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.

Hedge and online gradient descent

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Logical flowchart

3 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

AlgorithmAlgorithm: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Hedge

Definition

Let N,T≥1 be integers, let [N]={1,…,N} be the expert set, and let ϵ>0. At each round t=1,…,T, a finite loss vector ℓt=(ℓt(1),…,ℓt(N))∈[0,∞)N is revealed after the learner's choice. Initialize W1(i)=1 for every i∈[N]. At round t, set xt(i):=Wt(i)∑j=1NWt(j),i∈[N], Let Ht−1 be the pre-round history sigma-algebra generated by the previously played choices and all previously revealed loss vectors (any random loss vector is assumed measurable on the protocol's probability space). The weights and xt are Ht−1-measurable. Draw a measurable expert choice It∈[N] with conditional distribution P(It=i∣Ht−1)=xt(i)almost surely,i∈[N], and play It. After observing the whole vector ℓt, update Wt+1(i):=Wt(i)exp⁡(−ϵℓt(i)),i∈[N]. The output is the distributions x1,…,xT, the sampled choices I1,…,IT, and the final weights. The protocol assumes a probability space carrying the stated measurable draws; no probability-space construction is claimed.

Definition references

Online decision protocol: the learner chooses before current-round feedback and its randomized choices are measurable.

Adversary and feedback models: full-information feedback reveals the entire expert-loss vector after the learner's choice.

Random elements and real random variables: each sampled expert is a measurable finite-valued random element.

The real exponential function and the number e by a power series: the update uses the real exponential function.

Hedge's second-order and static-regret bounds ↗: proof step 2.1 establishes positive finite weights and normalizers by induction for every finite nonnegative loss sequence, independently of the fixed-loss assumption used later for expected regret.

AlgorithmAlgorithm: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableOpen item page →

Projected online gradient descent

Definition

Let d,T≥1 be integers, let K⊆Rd be nonempty, closed, and convex, and let D,G≥0 be finite real bounds such that ∥u−v∥2≤D for all u,v∈K and ∥gt∥2≤G. Supply an initial point x1∈K. At each round t=1,…,T, the learner plays xt and then receives the full loss function ft or the prescribed vector gt. The smooth branch takes ft:Ut→R differentiable and convex on an open convex set Ut⊇K, with gt=∇ft(xt). The nonsmooth branch takes a convex function ft:Ct→R on a convex set Ct⊇K and a supplied gt∈∂ft(xt), where ∂ft(xt) consists of vectors g satisfying ft(y)≥ft(xt)+⟨g,y−xt⟩ for every y∈Ct; require explicitly that this inequality holds for every u∈K.

If D=0 or G=0, set xt+1=xt at every round. If D,G>0, assume the Axiom of Countable Choice for the metric projection. Set ηt=D/(Gt), put yt+1=xt−ηtgt, and set xt+1=PK(yt+1), the unique point of K minimizing Euclidean distance to yt+1. Return the decisions x1,…,xT. Equip Rd with its Euclidean Borel σ-algebra and K with the relative Borel σ-algebra. For random inputs, require x1 to be a measurable K-valued random element and each gt, whether supplied directly or computed as ∇ft(xt) in the smooth branch, to be a measurable Rd-valued random element on the protocol's probability space. The vector update is continuous, and the nonexpansive projection is continuous, so each projected update remains measurable.

Definition references

Online decision protocol: the learner plays before receiving current-round feedback.

Adversary and feedback models: full-information feedback reveals the current loss function after the choice.

Random elements and real random variables: randomized decisions and gradient inputs are measurable random elements.

The Euclidean inner product ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn: the inner product and norm on Rd are the standard Euclidean ones.

The metric topology: a set is open when every one of its points has a ball around it inside the set; closed means open complement: open neighborhoods and closed decision sets are taken in the Euclidean metric topology.

A convex subset of Rm contains every line segment between two of its points: a convex decision set contains the segment between any two of its points.

Convex and strictly convex functions on Euclidean convex sets: convexity of a loss on its domain.

Differentiable convex functions are characterized by the gradient inequality: on an open convex domain, differentiable convex losses satisfy the gradient inequality.

The Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives and the gradient in the scalar-valued case: ∇ft(xt) is the vector of scalar partial derivatives in the standard Euclidean coordinates.

Subgradients and the subdifferential of a convex function: the nonsmooth subgradient is a vector satisfying the stated supporting inequality on the function's domain.

The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω): Countable Choice is assumed only in the nondegenerate branch that invokes projection existence.

Hilbert space: a real Hilbert space is a complete real inner-product space.

R and Rn for n≥1 with the Euclidean metric are complete, componentwise from the Cauchy criterion in R: Rd with its Euclidean metric is complete for d≥1.

Projection onto a nonempty closed convex set: under Countable Choice, each point of a real Hilbert space has a unique nearest point in a nonempty closed convex set.

The metric projection onto a closed convex set is nonexpansive: the metric projection is nonexpansive and therefore continuous.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

Hedge's second-order and static-regret bounds

Statement

Let N,T≥1 be integers and let ϵ>0. Let ℓt(i)≥0 be a finite real loss for every t∈{1,…,T} and i∈[N]={1,…,N}. Run Hedge with W1(i)=1, xt(i)=Wt(i)/∑j=1NWt(j), measurable draws It satisfying P(It=i)=xt(i), and updates Wt+1(i)=Wt(i)exp⁡(−ϵℓt(i)). Assume the entire loss-vector sequence is fixed before the learner's random choices. For every fixed expert i⋆∈[N], writing ℓt(2)(i)=ℓt(i)2, one has

∑t=1T∑i=1Nxt(i)ℓt(i)≤∑t=1Tℓt(i⋆)+ϵ∑t=1T∑i=1Nxt(i)ℓt(2)(i)+log⁡Nϵ,

where log⁡ is the natural logarithm.

If every loss lies in [0,1] and N≥2, choosing ϵ=log⁡N/T gives expected static regret at most 2Tlog⁡N:

E ⁣[∑t=1Tℓt(It)−min⁡i∈[N]∑t=1Tℓt(i)]≤2Tlog⁡N.

For N=1, the expected static regret is 0.

Statement references

Hedge: the initial weights, normalized expert probabilities, sampled actions, and exponential update.

Online decision protocol: the learner chooses before current-round feedback.

Adversary and feedback models: full-information feedback and an oblivious loss sequence.

Static, dynamic, interval, and strongly adaptive regret: realized and expected static regret against a fixed comparator.

Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable: expectation as a Lebesgue integral for bounded sampled losses.

The natural logarithm as the inverse of the exponential function: the natural logarithm is the inverse of the real exponential.

Order, continuity, range, and the product, quotient, and reciprocal laws for the natural logarithm: the natural logarithm is strictly increasing and log⁡1=0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Positive integers N,T, a learning rate ϵ>0, nonnegative finite expert losses, and the Hedge updates in the Statement.

[A1]

Adversary and feedback models: an oblivious adversary fixes the whole loss sequence before learner randomization; full-information feedback reveals the entire expert-loss vector after the choice.

[F1]

Hedge: W1(i)=1, xt(i)=Wt(i)/∑jWt(j), and Wt+1(i)=Wt(i)exp⁡(−ϵℓt(i)).

[F3]

The exponential is positive and satisfies exp⁡(−x)=1/exp⁡(x): exp⁡(z)>0 and exp⁡(−z)=1/exp⁡(z) for every real z.

[F4]

The exponential addition formula exp⁡(x+y)=exp⁡(x)exp⁡(y): exp⁡(a+b)=exp⁡(a)exp⁡(b) for all real a,b.

[F5]

The exponential function is strictly increasing: the real exponential is strictly increasing.

[F6]

The natural logarithm as the inverse of the exponential function: for x>0, exp⁡(log⁡x)=x.

[F8]

The expectation of an indicator is the probability of the event: for each measurable event A, E[1A]=P(A).

[F9]

Linearity, monotonicity, and the modulus bound for expectation: expectation is linear on integrable random variables.

[F10]

Static, dynamic, interval, and strongly adaptive regret: static regret is loss minus the finite-horizon loss minimum, and expected regret is the expectation of the realized regret when it is measurable and integrable.

[F11]

Online decision protocol: the learner chooses using only its previous history and does not observe the current loss before its choice.

[F12]

Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable: expectation is defined for nonnegative or integrable random variables.

Proof

1.1F2F3algebra

For every z≥0, [F2] gives exp⁡(z)≥1+z>0, so [F3] gives exp⁡(−z)≤1/(1+z). Since (1−z+z2)(1+z)=1+z3≥1 and 1+z>0, one also has 1/(1+z)≤1−z+z2. Thus exp⁡(−z)≤1−z+z2 for all z≥0.

2.1F1F3step 1.1F2algebra

Put St=∑i=1NWt(i), mt=∑ixt(i)ℓt(i), and qt=∑ixt(i)ℓt(i)2. By [F3], every factor exp⁡(−ϵℓt(i)) is a positive finite real. Starting with W1(i)=1, [F1] therefore gives positive finite weights through round T+1 by induction, so St>0 is finite and xt is a probability vector. This induction is pointwise and does not require the loss sequence to be fixed before randomization. Applying step 1.1 to z=ϵℓt(i) and summing with weights xt(i) gives St+1=St∑ixt(i)exp⁡(−ϵℓt(i))≤St(1−ϵmt+ϵ2qt)≤Stexp⁡(−ϵmt+ϵ2qt), where the last inequality is [F2].

3.1F1F4F5F6step 2.1algebra

Dividing the positive ratios from step 2.1 by St and multiplying over t, then using [F4] and S1=N, gives ST+1≤Nexp⁡(−ϵ∑tmt+ϵ2∑tqt). For any fixed i⋆, [F1] also gives ST+1≥WT+1(i⋆)=exp⁡(−ϵ∑tℓt(i⋆)). Since N=exp⁡(log⁡N) by [F6], combining the bounds and applying [F5] yields −ϵ∑tℓt(i⋆)≤log⁡N−ϵ∑tmt+ϵ2∑tqt.

4.1givenstep 3.1algebra

Rearranging step 3.1 and dividing by ϵ>0 gives ∑tmt≤∑tℓt(i⋆)+ϵ∑tqt+log⁡(N)/ϵ, which is the first assertion.

5.1givenF7step 4.1choosealgebra

For losses in [0,1], qt≤∑ixt(i)=1. Since [N] is finite and nonempty, fix i⋆ attaining min⁡i∑tℓt(i). If N≥2, then N>1 and [F7] gives log⁡N>log⁡1=0, so ϵ=log⁡N/T is positive; step 4.1 now gives the deterministic mixed-loss regret bound ϵT+log⁡N/ϵ=2Tlog⁡N. If N=1, the only sampled expert is the only comparator, so the static regret is zero.

6.1A1givenF1F8F9F10F11F12step 5.1algebra∎

For each t, ℓt(It)=∑i=1Nℓt(i)1{It=i}. By [A1], the entire loss sequence is fixed before randomization; [F11] gives the choice-before-feedback order, and [F1] makes every xt deterministic from the fixed losses and previous updates. Thus [F8]–[F9] give E[ℓt(It)]=∑iℓt(i)P(It=i)=mt and E[∑tℓt(It)]=∑tmt. The bounded losses are measurable by the algorithm's protocol and integrable by [F12]. Subtracting the deterministic best-expert loss proves the expected static-regret assertion from step 5.1 using [F10].

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

Projected online gradient descent has static regret at most three-halves of DG square-root T

Statement

Let d,T≥1 be integers, let K⊆Rd be nonempty, closed, and convex, and let D,G≥0 be finite bounds such that ∥u−v∥2≤D for all u,v∈K and ∥gt∥2≤G for every round. Supply x1∈K. On each round, either ft is differentiable and convex on an open convex neighborhood of K and gt=∇ft(xt), or ft:Ct→R is convex on a convex set Ct⊇K and a vector gt∈∂ft(xt) is supplied with ft(u)≥ft(xt)+⟨gt,u−xt⟩ explicitly required for every u∈K; here ∂ft(xt) is the set of vectors satisfying that supporting inequality for every point of Ct. Run projected online gradient descent with ηt=D/(Gt) when D,G>0, and with the no-op branch xt+1=xt if D=0 or G=0. Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice only when D,G>0. For every realization satisfying these hypotheses and every u∈K, ∑t=1T(ft(xt)−ft(u))≤32DGT. If D=0 or G=0, this sum is nonpositive. Whenever the finite-horizon loss sum attains a finite minimum on K, the static regret, defined as ∑t=1Tft(xt)−min⁡u∈K∑t=1Tft(u), is therefore at most 32DGT.

Statement references

Projected online gradient descent: the projected update and its degenerate branches.

Static, dynamic, interval, and strongly adaptive regret: static regret uses a finite attained minimum.

The metric topology: a set is open when every one of its points has a ball around it inside the set; closed means open complement: open neighborhoods and closed subsets are understood in the Euclidean metric topology.

A convex subset of Rm contains every line segment between two of its points: convex sets contain the segment between any two points.

Convex and strictly convex functions on Euclidean convex sets: convexity of a real-valued function on its domain.

The Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives and the gradient in the scalar-valued case: the gradient is the vector of scalar partial derivatives in Euclidean coordinates.

Subgradients and the subdifferential of a convex function: the subdifferential consists of vectors satisfying the supporting inequality on the function's domain.

The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω): Countable Choice is used only for projection existence in the nondegenerate branch.

Projection onto a nonempty closed convex set: a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space has a unique nearest point under Countable Choice.

Metric projection onto a closed convex set satisfies the variational inequality: the metric projection satisfies the Euclidean variational inequality.

The metric projection onto a closed convex set is nonexpansive: the metric projection is continuous.

Differentiable convex functions are characterized by the gradient inequality: the smooth branch satisfies the comparator inequality.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The dimensions, horizon, decision set, diameter and gradient bounds in the Statement; the initial point and one of the stated smooth or subgradient branches on each round.

[A1]

The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω): for D,G>0, Countable Choice is assumed for the existence theorem for nearest points.

[F2]

Projection onto a nonempty closed convex set: under Countable Choice, for each y∈Rd there is a unique PK(y)∈K minimizing ∥y−z∥2 over z∈K.

[F3]

Metric projection onto a closed convex set satisfies the variational inequality: if p=PK(y), then ⟨y−p,v−p⟩≤0 for every v∈K.

[F4]

The metric projection onto a closed convex set is nonexpansive: ∥PK(y)−PK(z)∥2≤∥y−z∥2, so PK is continuous.

[F5]

Differentiable convex functions are characterized by the gradient inequality: for a differentiable convex function on an open convex domain, ft(u)≥ft(xt)+⟨∇ft(xt),u−xt⟩.

[F6]

Subgradients and the subdifferential of a convex function: gt∈∂ft(xt) gives the supporting inequality on the convex domain, and the Statement explicitly requires it for every u∈K.

[F7]

Static, dynamic, interval, and strongly adaptive regret: static regret uses the finite-horizon minimum only when it is finite and attained.

[F8]

The metric topology: a set is open when every one of its points has a ball around it inside the set; closed means open complement: a set is closed when its complement is open; open sets contain a ball around each of their points.

[F10]

The Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives and the gradient in the scalar-valued case: ∇ft(xt) denotes the standard vector of partial derivatives.

[F11]

Projected online gradient descent: for random inputs, Rd and K have their Euclidean and relative Borel σ-algebras, and x1 and every direction gt, whether supplied or computed as a smooth gradient, are measurable random elements of those spaces.

Proof

1.1givenF1F5F6algebra

If D=0, the diameter condition and nonemptiness make K a singleton, so xt=u and every loss difference is zero. If G=0, then gt=0 by the positive-definite Euclidean norm in [F1], and [F5] or [F6] gives ft(xt)−ft(u)≤0 on each round; the sum is nonpositive. These branches use no projection and no choice axiom. Hence assume D,G>0.

1.2A1F1F2F4F8F11givenalgebra

By [A1], [F1], [F2], and the closedness of K in the metric topology [F8], the nondegenerate algorithm has a unique projection at every update. For random inputs, [F11] gives K and Rd their relative and Euclidean Borel σ-algebras; the inclusion K↪Rd and vector update are continuous, and [F4] makes PK continuous. Therefore their composition preserves measurability of each iterate.

2.1F1F3step 1.2givenalgebra

Fix u∈K, put at=∥xt−u∥22, yt+1=xt−ηtgt, and xt+1=PK(yt+1). By [F3], ⟨yt+1−xt+1,u−xt+1⟩≤0, whence ∥yt+1−u∥22−∥xt+1−u∥22=∥yt+1−xt+1∥22+2⟨yt+1−xt+1,xt+1−u⟩≥0. Expanding yt+1 therefore gives at+1≤at−2ηt⟨gt,xt−u⟩+ηt2∥gt∥22.

3.1F5F6F9F10givenstep 2.1algebra

The stated domains are convex by [F9], and [F10] identifies the smooth-branch vector gt with the gradient in Euclidean coordinates. Thus in the smooth branch [F5] gives ft(xt)−ft(u)≤⟨gt,xt−u⟩; in the nonsmooth branch the same inequality is an explicit hypothesis in the Statement and follows from [F6]. Rearranging step 2.1 and using ∥gt∥2≤G yields ft(xt)−ft(u)≤(at−at+1)/(2ηt)+ηtG2/2.

4.1givenstep 3.1algebra

Since xt,u∈K, the diameter hypothesis gives 0≤at≤D2 for every t, while aT+1≥0. Also 1/ηt=Gt/D is nondecreasing because D,G>0. Summing step 3.1 gives ∑t=1T(ft(xt)−ft(u))≤D2/(2ηT)+(G2/2)∑t=1Tηt. The exact telescoping identity is ∑t=1T(at−at+1)/ηt=a1/η1+∑t=2Tat(1/ηt−1/ηt−1)−aT+1/ηT. Every coefficient 1/ηt−1/ηt−1 is nonnegative, so at≤D2 and aT+1≥0 bound this by D2(1/η1+∑t=2T(1/ηt−1/ηt−1))=D2/ηT.

5.1givenstep 4.1algebra

With ηt=D/(Gt), the first term in step 4.1 is DGT/2. For every integer t≥1, 1/t≤2(t−t−1) because t+t−1≤2t; summing telescopically gives ∑t=1T1/t≤2T. Thus the second term is at most DGT, proving the pointwise comparator bound.

6.1F7step 5.1algebra∎

If the finite-horizon loss sum attains a finite minimum at u⋆∈K, substitute u⋆ into the bound just proved. The left side becomes the static regret of [F7], giving the stated static-regret consequence.

4 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources