Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-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.

Minimax Lower Bounds — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples apply the proved methods to a two-point Gaussian location experiment, a sparse Gaussian sequence, and a dense Gaussian mean hypercube. Product KL additivity and the Gaussian location formula give each divergence; Pinsker converts KL to total variation for the Le Cam and Assouad applications. The sparse example uses the local packing proof for all 1≤k≤d/2 and handles the two-point packing-size boundary separately. The Gaussian-law suppliers retain their AC assumptions. All risks allow randomized estimators and use squared error.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A Gaussian two-point lower bound

Example

Let n≥1 and σ>0. Observe independent X1,…,Xn∼N(θ,σ2), and estimate the scalar mean θ under squared-error loss. Restrict the parameter set to θ0=−σ4n,θ1=σ4n. The minimax risk over this two-point experiment is at least 3σ2128n.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The two-point Gaussian location experiment, with independent observations and arbitrary randomized estimators under squared-error loss.

[F1]

Standard normal and normal laws and Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance: the observation vector has the product law Nn(θ1,σ2In), with independent normal coordinates.

[F7]

Statistical experiments and Parameter-measurable statistical models as kernels: the model assigns one probability law to each parameter; because this parameter set is finite with its power-set sigma-algebra, the assignment is a measurable probability kernel.

[F2]

KL divergence between equal-variance Gaussian location laws: equal-variance normal location laws satisfy D(N(a,τ2)∥N(b,τ2))=(a−b)2/(2τ2).

[F3]

Additivity of KL divergence for finite product laws: for finite product laws, KL divergence is the sum of the factor divergences.

[F4]

Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: under the event-supremum convention, ∥P−Q∥TV≤D(P∥Q)/2.

[F5]

Two-point Le Cam lower bound for squared-error risk: two scalar targets separated by Δ have minimax squared-error risk at least Δ2(1−∥P0−P1∥TV)/8.

[F6]

Loss functions and risk, Randomized procedures as probability kernels, and Bayes risk and minimax risk: risk is the kernel expectation of the loss; minimax risk takes the infimum over randomized procedures of their maximum risk.

Proof

1.1F1F2F3F4F7givenalgebra

The finite parameter set defines a measurable experiment by [F7]. The target gap is Δ=θ1−θ0=σ/(2n). By [F2] and [F3], D(Pθ1∥Pθ0)=nΔ22σ2=18. Pinsker [F4] therefore gives ∥Pθ0−Pθ1∥TV≤(1/8)/2=1/4.

2.1F5F6step 1.1algebra∎

Apply [F5] with this gap and total-variation bound: inf⁡Kmax⁡j=0,1Rθj(K)≥Δ28(1−14)=σ24n⋅332=3σ2128n. This is the claimed minimax risk bound under [F6].

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

A sparse Gaussian sequence lower bound by Fano’s method

Example

Assume AC. Let d,n≥1, σ>0, and 1≤k≤d/2 be integers. Observe Y∈Rd with independent coordinates Yj∼N(μj,σ2/n), and estimate μ under squared Euclidean loss over Θk,d={μ∈Rd:#{j:μj≠0}≤k}. For a randomized kernel K to Rd, set Rμ(K)=∫Rd∫Rd∥a−μ∥22K(y,da)Pμ(dy), and define the minimax value here as inf⁡Ksup⁡μ∈Θk,dRμ(K). There is a universal lower bound inf⁡Ksup⁡μ∈Θk,dRμ(K)≥σ2200000n klog⁡ ⁣(edk), where K ranges over randomized estimators. The range 1≤k≤d/2 uses the local packing lemma proved on the A page.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, the sparse Gaussian sequence family, the stated range of k,d, and an arbitrary randomized estimator K with values in Rd.

[F1]

Standard normal and normal laws and Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance: Nd(μ,τ2Id) is realized by μ+τZ with independent standard-normal coordinates, hence has the specified independent scalar normal marginals.

[F2]

A sparse Hamming packing for every 1≤k≤d/2: for 1≤k≤d/2 there is a finite code whose binary vectors have exactly k ones, pairwise squared distance greater than k/2, and cardinality M satisfying log⁡M≥(k/1024)log⁡(ed/k).

[F3]

KL divergence between equal-variance Gaussian location laws and Additivity of KL divergence for finite product laws: in the stated independent Gaussian model, D(Pμ∥Pν)=n2σ2∥μ−ν∥22.

[F4]

Fano’s packing bound with a reference-distribution KL bound: under AC, for M equally weighted hypotheses with target separation at least Δ and average KL to a reference Q at most KQ, every randomized estimator's average squared-error risk is at least Δ2(1−(KQ+log⁡2)/log⁡M)/4.

[F5]

Two-point Le Cam lower bound for squared-error risk: for a scalar action kernel to R and two scalar targets separated by δ, the maximum squared-error risk is at least δ2(1−TV)/8.

[F6]

Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: TV(P,Q)≤D(P∥Q)/2 under the event-supremum convention.

[F7]

Loss functions and risk and Randomized procedures as probability kernels: each parameter risk is the nonnegative iterated kernel integral of its squared-error loss, with no measurability requirement on the parameter index for this pointwise risk.

Proof

1.1F2F8givenalgebra

By [F2], choose a code C of size M with associated uω∈{0,1}d, each having exactly k ones and pairwise squared distance greater than k/2. Its logarithmic size is positive because ed/k≥2e>1 by [F8], so M≥2.

2.1F2F3F5F6F7F8step 1.1algebra

Suppose M=2. The size bound in [F2] implies klog⁡(ed/k)≤1024log⁡2<1024 by [F8]. The two means μ0=0 and μ1=be1, where b=σ/(2n), both belong to Θk,d because k≥1. Let π1:Rd→R be first-coordinate projection and define the scalar action kernel K1(y,B):=K(y,π1−1(B)) for every Borel B⊆R. Since π1 is Borel, each K1(y,⋅) is the pushforward probability under π1 and y↦K1(y,B) is measurable, so [F5] applies to K1. For j=0,1, define Rj(1)(K1):=∫Rd∫R(x−μ1j)2K1(y,dx)Pμj(dy). The pushforward integral identity here follows from the definition of K1 for indicators and then for nonnegative functions by simple approximation; together with ∥z−μj∥22≥(z1−μ1j)2, it gives Rμj(K)≥Rj(1)(K1). The scalar target gap is b. The KL divergence of the two full observation laws is nb2/(2σ2)=1/8 by [F3], so [F6] gives ∥Pμ0−Pμ1∥TV≤1/4. Applying [F5] to the scalar kernel and these two laws yields max⁡jRj(1)(K1)≥b2(1−1/4)/8=3b2/32=3σ2/(128n), and therefore max⁡jRμj(K)≥3σ2/(128n). Since 1024/200000<3/128, this exceeds σ2klog⁡(ed/k)/(200000n).

2.2F2step 1.1algebra

Suppose M≥3. Put a2=σ2log⁡M/(4nk) and μω=auω. These means belong to Θk,d, and their pairwise squared distances exceed a2k/2 by step 1.1.

3.1F1F3step 2.2algebra

Take Q=P0, the zero-mean Gaussian law. By [F3], for every ω∈C, D(Pμω∥P0)=n2σ2∥auω∥22=na2k2σ2=log⁡M8. Thus the average reference divergence equals log⁡M/8.

4.1F3F4F8step 2.2step 3.1algebra

Since M≥3, log⁡2/log⁡M≤log⁡2/log⁡3<2/3: the strict inequality follows from 3log⁡2=log⁡8<log⁡9=2log⁡3, using 8<9, monotonicity, and the product law in [F8]. Thus 1−((log⁡M)/8+log⁡2)/log⁡M≥7/8−2/3=5/24>1/5. Apply [F4] with separation Δ=ak/2 and reference P0. Every estimator's average risk on the code is at least Δ24⋅15=a2k40=σ2log⁡M160n≥σ2klog⁡(ed/k)163840n. The supremum over Θk,d dominates this finite-code average.

5.1F7step 2.1step 4.1algebra∎

In the M≥3 case, 1/163840>1/200000, so step 4.1 implies the claimed bound. In the M=2 case it follows from step 2.1. For every estimator, the supremum risk over Θk,d is at least the finite submodel average or two-point maximum just proved; taking the infimum over estimators in the defined minimax value preserves the bound.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A dense Gaussian mean lower bound by Assouad’s method

Example

Let d,n≥1, σ>0, and observe Y∈Rd with independent coordinates Yi∼N(θi,σ2/n). Estimate θ under squared Euclidean loss over the dense hypercube Θ={0,σ/n}d. Then the minimax risk satisfies inf⁡Ksup⁡θ∈ΘRθ(K)≥σ2d16n.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite Gaussian hypercube experiment and an arbitrary randomized estimator K with values in Rd.

[F1]

Standard normal and normal laws and Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance: the law Nd(θ,τ2Id) has independent scalar normal coordinates with means θi and variance τ2.

[F6]

Statistical experiments and Parameter-measurable statistical models as kernels: the finite parameter cube with its power-set sigma-algebra makes the Gaussian model a measurable probability kernel.

[F2]

KL divergence between equal-variance Gaussian location laws and Additivity of KL divergence for finite product laws: KL divergence between these product laws is n∥θ−θ′∥22/(2σ2).

[F3]

Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: under the event-supremum convention, TV(P,Q)≤D(P∥Q)/2.

[F4]

Assouad lower bound for a squared-error hypercube: for coordinate spacing a and largest neighboring-law TV v, squared-error minimax risk is at least a2d(1−v)/8.

[F5]

Loss functions and risk, Randomized procedures as probability kernels, Parameter-measurable statistical models as kernels, and Bayes risk and minimax risk: the finite model is a probability-kernel experiment, risk is the kernel integral of squared loss, and minimax risk is the infimum of worst-case risk over procedures.

Proof

1.1F1F2F3F6givenalgebra

Let a=σ/n, so the parameter set is {0,a}d; this finite parameter set makes the model a measurable kernel by [F6]. Neighboring vertices differ in one coordinate. By [F2], their KL divergence is na22σ2=12. Pinsker [F3] therefore bounds every neighboring total-variation distance by (1/2)/2=1/2.

2.1F4F5F6step 1.1algebra∎

Apply [F4] with this spacing and v≤1/2: inf⁡Ksup⁡θ∈{0,a}dRθ(K)≥a2d8(1−12)=σ2d16n. The action and loss are those specified in [F5], which proves the example.

Sources