Optimal predictor schemes pass a Benford test
post by Vanessa Kosoy (vanessa-kosoy) · 2015-08-30T13:25:59.000Z · LW · GW · 0 commentsContents
Results Definition 1 Theorem 1 Corollary 1 Definition 2 Note 1 Definition 3 Proposition 1 Theorem 2 Definition 4 Proposition 2 Proposition 3 Corollary 2 Note 2 Appendix Proposition 4 Proof of Proposition 4 Proof of Theorem 1 Proof of Corollary 1 Proposition 5 Proof of Proposition 5 Proof of Proposition 1 Proposition 6 Proof of Proposition 6 Proof of Theorem 2 Proof of Proposition 2 Proof of Proposition 3 Proof of Corollary 2 None No comments
We formulate a concept analogous to Garrabrant's irreducible pattern in the complexity theoretic language underlying optimal predictor schemes and prove a formal relation to Garrabant's original definition. We prove that optimal predictor schemes pass the corresponding version of the Benford test (namely, on irreducible patterns they are -similar to a constant).
Results
All the proofs are given in the appendix.
Definition 1
Fix an error space of rank 2. Consider a distributional estimation problem, . is called -irreducible with expectation when for any -valued -bischeme we have
Theorem 1
Fix an error space of rank 2. Assume is a polynomial s.t. . Given , define to be rounded within error . Consider a distributional estimation problem, . Define the -predictor scheme by . Then, is -irreducible with expectation if and only if is a -optimal predictor scheme for .
Corollary 1
Consider , error spaces of rank 2 s.t. . Assume there is a polynomial s.t. . Consider a distributional estimation problem, and a -optimal predictor scheme for . Suppose is -irreducible with expectation . Then, .
The following definition is adapted from Garrabrant with relatively minor modifications
Definition 2
Denote the uniform probability measure on . Given and , denote . Fix . is called a -irreducible pattern with expectation when for any polynomial there is s.t. for any if runs within time on any input s.t. then
Note 1
Definition 2 differs from Garrabrant's original definition in several respects:
- We consider an arbitrary function rather than the characteristic function of the set of provable sentences.
- Instead of a single time bound, we consider a family of time bounds differing by a polynomial.
- We allow to be a random algorithm rather than requiring it to be deterministic.
Definition 3
Fix . is the set of bounded functions for which there are s.t.
Proposition 1
is an error space of rank 2.
Theorem 2
Assume is s.t. for some polynomial we have . Consider , . Assume is a -irreducible pattern with expectation . Then, is -irreducible with expectation .
Definition 4
Denote the set of functions s.t. . Given , define . Fix . is the set of bounded functions s.t. for any , if then
Proposition 2
is an error space of rank 2.
Note that .
Proposition 3
Consider s.t. . Then .
Corollary 2
Fix s.t. . Cosnider , and a -optimal predictor scheme for . Suppose is a -irreducible pattern with expectation . Then .
Note 2
It is possible to repeat this theory without random and thus relate the deterministic version of irreducible patterns to -optimal predictor schemes (which have logarithmic advice and no coin flips or equivalently logarithmic number of coin flips).
Appendix
We will refer to the previously established results about -optimal predictor schemes by L.N where N is the number in the linked post. Thus Theorem 1 there becomes Theorem L.1 here and so on.
Proposition 4
Fix an error space of rank 2. Consider a distributional estimation problem, . Suppose is -irreducible with expectation . Then, there is a -moderate function s.t. for any and
Proof of Proposition 4
Take to be
If is not -moderate then there is a polynomial and a family of programs s.t. is bounded by a polynomial in and is logarithmically bounded in but
We can unite the into a single -predictor scheme by providing them as advice for a universal program. This contradicts the assumption on .
Proof of Theorem 1
If is a -optimal predictor scheme for then is -irreducible with expectation by Lemma L.B.3.
Assume is -irreducible with expectation . Consider any -valued -bischeme. By Lemma L.B.3, it is sufficient to prove that
We have
Applying Proposition 4 to , we conclude that there is s.t.
Summing up
Proof of Corollary 1
Trivially follows from Theorem 1 and Theorem L.A.7.
Proposition 5
Fix . Assume is bounded and are s.t.
Consider . Then, there is s.t.
Proof of Proposition 5
Proof of Proposition 1
The only not entirely obvious part is additivity. Consider . Suppose are s.t.
For sufficiently large , can be written as a sum of terms of the form for , . Applying Proposition 5, we conclude that there is s.t.
Proposition 6
For any , , ,
Proof of Proposition 6
Since we can choose s.t. . We get
Proof of Theorem 2
Consider a -valued -bischeme. Define by
Choose a polynomial s.t. runs within time for , and and that for . We have
for some . therefore
On the other hand
Combining the two cases
Using Proposition 6, we conclude that
Proof of Proposition 2
Proven exactly the same way as for .
Proof of Proposition 3
Consider . Take s.t.
Given s.t. , we have
We conclude that and therefore .
Proof of Corollary 2
Follows trivially from Theorem 2, Proposition 3 and Corollary 1.
0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.