]

The uniform probability space on a nonempty finite set: a uniform law on a nonempty finite set gives each element the same probability.

[F5]

Tied upper ranks on a finite multiset: the inclusive upper rank of a uniformly selected index from any finite real-valued list is superuniform, with ties counted by index.

[F6]

Exact finite-group permutation p-values and tests: using all of G gives the full-orbit inclusive upper rank p-value under the same invariant-null premise.

[F7]

Valid p-values: a valid p-value is superuniform under each law in the nonempty null.

[F8]

Valid p-values yield level tests for nonempty disjoint alternatives: thresholding a valid p-value gives a level test.

[F9]

Randomized procedures as probability kernels, Randomized tests, and Every measurable rejection function defines a randomized test: a measurable rejection function in [0,1] defines a binary randomized test.

[F10]

Test size and power: size is the supremum over the null of the test's rejection probability.

[F11]

Statistical experiments: a statistical experiment is a measurable data space together with one probability measure on it for each parameter.

Proof

technique · recenter the transformation list at a uniformly selected position, then use a separate invariant-subset argument for sampling without replacement
1.1F1F2F11givenalgebra

For the selected design, W is finite. Every A∈A⊗2W has measurable sections Aw={x:(x,w)∈A}. The displayed finite sum P~θ(A)=∑wν(w)Pθ(Aw) is nonnegative with total mass one. For disjoint An, each section (⋃nAn)w is the disjoint union of (An)w, so countable additivity of Pθ and the finite sum over w give countable additivity of P~θ. Thus [F11] makes this a joint statistical experiment. For measurable real functions f,h, {f≥h} is measurable because {f<h}=⋃q∈Q{f<q}∩{h>q}. Therefore each section x↦pB(x,w) is measurable. Since W is finite, each sublevel set of pB is a finite union of measurable sections Aw×{w}, so pB is measurable on the joint space. The distinguished identity contributes one tied-or-higher value, so 1/(B+1)≤pB≤1; at B=0, W={e} and pB=1.

1.2F2F3F4givenconstruct

First use the with-replacement design. Represent W by its B+1 generating positions to choose an independent uniform position J, and write H for the entry at that position. The unordered multiset WH−1 has the same law as W: if J is the identity position it is unchanged; if J=j>0, right multiplication by H−1=gj−1 makes position j equal to e, makes the former identity position gj−1 uniform on G, and leaves the other B−1 draws conditionally independent uniform on G. Thus, after order is ignored, there is again one distinguished identity and B IID uniform group elements.

1.3F2F3F4construct

Now use the without-replacement design and put w=B+1. The possible sets W are the w-element subsets of G containing e, all equally likely. Given W, choose H uniformly from its w elements. The map (W,H)↦(WH−1,H) is a bijection from pairs with e∈W, ∣W∣=w, H∈W onto pairs (S,h) with e∈S, ∣S∣=w, h−1∈S: its inverse is (S,h)↦(Sh,h). Each fixed S in the image has exactly w possible h, so WH−1 has the same uniform-subset law as W.

2.1F1F3F5step 1.2algebra

Since X is independent of (W,J) and each fixed H∈G preserves its null law, conditioning on (W,J) gives H⋅X=dX. By step 1.2, WH−1 has the same design law as W, so (H⋅X,WH−1) and (X,W) have the same joint law. Now fix x and a labelled presentation of a with-replacement multiset W before drawing J. The value pB(H⋅x,WH−1) counts, with multiplicity, the entries w∈W for which T(w⋅x)≥T(H⋅x), because (wH−1)⋅(H⋅x)=w⋅x. As J is uniform over the B+1 positions, this is the inclusive upper rank of a uniform position in the score multiset (T(w⋅x))w∈W. By [F5] this rank is superuniform conditional on x,W; averaging and using the joint-law equality transfers the bound to pB(X,W). This proves the with-replacement case, with ties and duplicate transformations counted by position.

2.2F1F3F5step 1.3algebra

The auxiliary pair (W,H) is independent of X. For each fixed value of that pair, invariance gives H⋅X=dX; step 1.3 gives WH−1 the same design law as W. Hence (H⋅X,WH−1) and (X,W) have the same joint law. To bound the transformed p-value, fix x,W before drawing H. Conditional on W, H is uniform over its B+1 elements, and pB(H⋅x,WH−1) is the inclusive upper rank of that selected position in (T(g⋅x))g∈W, since (gH−1)⋅(H⋅x)=g⋅x. By [F5] this rank is superuniform conditional on x,W; averaging and using the joint-law equality transfers the bound to pB(X,W). This is a separate uniform-subset proof.

3.1F6F7F8F9F10F11step 1.1step 2.1step 2.2algebra∎

By [F7], the superuniform bounds in steps 2.1 and 2.2 make pB a valid p-value on the joint experiment. For each observed x, the probability over the finite simulation design of rejection is ϕα(x)=∑w∈Wν(w)1{pB(x,w)≤α}, a finite average of measurable indicators by step 1.1. By [F9], ϕα defines a binary randomized test on the original experiment. Its null rejection probability is Eθ[ϕα(X)]=P~θ(pB≤α)≤α, the rejection probability of the joint-experiment threshold test covered by [F8]. Thus, when a nonempty disjoint alternative is specified, [F10] gives size at most α and hence level α. When B=∣G∣−1 without replacement, the only possible set is W=G, so the formula agrees with [F6]. No choice axiom is used.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

43 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