Repository navigation
Conversation
Add O'Donnell's coordinate expectation Eᵢ, coordinate Laplacian Lᵢ and
Laplacian L (Defs 2.23, 2.25, 2.36) with their Fourier coefficients,
Lᵢ f = χ_{i} Dᵢ f, ⟨f, Lᵢ f⟩ = Infᵢ[f] and ⟨f, L f⟩ = I[f]
(Props 2.24, 2.26, 2.37).
Add ρ-stable influences Stab_ρ[Dᵢ f] and their total (Def 2.52), their
Fourier formulas, δ·I^{(1−δ)}[f] ≤ 1 for Boolean f (Exercise 2.45), and
that at most 1/(δε) coordinates have (1−δ)-stable influence at least ε
(Prop 2.54).
Part of cslib-community#2131.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
Independent reviewer: Claude Code (Opus 5.5), thread Mathematics: the operators and Fourier formulas are the conventional ones, and the edge cases hold. Source mapping, against the arXiv text (2105.10386v1): Definitions 2.23, 2.25 and 2.36 and Propositions 2.24, 2.26 and 2.37 match. In particular
Limits: I read the diff, without a local build, and rely on CI for the proofs. |
edemaine
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agent review by reviewer-codex-edemaine (independent worker): APPROVE at c7dc89c541749aa11195c8966d32d6401a133047, completing the source coverage explicitly left open in the independent correctness/API review.
Checked the complete four-file change and actual derivative, noise-stability, Fourier and Markov definitions. Against the complete May 2021 arXiv edition: Definition 2.52 and Fact 2.53 (p. 57) give precisely the derivative-stability definition and Fourier sums, including 0^0 = 1. Proposition 2.54 (p. 57) and Exercise 2.45 (p. 64) match the geometric-sum argument and notable-coordinate bound. The multiplied inequality avoids division and extends correctly to δ = 0, δ = 1 and arbitrary ε; recovering the book's divided bound requires positive δ, ε and variance at most one. Definitions permit arbitrary real ρ as an algebraic extension; the book's stable-influence domain is [0,1]. Coordinate-operator mappings on pp. 48–52 also check out.
The character tests exercise nonzero Fourier coefficients, total influence two and stable influence ρ; the Boolean specialization uses the existing variance bound. No curated-abstract impact. Hygiene/simp, whitespace and canonical aggregate checks passed locally. I did not rerun Lean; author reports all six local gates. Exact-head library CI was running when inspected; Guide/title passed. Required final validation remains before integration. Agent review, not human approval.
|
Coordinator |
|
Queue sequencing update: #2216 twice entered I removed only this entry and will retry normal admission after the two predecessors land. The exact-head reviews and validation remain valid; no source or other queue entry was changed. Integration ownership remains with |
|
Both predecessors #2179 and #2181 have landed with successful merge-group checks. GitHub now reports this PR as conflicting, while an isolated merge of the unchanged reviewed head with actual |
|
Refreshed in Independent non-authoring delta reviewer |
|
The independently reviewed refresh |
|
Integration verified by |
Adds O'Donnell's coordinate operators (§2.2–2.3) and stable influences (§2.4). Part of #2131 ("Coordinate operators and stable influences"). It is independent of the other open O'Donnell PRs and based on
main.New API (
Cslib.BitString):Foundations/BooleanAnalysis/CoordinateOperators.lean:coordExpect i fisEᵢ f(Def 2.23),coordLaplacian i fisLᵢ f = f − Eᵢ f(Def 2.25), andlaplacian fisL = ∑ᵢ Lᵢ(Def 2.36).Lᵢ f = χ_{i}·Dᵢ f.Eᵢkeeps the coefficients on sets avoidingi,Lᵢkeeps those on sets containingi, andLmultiplies the coefficient onSby|S|(Props 2.24, 2.26, 2.37).⟨f, Lᵢ f⟩ = Infᵢ[f]and⟨f, L f⟩ = I[f]; alsoEᵢ f + Lᵢ f = fand𝔼 Eᵢ f = 𝔼 f. The three operators are@[expose]so clients can evaluate them pointwise.Foundations/BooleanAnalysis/StableInfluence.lean:stableInfluence ρ i fisStab_ρ[Dᵢ f](Def 2.52), andtotalStableInfluence ρ fis their sum.∑_{S∋i} ρ^{|S|−1} f̂(S)²(as printed in Def 2.52) and∑_S |S| ρ^{|S|−1} f̂(S)²(the second equality of Fact 2.53, per set rather than per degree). Atρ = 1they are the influence and the total influence; both are nonnegative forρ ≥ 0.0 ≤ δ ≤ 1:δ·I^{(1−δ)}[f] ≤ Var[f], the step in the proof of Prop 2.54. Its key inequalityk·δ·(1−δ)^{k−1} ≤ 1is Exercise 2.45. Hence≤ 1for Booleanfread as signs.mul_card_filter_le_stableInfluence_le:δ·ε·#{i : Infᵢ^{(1−δ)} ≥ ε} ≤ Var[f]for0 ≤ δ ≤ 1and anyε, with no variance hypothesis.mul_card_filter_le_stableInfluence_signVal_le_oneis its Boolean form,≤ 1. Forδ, ε > 0andVar[f] ≤ 1this gives Prop 2.54's|J| ≤ 1/(δε), under weaker hypotheses than the book's0 < δ, ε ≤ 1.Finset.card_filter_mul_le_sum(Markov's inequality).Source mapping:
Eᵢis the average over biti, exactly as in the existing decompositioneq_add_chi_mul_derivative, whose inline average it names.1/(δε)" is stated asδ·ε·N ≤ Var[f](or≤ 1for Booleanf), which holds for every realεand gives the book's bound forδ, ε > 0. Definition 2.52 takesρ ∈ [0, 1]; the Lean definition allows any realρ, and the nonnegativity lemma assumes0 ≤ ρ.Not included:
∇f(Def 2.34, Prop 2.35), which holds by definition giveninfluence;d/dρ Stab_ρ[f] = I^{(ρ)}[f]and Prop 2.51, which need calculus imports and fit better in a follow-up;Tests (
ComplexityTests/BooleanAnalysisStableInfluence.lean):E₀andL₀act onχ_{0,1}as stated;⟨χ, Lχ⟩ = 2;Inf₀^{(ρ)}[χ_{0,1}] = ρ;Validation: all six gates (
scripts/check.sh) andscripts/check_hygiene.py --check-simppass locally at the PR head. No abstract impact.AI assistance: Claude Code (Opus 5.5) drafted the statements, proofs, tests and this description. Independent agent reviews checked faithfulness against the book and simplifications, and their verified findings are incorporated. I reviewed the result. This needs independent review of the API and the source mapping.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code