Result · D-COMPILE-TOLERANCE-GUARANTEE

A solver that stops early promises less

Proved hereindependently auditedpublication: internal

Read the proof and evidence →

Meaning

Stopping at a positive tolerance weakens the compile guarantee to one stamped with that tolerance, so ties are broken by convention rather than ruled out.

Statement

At a finite D partition stable at gain tolerance epsilon, every admissible individual relocation has gain at most epsilon, including each admissible disagreement with the deterministic terminal nearest-centroid rule, priced against the original partition. Compilation additionally requires every positive-weight prediction disagreement to be admissible. Positive tolerance alone does not imply distinct centroids or admissibility: singleton ties can force refusal. No bound on simultaneous reassignment, global optimality gap or population loss follows. The implementation evaluates exact-formula gains numerically in its retained score subspace; this is not an interval-arithmetic certificate.

Assumptions

  • positive gain tolerance; positive-weight atoms with duplicate labels consistently merged

  • positive-definite retained information in the working score coordinates; exactly K nonempty cells

  • stability against all individual relocations preserving positive source-cell weight

  • successful compilation requires all positive-weight prediction disagreements to preserve source-cell weight

  • deterministic lowest-index argmin; zero-weight rows carry no information or label-reproduction guarantee

what a real solver can actually claim

Where it stops

Bounded by

Relationships

Rests on

The full chain beneath it

Open next door

Local graph
Local map of Positive solver tolerance gives only a tolerance-stamped compile guarantee1 prerequisites to the left, 0 results it enables or questions it raises to the right, 2 boundary cases below.Exact finite inductive closure / compilerExact finite inductiv…Positive solver tolerance gives only a tolerance-stamped compile guaranteePositive solver toler…CE-D-COMPILE-SINGLETON-TIE-001CE-D-COMPILE-SINGLETO…CE-D-COMPILE-BATCH-TOLERANCE-001CE-D-COMPILE-BATCH-TO…
Prerequisites to the left, what it enables or raises to the right, boundary cases below. Open in the map.

Proof

D6. Exact finite inductive closure / compiler

Every one-point-exchange-stable positive-definite finite D solution with exactly KK nonempty cells can be compiled to

q^D(s)=arg⁡min⁡b(s−μb)⊤I^−1(s−μb).\boxed{ \hat q_D(s)= \arg\min_b(s-\mu_b)^\top\widehat I^{-1}(s-\mu_b). }

For merged distinct positive-weight score atoms at exact zero-tolerance stability, this predictor reproduces all training labels exactly, without a tie breaker. Therefore an exact terminal D exchange solution is not merely transductive: it has a canonical deployable extension.

The nonempty-cell hypothesis is load-bearing, not bookkeeping. An empty cell has zero mass, hence the degenerate centroid 00, and a training row at the origin is exactly as near to it as to its own centroid: at d=1d=1, N=2N=2, K=3K=3 with scores (−2,0)(-2,0), unit weights and z=(0,1)z=(0,1), the configuration is stable, positive definite and has injective scores, yet row 1 ties between its own cell and the empty one, so a conforming rule may return the empty cell. The statement of D-FINITE-INDUCTIVE-CLOSURE was amended on 7 September 2026 to carry this hypothesis, which D5's node already had.

Original duplicate rows inherit the merged atom's label (D-CLOSURE-DUPLICATE-INHERITANCE): merging preserves cell masses, cell sums, centroids and the retained information, so a rule built from the unmerged data is the same rule. That direction is the content — the unmerged scores are not distinct, so D5 does not apply to them directly.

A finite numerical solver using a positive gain tolerance has a weaker, conditional compiler guarantee (D-COMPILE-TOLERANCE-GUARANTEE, independently audited in AUDITS/AUDIT-D-COMPILE-TOLERANCE-001.md). A complete admissible-move scan bounds individual relocation gains by the tolerance, each priced against the original partition; D5's lower bound alone cannot supply this upper bound. Every positive-weight prediction disagreement must also be admissible. Positive tolerance does not force distinct centroids: a singleton tie can make a disagreement inadmissible, and the library's separate guard refuses it (CE-D-COMPILE-SINGLETON-TIE-001).

There is no bound by this tolerance on simultaneous prediction changes (CE-D-COMPILE-BATCH-TOLERANCE-001), global suboptimality or population loss. Prediction keeps deterministic lowest-index argmin. The implementation uses numerical exact-formula gains in the projected score coordinates, not interval arithmetic; zero-weight rows remain predictable but have no positive-weight label guarantee. This regime is not formalized.

Machine-checked. The exact zero-tolerance statements are ScoreQuantFormal.closure_reproduces_labels and ScoreQuantFormal.closure_duplicates, resting on ScoreQuantFormal.merge_invariance (formal/ScoreQuantFormal/Merge.lean) for the preservation of masses, sums, centroids and information under merging — which is the proof mechanism, carried by no claim node of its own. All in formal/ScoreQuantFormal/Closure.lean, frozen in ClosureSpec.lean and MergeSpec.lean and audited in AUDITS/FORMALIZATION-D-FINITE-INDUCTIVE-CLOSURE-001.md. Not covered: the positive-tolerance guarantee; D5's second duplicate branch, since ClosureDuplicateConclusion assumes the inherited labeling rather than deriving that labels are constant on a duplicate class; and any behaviour of the rule away from the training scores.

From D-optimality · chapter contents

Independently audited. The audit report.