Plectis Atlas
Search

↑ and ↓ move, Enter opens, Esc closes.

Memory–sample lower bounds for noiseless Gaussian regression

OpenAI groups related papers into a “family”. OpenAI’s catalogue describes this one:

For fixed A > 0, a one-pass learner with \(Ad^2\) persistent bits needs \(\Omega_A(d\log(1/\epsilon))\) noiseless Gaussian samples to recover a unit vector to angular error \(0\lt \epsilon\le1/10\) with probability 2/3, uniformly in accuracy for large d. Computation and randomized updates are unrestricted, but output uses only the terminal state, stopping index and fresh randomness. (OpenAI’s Lean note)

Lean is a language for mathematical statements and proofs that a computer can verify. The assessments below ask whether those statements express the result OpenAI describes here.

Both independent assessments find that the Lean statements express or imply the whole result described above. Read the assessments

What the papers state

Theorem 10.5 (The sample bound by separated-tuple localization)

In Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations

Possible match to OpenAI’s description, selected from shared wording. No review confirming the selection is recorded.

Let M(d)=o(d^2) be integer-valued and let 0<\epsilon(d)\le1/10. Every learner of Section 2 with uniform-sphere angular success probability at least 2/3 must satisfy

T(d)\ge c\,d\log(1/\epsilon(d))

for all sufficiently large d, with an absolute c>0. The eventual dimension threshold may depend on the memory sequence. Success at least 2/3 for every fixed signal implies the same conclusion by averaging.

No Lean statement in the release is paired with this theorem.

Theorem 1.2 (Uniform-prior sample lower bound)

In Posterior replicas and conditional information in Gaussian regression

Possible match to OpenAI’s description, selected from shared wording. No review confirming the selection is recorded.

Let M(d)=o(d^2) be nonnegative integer-valued, and let 0<\epsilon(d)\le1/10. Suppose a family of learners in Definition 2.1 satisfies

\Prob\{\arccos\langle\widehat S,S\rangle\le\epsilon(d)\}\ge\frac23 \qquad\text{when }S\sim\sigma_d,

where the probability includes the signal, samples, and learner randomness. Then there is an absolute c>0 such that

T(d)\ge c\,d\log\frac1{\epsilon(d)}

for all sufficiently large d. The eventual threshold may depend on the memory sequence.

No Lean statement in the release is paired with this theorem.

Theorem 3.5 (Normalized moment for unit-ball measures)

In Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere

Possible match to OpenAI’s description, selected from shared wording. No review confirming the selection is recorded.

For sufficiently large d, put

k=p=\lfloor d/16\rfloor,\qquad \lambda=(d-1)/2.

Let X be a k-by-d standard Gaussian matrix and define

H=(XX^{\mathsf T})^{1/2},\qquad P=H^{-1}X

on its probability-one full-row-rank event, and set P to a fixed frame on the null complement. Let m_k be uniform probability on the unit ball of \R^k. Suppose \nu is a finite positive Borel measure fixed independently of X, of mass at most one, supported in the unit ball of \R^d, such that for a fixed D>0,

\nu(B(b,t))\le D^d t^\lambda \qquad(b\in\R^d,\ t>0).

Assume P_\#\nu is absolutely continuous for almost every X. There is a jointly measurable nonnegative g_X(z) such that, for almost every X, P_\#\nu(dz)=g_X(z)\,dz/v_k. This version vanishes when \norm z>1 and satisfies

\E_X\int g_X(z)^p\,dm_k(z)\le \exp(C_Ddp).

No Lean statement in the release is paired with this theorem.

The release does not say which paper theorem its catalogue describes. The statements above share the most wording with the description; the atlas has not reviewed that choice. Identifying it is listed under Questions awaiting review.

13 more possible matches

  • Theorem 8.4 (Streaming consequence of the critical radius) in Replacing Gaussian observations in memory-constrained inference.
  • Theorem 1.2 (Memory and precision) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Corollary 1.4 (A guarantee for every signal) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Theorem 1.1 (Gaussian replica block bound) in Posterior replicas and conditional information in Gaussian regression.
  • Theorem 2.4 (Finite-memory precision bound) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Theorem 1.2 (Explicit noiseless precision bound) in Subsphere methods for memory-sample lower bounds in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Corollary 1.3 (Guarantees for every signal) in Subsphere methods for memory-sample lower bounds in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Corollary 1.3 (Subquadratic memory) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Theorem 3.2 (Repeated localization) in Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations.
  • Theorem 7.1 (Precision lower bound from likelihood truncation) in Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations.
  • Theorem 3.1 (Mixed projection moment and exact density version) in Replacing Gaussian observations in memory-constrained inference.
  • Theorem 3.3 (Integrated orthonormal-projection moment) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Theorem 4.1 (Critical-radius comparison) in Replacing Gaussian observations in memory-constrained inference.
Reported proof verification
Eight Lean statements in the release; independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for all these files at the version shown here.

Papers

Each paper opens as a reading page in the browser, with the PDF beside it. The statements each paper opens with are on its reading page.

Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression

Undated, current edition.

Read it herePDF

For every fixed A > 0, a learner that retains at most \(Ad^2\) bits between fresh exact Gaussian linear measurements needs \(\Omega_A(d\log(1/\epsilon))\) measurements to estimate a uniformly random unit vector to angular error at most ϵ, for any \(0\lt \epsilon\le 1/10\), with probability at least 2/3. The constant is absolute for \(o(d^2)\) memory.

Posterior replicas and conditional information in Gaussian regression

Undated, current edition.

Read it herePDF

For a signal with density bounded by L relative to uniform probability on \(S^{d-1}\), we bound the information in a finite message W formed from exact Gaussian measurements, conditional on an independent projection revealed only to the analyst. For explicit row counts proportional to d, the bound is \(O(H(W)/d+d+\log(2+\log L))\). Consequently, a finite-state learner with \(o(d^2)\) persistent bits and a deterministic sample horizon needs \(\Omega(d\log(1/\epsilon))\) fresh noiseless Gaussian measurements for constant-probability angular accuracy \(0\lt \epsilon\le1/10\) under the uniform spherical prior.

Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations

Undated, current edition.

Read it herePDF

For the image of a uniform cube under a spherical coordinate map, we prove that finite messages from t blocks of \(\Theta(d)\) exact Gaussian measurements reveal only \(O_A(dt)\) information when each message has at most \(\exp(Ad^2)\) values, for fixed A. The same bound holds when each message is supplemented with a nested cell that restores the required geometric spread.

Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere

Undated, current edition.

Read it herePDF

We prove moment estimates for exact random projections of finite measures whose mass is controlled on Euclidean balls, and derive positive domination by countable sums of spherical cap measures. For learners with \(M=o(d^2)\) bits of memory, these estimates give three proofs that uniform-sphere average success at least 2/3 at angular accuracy \(0\lt \epsilon\le1/10\) requires \(\Omega(d\log(1/\epsilon))\) noiseless Gaussian observations. The three proofs keep their different stopping and accuracy costs explicit.

Replacing Gaussian observations in memory-constrained inference

Undated, current edition.

Read it herePDF

Replacing the Gaussian rows used to select a finite message by independent rows increases the remaining conditional information by at most \(Cd\), for a uniform spherical signal, message entropy at most d2, and the specified row dimensions proportional to d. As an application, we prove that learners with \(M=o(d^2)\) persistent bits need \(T=\Omega(d\log(1/\epsilon))\) exact observations to attain uniform-sphere angular success at least 3/5, for \(0\lt \epsilon\le1/10\) and a deterministic finite horizon.

Subsphere methods for memory-sample lower bounds in noiseless Gaussian regression

Undated, current edition.

Read it herePDF

Let a finite-state streaming learner estimate a uniformly random unit vector from independent exact Gaussian linear measurements. We prove that \(o(d^2)\) bits of persistent memory and angular success probability at least 2/3 require at least \(2^{-16}d\log_2(1/\epsilon)\) samples for all sufficiently large d, uniformly for \(0\lt \epsilon\le1/10\). The proof conditions each batch on its observed projection and controls the resulting random residual subsphere.

Eight Lean statements in this family

Choose one to see it beside the paper theorem it is paired with.

For a configured theorem, the Comparator program tests whether OpenAI’s separate proof proves the exact Lean statement using only the allowed axioms. Some statement files instead configure definitions for comparison by name and type. Acceptance does not establish that a formal statement means the same thing as the paper’s theorem.

GaussianInformation

The paper states

Theorem 3.2 (Repeated localization)

In Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations

There is an absolute constant c>0 with the following property. For any fixed C_0>0, consider the experiment above with t\ge0 blocks and N\ge1 possible message values, and suppose

\bigl(2/m+e^{-ck}\bigr)\log N\le C_0d.

One can reveal nested dyadic cells Q_0\supset Q_1\supset\cdots\supset Q_t containing Z, where Q_i is a finite-valued measurable function of Z, the preceding revelations, and W_1,\ldots,W_i, so that the augmented transcript

\Pi_t=(W_1,Q_1,\ldots,W_t,Q_t)

satisfies

I(Z;\Pi_t)\le Cdt.

Here C is a constant depending only on C_0. If J_t is the level of Q_t, the construction also gives \E J_t\le Ct.

The words they share: transcript, repeated, augmented, cells, level, localization, pi, experiment, blocks, measurable, finite, log, information, gaussian, ct, nested.

Possible Lean counterpart

Selected from shared wording. No review of whether the statements mean the same thing is recorded.

Information growth under repeated exact Gaussian observations

GaussianInformation.lean, the release lists it as a supporting statement.

def MainStatement : Prop :=  ∃ c : ℝ, 0 < c ∧ ∃ n₀ : ℕ, ∀ C₀ : ℝ, 0 < C₀ →    ∃ C : ℝ, 0 < C ∧ ∀ (n N t : ℕ), n₀ ≤ n → 1 ≤ N → ∀ rules : Rules n N t,      (2 / (n / 8 : ℕ) + Real.exp (-c * (n / 16 : ℕ))) * Real.log N ≤ C₀ * (n + 1) →      ∃ Q : Disclosure n N t, ValidDisclosure Q ∧        mutualInformation (augmentedLaw rules Q) ≤ ENNReal.ofReal (C * (n + 1) * t) ∧        (∫ zw, (finalLevel Q zw : ℝ) ∂experimentLaw rules) ≤ C * ttheorem repeated_localization : MainStatement := by  sorry

This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.

The file states three more theorems: inverse_volume_without_support, kernel_coercivity, actual_row_drift.

two independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: cert-machine; MathVet. Who ran the proof-verification program

  • cert-machine records it as “CERTIFIED”.
  • MathVet records it as “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.

Read the complete Lean statement

GaussianFiniteEntropy

The paper states

No paper theorem is paired with this Lean statement.

no paper statement matches the Lean text clearly enough to pair, so the closest candidates are listed below.

Statements it shares words with:

  • Proposition 6.4 (Information after finite splitting) in Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations.
  • Proposition 10.4 (The controlled-horizon recurrence) in Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations.
  • Proposition 3.2 (Actual-row tilt and exact-label limit) in Replacing Gaussian observations in memory-constrained inference.
  • Theorem 3.2 (Repeated localization) in Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations.
  • Corollary 8.4 (Precision under the uniform spherical prior) in Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations.
  • Proposition 8.3 (Iteration of the grid information balance) in Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations.
  • Theorem 10.5 (The sample bound by separated-tuple localization) in Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations.
  • Proposition 4.4 (Maximum-score information bound) in Localization costs and information growth for exact Gaussian observations.

The Lean statement

No paper theorem is paired with it.

Finite-entropy localization and regularization bounds

GaussianFiniteEntropy.lean, the release lists it as a supporting statement.

def FiniteEntropyStatement : Prop :=  ∃ n₀ : ℕ, ∀ n : ℕ, n₀ ≤ n → ∀ Q : Cell n, ∀ P : Measure (Coordinate n),    IsProbabilityMeasure P → P ≪ uniformCell Q → InformationTheory.klDiv P (uniformCell Q) ≠ ∞ →      (∀ᵐ z ∂P, Terminates P Q z) ∧ Measurable (terminalLog P Q) ∧      (∀ h : Log n, P {z | terminalLog P Q z = h} ≠ 0 →        Descendant Q (terminalCell P Q h) ∧ Regular (terminalLaw P Q h) (terminalCell P Q h)) ∧      Integrable (fun z => (depth P Q z : ℝ)) P ∧      Integrable (fun z => (attempts P Q z : ℝ)) P ∧      (∫ z,(attempts P Q z : ℝ) ∂P) ≤ 2*(1+∫ z,(depth P Q z : ℝ) ∂P) ∧      (∫⁻ z,InformationTheory.klDiv (terminalLaw P Q (terminalLog P Q z))          (uniformCell (terminalCell P Q (terminalLog P Q z))) ∂P) +        ENNReal.ofReal ((Real.log 2/4)*n*(∫ z,(depth P Q z : ℝ) ∂P)) ≤          InformationTheory.klDiv P (uniformCell Q) + ENNReal.ofReal (2/Real.exp 1)theorem finite_expected_regularization : FiniteEntropyStatement := by  sorry

This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.

three independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: cert-machine; MathVet; Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling. Who ran the proof-verification program

  • cert-machine records it as “CERTIFIED”.
  • MathVet records it as “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.
  • Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling records it as “accepted”.

Read the complete Lean statement

GaussianReplacement

The paper states

No paper theorem is paired with this Lean statement.

no paper statement matches the Lean text clearly enough to pair, so the closest candidates are listed below.

Statements it shares words with:

  • Proposition 3.2 (Actual-row tilt and exact-label limit) in Replacing Gaussian observations in memory-constrained inference.
  • Proposition 9.1 (Information in one block) in Posterior replicas and conditional information in Gaussian regression.
  • Theorem 3.5 (Normalized moment for unit-ball measures) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Proposition 4.1 (Positive domination after one block) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Theorem 2.4 (Finite-memory precision bound) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Theorem 3.3 (Integrated orthonormal-projection moment) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Theorem 4.1 (Critical-radius comparison) in Replacing Gaussian observations in memory-constrained inference.
  • Theorem 1.1 (Gaussian replica block bound) in Posterior replicas and conditional information in Gaussian regression.

The Lean statement

No paper theorem is paired with it.

Gaussian replacement and information bounds

GaussianReplacement.lean, the release lists it as a main result.

def MixedMomentMain : Prop :=  ∃ C : ℝ, 0 < C ∧ ∀ (d m r q : ℕ), AdmissibleDimensions d m r q →    ∀ (ρ : Measure (Sphere d)), IsFiniteMeasure ρ →    ∀ (B D : ℝ), 0 < B → 0 < D → LocalGrowth ρ (m+r) B → LocalGrowth ρ (d-1) D →    (∀ (s : Sphere d) (δ : ℝ), 0 < δ →      (∫⁻ X, (∫⁻ Z, cubeAverage ρ (Fin.append X Z)        (label (Fin.append X Z) (s : Vector d)) δ ∂gaussianRows r d)^q          ∂gaussianRows m d) ≤ (momentConstant C d B D)^q) ∧    (ρ ≪ uniformSphere d → ∃ E : Set (Sphere d), MeasurableSet E ∧ ρ E = 0 ∧      ∀ s ∉ E,        (∀ᵐ G ∂gaussianRows (m+r) d,          Tendsto (fun δ : ℝ => cubeAverage ρ G (label G (s : Vector d)) δ)            (𝓝[>] 0) (𝓝 (exactDensity ρ G (label G (s : Vector d))))) ∧        ((∫⁻ X, (∫⁻ Z, exactDensity ρ (Fin.append X Z)          (label (Fin.append X Z) (s : Vector d)) ∂gaussianRows r d)^q            ∂gaussianRows m d) ≤ (momentConstant C d B D)^q) ∧

This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.

The file states ten more theorems: actualRowMain, actualRowRefinement, actualRowSourceMain, actualRowSourceRefinement, criticalComparisonMain, oneLevelComparisonMain, twoLabelComparisonMain, hybridBlockMain, fiberTwoPointMain, fiberBlockMain.

three independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: cert-machine; MathVet; Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling. Who ran the proof-verification program

  • cert-machine records it as “CERTIFIED”.
  • MathVet records it as “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.
  • Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling records it as “accepted”.

Read the complete Lean statement

MemoryPrecision

The paper states

No paper theorem is paired with this Lean statement.

no paper statement matches the Lean text clearly enough to pair, so the closest candidates are listed below.

Statements it shares words with:

  • Corollary B.8 (Finite success bounds for the two coefficients) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Proposition A.5 (A pointwise joint density version) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Proposition 8.3 (Precision bound for the cube prior) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Corollary 8.2 (A block on the paired-coordinate prior) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Proposition B.7 (A common finite success bound) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Corollary 3.6 (Normalized exact projection) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Proposition 5.3 (Success after a bounded number of samples) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Proposition 3.2 (Affine-distance and Gram bounds) in Memory and precision in noiseless Gaussian regression.

The Lean statement

No paper theorem is paired with it.

Projection estimates and memory–precision bounds

MemoryPrecision.lean, the release lists it as a main result.

theorem main :  AmbientGramStatement ∧  FiniteDensityStatement ∧  MeasurableTestStatement ∧  JointL1Statement ∧  PointwiseDensityStatement ∧  CoefficientStepStatement ∧  Kernel.SourceEllipsoidStatement.{u} ∧  CubeBlockStatement ∧  (∃ D : ℝ, Real.exp 1 ≤ D ∧ ∃ d₀ : ℕ, ∃ hd₀ : 16 ≤ d₀, ∃ c : ℝ, 0 < c ∧    ∀ d M T : ℕ, ∀ hd : d₀ ≤ d, M ≤ d^2 → ∀ ε : ℝ, 0 < ε → ε ≤ 1/10 →    ∀ (Ω : Type u) [MeasurableSpace Ω] (ρ : Measure Ω), IsProbabilityMeasure ρ →    ∀ K : Ω → MemoryPrecision.Kernel.Policy d M T,      MemoryPrecision.Kernel.Policy.ModelAdmissible.{u} K ρ →      MemoryPrecision.Kernel.Policy.Success K ρ        (MemoryPrecision.Kernel.CubePrior (MemoryPrecision.Kernel.cubePrior_dimension hd₀ hd)) ε ≤

This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.

two independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: cert-machine; MathVet. Who ran the proof-verification program

  • cert-machine records it as “CERTIFIED”.
  • MathVet records it as “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.

Read the complete Lean statement

NoiselessRegression

The paper states

Proposition 7.1 (All-affine suffix bound)

In Subsphere methods for memory-sample lower bounds in noiseless Gaussian regression

For all sufficiently large d, consider a Borel learner padded to k blocks of m exact Gaussian samples, of width at most W, and with target-independent unit output laws at the last layer. The randomized experiment, shared seed, initialization, and fresh randomness satisfy the joint measurability, independence, and information restrictions of Definition 1.1. Here 0<\epsilon\le1/10, and success means angular error at most \epsilon. Assume

n_0+2k\le d,\qquad W^{1/p}\le2^d.

For each fixed shared seed whose rules satisfy these assumptions, and for a state v at layer (k-\ell)m, let g_v(s) be the success probability of the suffix started in that state. For 0\le\ell\le k, every affine subsphere (2) with \dim H=n\ge n_0+2\ell satisfies

\int g_v(z+r\xi)\,d\sigma_H(\xi) \le (R_\ell/r)^a,\qquad R_\ell=16C_*^\ell\epsilon.

The assertion is uniform in the fixed seed and includes states unreachable from the initial layer.

The words they share: error, started, initial, output, unit, laws, samples, sphere, state, experiment, angular, measurability, uniform, success, gaussian, learner, probability, bound, sufficiently, large.

Possible Lean counterpart

Selected from shared wording. No review of whether the statements mean the same thing is recorded.

Subquadratic and fixed-quadratic memory–precision lower bounds

NoiselessRegression.lean, the release lists it as a supporting statement.

theorem main : SubquadraticMemory.{u} ∧ FixedQuadraticMemory.{u} := by  sorry

This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.

three independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: cert-machine; MathVet; Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling. Who ran the proof-verification program

  • cert-machine records it as “CERTIFIED”.
  • MathVet records it as “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.
  • Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling records it as “accepted”.

Read the complete Lean statement

PosteriorReplicas

The paper states

Proposition 7.1 (All-affine suffix bound)

In Subsphere methods for memory-sample lower bounds in noiseless Gaussian regression

For all sufficiently large d, consider a Borel learner padded to k blocks of m exact Gaussian samples, of width at most W, and with target-independent unit output laws at the last layer. The randomized experiment, shared seed, initialization, and fresh randomness satisfy the joint measurability, independence, and information restrictions of Definition 1.1. Here 0<\epsilon\le1/10, and success means angular error at most \epsilon. Assume

n_0+2k\le d,\qquad W^{1/p}\le2^d.

For each fixed shared seed whose rules satisfy these assumptions, and for a state v at layer (k-\ell)m, let g_v(s) be the success probability of the suffix started in that state. For 0\le\ell\le k, every affine subsphere (2) with \dim H=n\ge n_0+2\ell satisfies

\int g_v(z+r\xi)\,d\sigma_H(\xi) \le (R_\ell/r)^a,\qquad R_\ell=16C_*^\ell\epsilon.

The assertion is uniform in the fixed seed and includes states unreachable from the initial layer.

The words they share: affine, error, initial, output, unit, rules, laws, samples, joint, sphere, state, experiment, angular, information, blocks, measurability, uniform, success, borel, independent, gaussian, learner, probability, bound, sufficiently, large.

Possible Lean counterpart

Selected from shared wording. No review of whether the statements mean the same thing is recorded.

Posterior-replica comparisons and sample lower bound

PosteriorReplicas.lean, the release lists it as a main result.

theorem source_main : EqualLabelMeasureIdentity ∧ EqualLabelVersions ∧    GaussianReplicaBlock ∧ DistanceReplicaBlock ∧ HaarReplicaBlock ∧    SyntheticReplicaBlock ∧ IncidenceReplicaBlock ∧    PosteriorRegression.KernelSubquadraticMemory.{u} := by  sorry

This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.

two independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: cert-machine; MathVet. Who ran the proof-verification program

  • cert-machine records it as “CERTIFIED”.
  • MathVet records it as “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.

Read the complete Lean statement

ProjectionMoments

The paper states

No paper theorem is paired with this Lean statement.

no paper statement matches the Lean text clearly enough to pair, so the closest candidates are listed below.

Statements it shares words with:

  • Theorem 3.5 (Normalized moment for unit-ball measures) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Theorem 3.3 (Integrated orthonormal-projection moment) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Proposition 7.1 (All-affine suffix bound) in Subsphere methods for memory-sample lower bounds in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Proposition 4.1 (Positive domination after one block) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Proposition 4.4 (A fixed stopping index) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Proposition 5.4 (Riesz success estimate) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.
  • Proposition 8.1 (Dimension-parameterized success bound) in Subsphere methods for memory-sample lower bounds in noiseless Gaussian regression.
  • Corollary 3.4 (All-radii projection of spherical local mass) in Projection moments, positive cap domination, and Riesz estimates on the sphere.

The Lean statement

No paper theorem is paired with it.

Projection, cap, and Riesz estimates with regression bounds

ProjectionMoments.lean, the release lists it as a main result.

theorem main : MainStatement.{u} := by  sorry

This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.

three independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: cert-machine; MathVet; Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling. Who ran the proof-verification program

  • cert-machine records it as “CERTIFIED”.
  • MathVet records it as “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.
  • Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling records it as “accepted”.

Read the complete Lean statement

SubsphereCurrent

The paper states

Proposition 7.1 (All-affine suffix bound)

In Subsphere methods for memory-sample lower bounds in noiseless Gaussian regression

For all sufficiently large d, consider a Borel learner padded to k blocks of m exact Gaussian samples, of width at most W, and with target-independent unit output laws at the last layer. The randomized experiment, shared seed, initialization, and fresh randomness satisfy the joint measurability, independence, and information restrictions of Definition 1.1. Here 0<\epsilon\le1/10, and success means angular error at most \epsilon. Assume

n_0+2k\le d,\qquad W^{1/p}\le2^d.

For each fixed shared seed whose rules satisfy these assumptions, and for a state v at layer (k-\ell)m, let g_v(s) be the success probability of the suffix started in that state. For 0\le\ell\le k, every affine subsphere (2) with \dim H=n\ge n_0+2\ell satisfies

\int g_v(z+r\xi)\,d\sigma_H(\xi) \le (R_\ell/r)^a,\qquad R_\ell=16C_*^\ell\epsilon.

The assertion is uniform in the fixed seed and includes states unreachable from the initial layer.

The words they share: suffix, subsphere, affine, error, initial, output, seed, unit, rules, ell, laws, samples, joint, sphere, state, experiment, angular, blocks, measurability, uniform, success, borel, gaussian, learner, probability, bound, sufficiently, large.

Possible Lean counterpart

Selected from shared wording. No review of whether the statements mean the same thing is recorded.

Subsphere estimates and memory–sample lower bounds

SubsphereCurrent.lean, the release lists it as a main result.

theorem full_current_main_scope : CurrentMainScope.{u,v,w} := by  sorry

This file states the theorem with sorry, a placeholder, in place of its proof. OpenAI supplies a separate proof file. Comparator tests whether that proof proves the statement here.

three independent groups report that Comparator accepted runs for this Lean statement file: cert-machine; MathVet; Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling. Who ran the proof-verification program

  • cert-machine records it as “CERTIFIED”.
  • MathVet records it as “comparator-sandboxed-pass”.
  • Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling records it as “accepted”.

Read the complete Lean statement

Other mathematical statements in OpenAI’s Lean library

Atlas found these propositions by scanning the text of the project’s Model.lean file. Each name links to its definition, with any associated statement file beside it. This list does not record running Lean to interpret or verify those definitions.

Independent comparisons and proof-verification reports

Does the Lean express the advertised result?

MathVet and cert-machine agree on how much of the advertised result the Lean statements express.

MathVet and Carlos Toledo’s cert-machine independently assessed whether this family’s Lean statements express the whole result OpenAI describes in its catalogue. These are assessments of the family as a whole, not of each paper theorem separately.

MathVet finds that the Lean statements express or imply the whole advertised result (their term: “full”).

Their note: None for the headline; supporting results are in separate files. The learner model gives the learner a free shared seed at every step (a stronger model, so the lower bound is stronger).

Definitions the group asks readers to compare with the paper: Bespoke finite-memory learner model (Learner, RunStatus, Admissible bundling several AEMeasurable hypotheses, angularError := arccos ⟪ŝ, s⟫, uniformSphere via Measure.toSphere); GaussianInformation.lean also introduces local instance ambientSub/ambientInner re-defining Sub/Inner on EuclideanSpace (supporting file)

“full”, in their words: The challenge statements imply the headline claim after unpacking definitions or one routine step.

Their method: An independent, model-assisted, pre-referee reading of each family’s challenge statements against its headline claim under a published rubric (PROTOCOL.md), with its own Comparator runs per challenge.

cert-machine finds that the Lean statements express or imply the whole advertised result (their term: “MATCHES”).

“MATCHES”, in their words: The challenge statements state the headline as OpenAI wrote it.

Their method: Every Comparator challenge re-run on Linux with nanoda switched on, decided by a preregistered rule.

OpenAI’s own note on what its Lean covers

In noiseless Gaussian regression, a learner observes inner products of an unknown unit vector in $\mathbb R^d$ with independent standard Gaussian vectors. The formalization proves that, for every fixed $A>0$, there is $c_A>0$ such that, in sufficiently large dimension, a learner retaining at most $Ad^2$ bits between observations needs at least $c_A d\log(1/\varepsilon)$ observations to attain angular error at most $\varepsilon$ with probability at least $2/3$ for a uniformly random unit signal, for $0<\varepsilon\le1/10$.

For memory $o(d^2)$, the constant can be universal, and the selected statement also permits success at least $2/3$ separately for every signal. The linked supporting results include inverse Gram-matrix moments, exact-projection densities, regularization bounds, and sphere- and cube-prior block estimates. The paper studies how posterior replicas—independent signals drawn conditionally on the same observed data—control information in noiseless Gaussian regression. The formalization establishes the equal-label identity for finite measures, its density and measurable forms, and information bounds for Gaussian, distance, Haar, synthetic, and incidence comparisons. These statements retain exact observation labels, independent side randomness, and randomized transition rules. For a learner using $M(d)=o(d^2)$ bits of memory, the resulting bound says that, for sufficiently large $d$ and $0<\varepsilon\le1/10$, success probability at least $2/3$ under the uniform unit-sphere prior requires $T\ge c d\log(1/\varepsilon)$ observations, where $c>0$ is universal. The formalized streaming result uses the $2/3$ threshold; the stronger $3/5$ variant is outside this scope. The formalization controls information gained from exact Gaussian observations of a spherical image of the uniform cube. Under the stated entropy and size conditions, repeated localization over $t$ observation blocks produces nested disclosures with mutual information at most $C(n+1)t$ and expected final localization level at most $Ct$. The selected estimates include inverse-volume control, kernel coercivity, and drift for the actual observation rows. For a law of finite relative entropy with respect to a uniform cell law in sufficiently large dimension, the regularization procedure terminates almost surely in regular cells. Its expected depth and number of attempts are finite, with at most twice one plus the expected depth in expectation; the remaining relative entropy plus $(\log 2)n/4$ times the expected depth is at most the initial relative entropy plus $2/e$. The paper uses projection moments and domination by positive spherical caps to bound the information carried by exact Gaussian observations of an unknown unit vector. The formalization covers integrated frame and sphere moments, cap domination, Riesz-density estimates with fixed offsets, and bounds valid at every radius. It also covers probability bounds for finite-memory learners at a fixed stopping time and after summing over stopping times. For $M(d)=o(d^2)$ bits of memory, sufficiently large $d$, and $0<\varepsilon\le1/10$, success probability at least $2/3$ under the uniform sphere prior requires $T\ge c d\log(1/\varepsilon)$ observations for a universal $c>0$. A corresponding bound holds when $M\le A d^2$ for each fixed $A>0$, with the constant allowed to depend on $A$. The randomized learner model allows independent shared seeds; its reduction to a finite-state model is proved for dimensions at least three, with the auxiliary dimension-two case outside this scope. The paper compares fresh Gaussian observations with observations coupled to information already held in memory. The formalization covers mixed-moment and actual-row estimates, critical-radius, one-level, and two-label comparisons, and conditional-information bounds across a block of observations. For sufficiently large dimension $d$, the relevant entropy bounds of order $d^2$ bound the information in the fresh experiment by that in the coupled experiment plus a term of order $d$; the associated block information increase also has order $d$. It also covers two-point identities on observation fibers and the fiber-block bound, including the boundary case of $d-2$ observed rows. The uniform unit-sphere prior, Gaussian rows, finite memory states, and randomized transition rules remain part of these statements. The separate streaming consequences and several intermediate comparison constructions are outside this selection. The paper uses subspheres to bound the number of exact Gaussian observations needed to estimate a unit vector with limited memory. The formalization proves that, for $M(d)=o(d^2)$ bits of memory, sufficiently large $d$, and $0<\varepsilon\le1/10$, success probability at least $2/3$ under the uniform sphere prior, or for every unit signal, requires at least $2^{-16}d\log_2(1/\varepsilon)$ observations. Under the uniform prior, a lower bound of the same order with a universal positive constant holds at success probability $1/2$. The formalization also covers radius-weighted block and terminal estimates, affine and dimension estimates, and a vector-valued beta-mixture comparison with its boundary cases. These statements retain their dimension, width, radius, and suffix hypotheses, as well as the finite-state learner’s independent randomness and restrictions on stopping and output.

AI-drafted comparisons, with no recorded human review

  • Information growth under repeated exact Gaussian observations GaussianInformation

    Unreviewed AI draft: states a paper’s theorem as the paper does. States the localisation paper’s main theorem on repeated localisation over t observation blocks (mutual information at most C(n + 1)t, expected final level at most Ct) with its selected estimates. The paper’s regression lower bounds are not part of the statement.

  • Finite-entropy localization and regularization bounds GaussianFiniteEntropy

    Unreviewed AI draft: states a supporting result. States a regularisation lemma of the localisation paper: from finite relative entropy the procedure ends almost surely in regular cells with controlled expected depth. It supports the paper’s localisation theorem rather than being a headline result.

  • Gaussian replacement and information bounds GaussianReplacement

    Unreviewed AI draft: states a paper’s theorem as the paper does. States the replacement paper’s mixed-moment and critical-radius comparison theorems with the related block estimates. The paper’s streaming consequence is outside the selection.

  • Projection estimates and memory–precision bounds MemoryPrecision

    Unreviewed AI draft: states a supporting result. Bundles the supporting estimates the note lists (Gram-matrix moments, densities, cube-prior block bounds) with the lower bound T ≥ cd log(1/ε) for memory at most d² under an every-signal guarantee, one case of the main theorem, and a uniform-sphere success bound for general memory. Whether that bound gives the main theorem for every fixed A was not settled here.

  • Subquadratic and fixed-quadratic memory–precision lower bounds NoiselessRegression

    Unreviewed AI draft: states a paper’s theorem as the paper does. States the main theorem (for each fixed A, memory at most Ad² bits forces c_A d log(1/ε) observations) and the subquadratic-memory corollary with a universal constant, including success guaranteed for every signal.

  • Posterior-replica comparisons and sample lower bound PosteriorReplicas

    Unreviewed AI draft: states a paper’s theorem as the paper does. States the replica paper’s equal-label identity and information bounds together with its uniform-prior sample lower bound T ≥ cd log(1/ε) for memory o(d²) at success probability 2/3, the threshold of the paper’s theorem.

  • Projection, cap, and Riesz estimates with regression bounds ProjectionMoments

    Unreviewed AI draft: states a paper’s theorem as the paper does. States the projection paper’s moment, cap-domination and Riesz estimates together with finite-memory precision bounds for subquadratic and fixed-quadratic memory in a finite-kernel learner model, which contain the paper’s finite-memory precision theorem.

  • Subsphere estimates and memory–sample lower bounds SubsphereCurrent

    Unreviewed AI draft: states a paper’s theorem as the paper does. States the subsphere paper’s main theorem with its explicit constant (at least 2^{-16} d log₂(1/ε) observations for memory o(d²)) and the every-signal corollary.

Who ran the proof-verification program?

These groups report running Comparator with the release’s Lean statement files. For a configured theorem, it verifies OpenAI’s separate proof against the exact statement; some files instead configure definitions for comparison by name and type. Each row is the named group’s report. Atlas has not repeated the runs.

These reports do not list the software versions, proof-verification programs, axioms, time or memory in separate fields. Any such details in a report’s prose are reproduced below.

Information growth under repeated exact Gaussian observations GaussianInformation

Two reports, all at the release’s recorded version.

Reported byTheir wordTheir accountDateOriginal report
cert-machine“CERTIFIED”Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.10 October 2026Original report
MathVet“comparator-sandboxed-pass”Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.8 October 2026Original report

Finite-entropy localization and regularization bounds GaussianFiniteEntropy

Three reports, all at the release’s recorded version.

Reported byTheir wordTheir accountDateOriginal report
cert-machine“CERTIFIED”Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.10 October 2026Original report
MathVet“comparator-sandboxed-pass”Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.8 October 2026Original report
Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling“accepted”Re-run through Comparator with Lean’s kernel: accepted (the check took 228 s; peak memory 6.2 GiB).10 October 2026Original report

Gaussian replacement and information bounds GaussianReplacement

Three reports, all at the release’s recorded version.

Reported byTheir wordTheir accountDateOriginal report
cert-machine“CERTIFIED”Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.10 October 2026Original report
MathVet“comparator-sandboxed-pass”Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.8 October 2026Original report
Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling“accepted”Re-run through Comparator with Lean’s kernel: accepted (the check took 570 s; peak memory 6.5 GiB).11 October 2026Original report

Projection estimates and memory–precision bounds MemoryPrecision

Two reports, all at the release’s recorded version.

Reported byTheir wordTheir accountDateOriginal report
cert-machine“CERTIFIED”Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.10 October 2026Original report
MathVet“comparator-sandboxed-pass”Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.8 October 2026Original report

Subquadratic and fixed-quadratic memory–precision lower bounds NoiselessRegression

Three reports, all at the release’s recorded version.

Reported byTheir wordTheir accountDateOriginal report
cert-machine“CERTIFIED”Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.10 October 2026Original report
MathVet“comparator-sandboxed-pass”Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.8 October 2026Original report
Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling“accepted”Re-run through Comparator with Lean’s kernel: accepted (the check took 221 s; peak memory 6.4 GiB).10 October 2026Original report

Posterior-replica comparisons and sample lower bound PosteriorReplicas

Two reports, all at the release’s recorded version.

Reported byTheir wordTheir accountDateOriginal report
cert-machine“CERTIFIED”Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.10 October 2026Original report
MathVet“comparator-sandboxed-pass”Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.8 October 2026Original report

Projection, cap, and Riesz estimates with regression bounds ProjectionMoments

Three reports, all at the release’s recorded version.

Reported byTheir wordTheir accountDateOriginal report
cert-machine“CERTIFIED”Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.10 October 2026Original report
MathVet“comparator-sandboxed-pass”Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.8 October 2026Original report
Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling“accepted”Re-run through Comparator with Lean’s kernel: accepted (the check took 202 s; peak memory 6.5 GiB).11 October 2026Original report

Subsphere estimates and memory–sample lower bounds SubsphereCurrent

Three reports, all at the release’s recorded version.

Reported byTheir wordTheir accountDateOriginal report
cert-machine“CERTIFIED”Re-run through Comparator with the independent nanoda kernel switched on: Lean’s kernel and nanoda both accept OpenAI’s solution.10 October 2026Original report
MathVet“comparator-sandboxed-pass”Re-run through Comparator in a sandboxed virtual machine: accepted.8 October 2026Original report
Neal McBurnett, openai-math-lean-tooling“accepted”Re-run through Comparator with Lean’s kernel: accepted (the check took 470 s; peak memory 6.4 GiB).10 October 2026Original report

What these papers cite in the release, and what cites them

These links come from the papers’ bibliographies. A citation records that one paper cites another; how each cited result is used has not been examined here.

Within this family

Papers elsewhere in the release that this family’s papers cite

This family’s papers cite no paper elsewhere in the release.

Papers elsewhere in the release that cite this family’s papers

No paper elsewhere in the release cites this family’s papers.

Explain a result, compare statements or propose a correction

Atlas has no contributed explanation for this family yet. You can offer one with a GitHub account. You receive named credit and disclose any AI assistance.

Each button opens a GitHub form with this page and its source version filled in. Opening the form does not reserve the work.

Offer to write an explanationCompare one Lean statement with its paper: MemoryPrecision, NoiselessRegression, PosteriorReplicas, GaussianFiniteEntropy, GaussianInformation, ProjectionMoments, GaussianReplacement, SubsphereCurrentSuggest a source attributionSuggest a change

What people have said

Commentary on this family by others, dated and credited. It is commentary, not a finding.

  • An unsigned public tier list, the OpenAI Math Tier List, classes it as a proof and rates its significance, if it holds up, as “Field-specific journal”. The page says that nothing on it is verified.

    Author not stated. Source

Questions awaiting review

Each item identifies a statement, definition or report that needs further review. Its link opens a GitHub form with the source version already recorded.

Read the Lean statement against the paper

  • An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded. Open the form
  • An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded. Open the form
  • An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded. Open the form
  • An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded. Open the form
  • An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded. Open the form
  • An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded. Open the form
  • An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded. Open the form
  • An AI agent drafted an assessment of which part of the paper this Lean statement expresses. No named human review is recorded. Open the form

Identify the theorem the catalogue describes

  • Family 140 No single paper statement clearly matches OpenAI’s description by wording, and no review identifying the intended theorem is recorded. Open the form

Address a question raised in an independent assessment

Compare the proposed paper and Lean matches

  • Family 140 Atlas records no review of whether each linked Lean statement and paper theorem mean the same thing. Open the form