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
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Algebraic Closure, Embeddings, and Separability
- Algebraic Extensions, Extension Degree, and Finite Fields
- Areas of Elementary Plane Figures
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Central Limit Theorems
- Characteristic Functions Inversion and Continuity
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Complex Lp Spaces and Test-Function Conventions
- Composition Series, the Jordan–Hölder Theorem and Solvable Groups
- Conditional Distributions and Regular Conditional Probability
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Convexity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Countability Axioms and Cardinal Functions
- Cyclic Groups and Direct Products
- Darboux, L'Hôpital, and Taylor's Theorem
- Density Separability and Convolution in Lᵖ
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Diagonalisation and the Minimal Polynomial
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Domination and Likelihood Ratios
- Dual Spaces, Bilinear and Quadratic Forms, and Sylvester's Law of Inertia
- Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors and the Characteristic Polynomial
- Estimators and Randomized Procedures
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite Probability and the Probabilistic Method
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Fourier Transform Convolution and Approximate Identities
- Fubini and Change of Variables
- Fundamental Trigonometric Identities
- Gaussian Elimination, Elementary Matrices and Reduced Row Echelon Form
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Hausdorff via the Diagonal
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Improper and Parameter-Dependent Multiple Integrals
- Improper Integrals
- Independence Borel Cantelli and Zero One Laws
- Infinite Product Measures and Kolmogorov Extension
- Inner Product Spaces, Gram-Schmidt, Projections and Adjoints
- Lebesgue Measure on Euclidean Space
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Loss, Risk and Decision Theory
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Minimax Lower Bounds
- Mixed Partials, Taylor Formulae, and Extrema
- Modes of Convergence Egorov and Lusin
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Outer Measure and the Caratheodory Extension Theorem
- Partitions of Unity and Paracompactness
- Pointwise Extended-Real Function Products
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Primes, Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Product Measures and the Fubini Tonelli Theorems
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Radon Measures and the Riesz Markov Kakutani Theorem
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Separation Axioms: the Hierarchy
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Signed and Complex Measures Hahn and Jordan
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Sine, Cosine, and the Definition of Pi
- Splitting Fields
- Stationary Markov Chains and Ergodic Limits
- Statistical Experiments, Models and Identifiability
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- Sylow's Theorems, p-Groups and Nilpotent Groups
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- The Cantor Set, Baire Category, and Measure Zero in ℝ
- The Complex Exponential and Euler's Formula
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Determinant of a Linear Operator, Cofactors and Cramer's Rule
- The Exponential Function
- The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
- The Fundamental Theorem of Finite Abelian Groups
- The Galois Correspondence
- The Integral Logarithm and the Equivalence of Its Characterisations
- The Inverse and Implicit Function Theorems
- The Lebesgue and Riemann Integrals Compared
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Lᵖ Spaces Holder Minkowski and Riesz Fischer
- The Maximal Function and Lebesgue Differentiation
- The Radon Nikodym Theorem and Lebesgue Decomposition
- The Riemann Integral in Rᵐ and Jordan Content
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Spectral Theorem, Positive Operators and Singular Value Decomposition
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Urysohn's Lemma and the Tietze Extension Theorem
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
- Weak Convergence Tightness and Representation
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 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
A Gaussian two-point lower bound
Example
Let and . Observe independent , and estimate the scalar mean under squared-error loss. Restrict the parameter set to The minimax risk over this two-point experiment is at least
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The two-point Gaussian location experiment, with independent observations and arbitrary randomized estimators under squared-error loss.
Standard normal and normal laws and Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance: the observation vector has the product law , with independent normal coordinates.
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.
KL divergence between equal-variance Gaussian location laws: equal-variance normal location laws satisfy .
Additivity of KL divergence for finite product laws: for finite product laws, KL divergence is the sum of the factor divergences.
Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: under the event-supremum convention, .
Two-point Le Cam lower bound for squared-error risk: two scalar targets separated by have minimax squared-error risk at least .
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
The finite parameter set defines a measurable experiment by [F7]. The target gap is . By [F2] and [F3], Pinsker [F4] therefore gives .
Apply [F5] with this gap and total-variation bound: This is the claimed minimax risk bound under [F6].
A sparse Gaussian sequence lower bound by Fano’s method
Example
Assume AC. Let , , and be integers. Observe with independent coordinates , and estimate under squared Euclidean loss over For a randomized kernel to , set and define the minimax value here as . There is a universal lower bound where ranges over randomized estimators. The range uses the local packing lemma proved on the A page.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, the sparse Gaussian sequence family, the stated range of , and an arbitrary randomized estimator with values in .
Standard normal and normal laws and Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance: is realized by with independent standard-normal coordinates, hence has the specified independent scalar normal marginals.
A sparse Hamming packing for every : for there is a finite code whose binary vectors have exactly ones, pairwise squared distance greater than , and cardinality satisfying .
KL divergence between equal-variance Gaussian location laws and Additivity of KL divergence for finite product laws: in the stated independent Gaussian model,
Fano’s packing bound with a reference-distribution KL bound: under AC, for equally weighted hypotheses with target separation at least and average KL to a reference at most , every randomized estimator's average squared-error risk is at least .
Two-point Le Cam lower bound for squared-error risk: for a scalar action kernel to and two scalar targets separated by , the maximum squared-error risk is at least .
Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: under the event-supremum convention.
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.
The natural logarithm as the inverse of the exponential function, The integral logarithm for , The integral logarithm is the published natural logarithm, The real exponential function and the number by a power series, and Order, continuity, range, and the product, quotient, and reciprocal laws for the natural logarithm: is increasing and obeys its product law; since , , so when ; also .
Proof
By [F2], choose a code of size with associated , each having exactly ones and pairwise squared distance greater than . Its logarithmic size is positive because by [F8], so .
Suppose . The size bound in [F2] implies by [F8]. The two means and , where , both belong to because . Let be first-coordinate projection and define the scalar action kernel for every Borel . Since is Borel, each is the pushforward probability under and is measurable, so [F5] applies to . For , define . The pushforward integral identity here follows from the definition of for indicators and then for nonnegative functions by simple approximation; together with , it gives . The scalar target gap is . The KL divergence of the two full observation laws is by [F3], so [F6] gives . Applying [F5] to the scalar kernel and these two laws yields , and therefore . Since , this exceeds .
Suppose . Put and . These means belong to , and their pairwise squared distances exceed by step 1.1.
Take , the zero-mean Gaussian law. By [F3], for every , Thus the average reference divergence equals .
Since , : the strict inequality follows from , using , monotonicity, and the product law in [F8]. Thus . Apply [F4] with separation and reference . Every estimator's average risk on the code is at least The supremum over dominates this finite-code average.
In the case, , so step 4.1 implies the claimed bound. In the case it follows from step 2.1. For every estimator, the supremum risk over 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.
A dense Gaussian mean lower bound by Assouad’s method
Example
Let , , and observe with independent coordinates . Estimate under squared Euclidean loss over the dense hypercube . Then the minimax risk satisfies
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite Gaussian hypercube experiment and an arbitrary randomized estimator with values in .
Standard normal and normal laws and Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance: the law has independent scalar normal coordinates with means and variance .
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.
KL divergence between equal-variance Gaussian location laws and Additivity of KL divergence for finite product laws: KL divergence between these product laws is .
Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: under the event-supremum convention, .
Assouad lower bound for a squared-error hypercube: for coordinate spacing and largest neighboring-law TV , squared-error minimax risk is at least .
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
Let , so the parameter set is ; this finite parameter set makes the model a measurable kernel by [F6]. Neighboring vertices differ in one coordinate. By [F2], their KL divergence is Pinsker [F3] therefore bounds every neighboring total-variation distance by .
Apply [F4] with this spacing and : The action and loss are those specified in [F5], which proves the example.
Sources
- Philippe Rigollet and Jan-Christian Hütter, High-Dimensional Statistics: Lecture Notes, Chapter 4, §§4.3 and 4.5
- John Duchi, Lecture Notes on Statistics and Information Theory, Chapter 8, §8.3, Example 8.3.1
- Philippe Rigollet and Jan-Christian Hütter, High-Dimensional Statistics: Lecture Notes, Chapter 4, §4.5, sparse Varshamov–Gilbert Lemma 4.14 and Gaussian sequence application
- John Duchi, Lecture Notes on Statistics and Information Theory, Chapter 8, §§8.2.3, 8.4 and 8.7
- John Duchi, Lecture Notes on Statistics and Information Theory, Chapter 8, §8.5.3, Example 8.5.3 and §8.8.3