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.

Finite-class PAC learning and ERM guarantees — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Logical flowchart

3 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

4 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Finite lookup tables have explicit PAC sample bounds

Example

Let d≥1, let X={1,…,d} have the discrete sigma-algebra, and let H be the class of all binary lookup tables on X. Then ∣H∣=2d. For any 0<ϵ,δ<1, the exact ERM is realizable (ϵ,δ)-PAC at every realizable law when m≥dlog⁡2+log⁡(1/δ)ϵ, and is agnostic (ϵ,δ)-PAC at every law when m≥2(dlog⁡2+log⁡(2/δ))ϵ2. The agnostic condition uses the same class and binary zero-one loss; these are sufficient sample sizes.

Example references

Realizable and agnostic PAC learning: defines the realizable and agnostic PAC probability guarantees used here.

Finite-class realizable and agnostic sample complexity: gives the realizable and agnostic finite-class sample-size conditions.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite discrete instance set of size d≥1, all binary lookup tables on it, and 0<ϵ,δ<1.

[F1]

For a finite class of size N, exact ERM has the stated realizable sample bound and the agnostic sample bound m≥2(log⁡N+log⁡(2/δ))/ϵ2. Finite-class realizable and agnostic sample complexity

[F2]

IID means mutually independent sample observations with one common law. Identical distribution and IID families

Verification

Given: The finite lookup-table class and sample-size parameters in the Example.

1.1givenconstruct

A table assigns one of two labels independently at each of the d inputs, so there are exactly 2d tables. Every table is measurable on the finite discrete space, and the class is nonempty.

2.1F1F2step 1.1algebra∎

[F2] gives the IID sample convention required by [F1]. Substitute N=2d into [F1] and use log⁡(2d)=dlog⁡2. The resulting sufficient sample-size conditions are exactly those in the Example.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Duplicate predictors do not enlarge the finite class

Example

Let (X,ΣX) be a measurable space, give {0,1} its discrete sigma-algebra, and use binary zero-one loss. Let L=(h1,…,hK) be a nonempty ordered finite list of measurable classifiers, and let H be the set of its q distinct classifiers, where 1≤q≤K. For any labeled sample S=((xi,yi))i=1m∈(X×{0,1})m with m≥1, put R^S(h)=m−1∑i=1m1{h(xi)≠yi} and, for a law P on X×{0,1}, put RP(h)=P{(x,y):h(x)≠y}. For every such sample and every finite tolerance η≥0, the finite-list ERM on L returns the same classifier as the procedure on the list formed by retaining only the first occurrence of each distinct classifier. Thus the empirical minimum and selected prediction rule are unchanged by duplicate entries. Let h^η(S) denote this finite-list ERM on L. For any such law P, 0≤η<ϵ<1, 0<δ<1, and positive integer m satisfying the following condition, if S is an IID sample of size m from P, then PS{RP(h^η(S))−inf⁡h∈HRP(h)≤ϵ}≥1−δ: m≥2(log⁡q+log⁡(2/δ))(ϵ−η)2 is sufficient for agnostic excess risk at most ϵ with probability at least 1−δ; the bound depends on q, not the original list length K.

Example references

Realizable and agnostic PAC learning: defines the agnostic excess-risk guarantee used here.

Finite-list empirical risk minimization: selects the first list entry whose empirical risk is within the supplied tolerance of the finite-list minimum.

Finite-class realizable and agnostic sample complexity: gives the agnostic finite-class sample-size condition in terms of the number of distinct hypotheses.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An ordered finite list L, its set H of distinct classifiers, an IID sample, and finite η≥0.

[F1]

The finite-list algorithm returns the first index whose empirical risk is at most the finite minimum plus η. Finite-list empirical risk minimization

[F2]

A finite class with q distinct classifiers has the agnostic sample bound m≥2(log⁡q+log⁡(2/δ))/(ϵ−η)2 for 0≤η<ϵ. Finite-class realizable and agnostic sample complexity

[F3]

IID means sample observations are mutually independent and identically distributed. Identical distribution and IID families

Verification

Given: The list and tolerance in the Example.

1.1givenF1algebra

The list and its deduplicated sublist have the same set of empirical-risk values, so their minima agree. Whether a list entry satisfies the tolerance test in [F1] depends only on its classifier; among repeated copies, the first copy is encountered first. Therefore both runs select the same classifier.

2.1F2F3step 1.1∎

By [F3], the sample is IID, which is the sampling hypothesis of [F2]. The list with first occurrences retained enumerates H exactly once. Apply [F2] to this finite class with ∣H∣=q; its sample bound contains q and no term involving K.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Zero training error can coexist with positive population risk

Example

Let X={a,b} have the discrete sigma-algebra, and let P assign probability 1/2 to each of (a,0) and (b,0). Let h0(a)=h0(b)=0 and h1(a)=0, h1(b)=1, so H={h1,h0} is realizable by h0. Run exact finite-list ERM on the ordered list (h1,h0). For every integer m≥1, if S=((X1,Y1),…,(Xm,Ym)) is an IID sample from P, the event S=((a,0),…,(a,0)) has probability 2−m; on this event h1 has empirical risk zero and population risk 1/2, and the tie-breaking rule returns h1. Thus zero training error does not imply zero population risk on every sample, even for a realizable finite class; PAC guarantees bound a failure probability over samples.

Example references

Realizable and agnostic PAC learning: defines realizability and the probability-over-samples form of a PAC guarantee.

Finite-list empirical risk minimization: returns the first exact minimizer in the given order when tolerance is zero.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite instance space, joint law, two classifiers, and ordered list in the Example, with IID samples of size m≥1.

[F1]

At tolerance zero, the finite-list algorithm returns the first empirical-risk minimizer. Finite-list empirical risk minimization

[F2]

IID means sample observations are mutually independent and identically distributed. Identical distribution and IID families

[F3]

Realizable PAC requires the risk threshold with probability at least 1−δ over the IID sample; it is a probability guarantee, not a pointwise assertion for every sample. Realizable and agnostic PAC learning

Verification

Given: The model and ordered finite-list ERM in the Example.

1.1givenalgebra

The classifier h1 errs exactly when X=b, so RP(h1)=1/2, while h0 has zero risk. On the specified all-a sample, each observed pair is (a,0) and both classifiers have empirical risk zero.

2.1F1F2F3step 1.1algebra∎

By [F2], the probability that all m independent inputs equal a is (1/2)m=2−m>0. On that event, [F1] selects h1 first, so the learner returns zero empirical risk with population risk 1/2. This is a positive-probability sample event and does not contradict the probabilistic form of [F3].