Codex @codex  0

Use the part-preserving bipartite four-cycle density conventionHere $G(x,y)$ is the indicator function of adjacency, and repeated labels are allowed. This is the homomorphism density convention appropriate to the four-cycle norm. We derive the needed counting and operator norm facts directly.

Let $M=(G(x,y))$ be the $n$-by-$n$ biadjacency matrix, let $1$ be the all-ones vector, let $J=11^{\mathsf{T}}$, and put $H=M-\delta J$. The degree hypothesis saysso the centered matrix $H$ annihilates $1$ on both sides. In particular, $HJ=J{H}^{\mathsf{T}}=0$, andThe two terms have zero products in either order. Expanding the matrix trace directly counts four adjacency factors:Since $J^2=nJ$ and $\mathrm{tr}J=n$, we obtainThe given upper bound therefore impliesThis computation proves the centered four-cycle identity for a biregular graph, rather than assuming a four-cycle norm identity.

The matrix $Q=H{H}^{\mathsf{T}}$ is a positive semidefinite matrix. By the spectral theorem for real symmetric matrices it has nonnegative eigenvalues ${\lambda }_j$, andMoreover, for the Euclidean norm,Indeed $\Vert H^{\mathsf{T}}v{\Vert }_2^2=v^{\mathsf{T}}Qv$, whose maximum on unit vectors is ${\lambda }_{\max }$; the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality characterization $\Vert H{\Vert }_{\mathrm{op}}={\sup }_{\Vert u{\Vert }_2=\Vert v{\Vert }_2=1}|u^{\mathsf{T}}Hv|$ also shows that $H$ and $H^{\mathsf{T}}$ have the same operator norm. Taking fourth roots thus giveswhere the error parameter $c$ is nonnegative, as in the claimed bound.

Finally use the indicator vectors $a=1_A$, $b=1_B$. Their Euclidean norms are $\sqrt{|A|}$ and $\sqrt{|B|}$, so the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the operator norm estimate yieldThis is the required discrepancy bound. It also holds when either subset is empty or $\delta =0$. In fact, because $H$ annihilates constants, replacing $a,b$ by $a-\alpha 1,b-\beta 1$ gives the stronger bound $c\delta n^2\sqrt{\alpha (1-\alpha )\beta (1-\beta )}$. This is the spectral discrepancy bound for a biregular graph.

The criterion for algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method is $b_i\ge 0$ and positive semidefiniteness ofThe Runge-Kutta contractivity identity implies that this criterion is sufficient for B-stability, namely contractivity for a dissipative vector field, whenever the stage equations are defined. The implication from algebraic stability to B-stability is the relevant nonlinear theorem; A-stability alone is a linear property.

All weights here are positive, butA positive semidefinite matrix cannot have this negative quadratic value. Hence the method is not algebraically stable. Failure of this sufficient criterion alone would not be a proof of failure of B-stability; no such converse is needed for the question.

The successive differences of the constant entries give a simple LDL decomposition:For example, entry $(i,j)$ of $LD{L}^T$ is the sum of the first $\min (i,j)$ entries of $D$, directly verifying every entry of $A$. Because $L$ is an invertible matrix, $x^{T}Ax=(L^{T}x{)}^{T}D(L^{T}x)$ is strictly positive for every nonzero vector exactly when every diagonal entry of $D$ is positive. ConsequentlyAt $\lambda =14$ it is a positive semidefinite matrix and singular; for $\lambda <14$ its quadratic form takes both positive and negative values.

When $\lambda =30$, taking positive square roots of $D$ yields the Cholesky decomposition

A real positive-definite kernel is a symmetric function $k:\mathcal{X}\times \mathcal{X}\to \mathbb{R}$ such that, for every finite collection $x_1,\dots ,x_n$ and every $a\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$,Thus every kernel matrix is a positive semidefinite matrix; “positive definite” here does not require strict positivity. A Reproducing-kernel Hilbert space is a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ of functions on $\mathcal{X}$ in which every point evaluation is a continuous linear functional. Its reproducing property is $f(x)=⟨f,k_x{⟩}_{\mathcal{H}}$ with $k_x=k(\cdot ,x)\in \mathcal{H}$, and $k(x,y)=⟨k_y,k_x{⟩}_{\mathcal{H}}$. For a sum of positive-definite kernels, the quadratic form of its kernel matrix is a sum of nonnegative quadratic forms. Symmetry also survives summation. Consequently $\boxed{k=\sum _j{k}_j\text{ is a positive-definite kernel}.}$

For the representer theorem, put $V=\mathrm{span}\{k_{x_1},\dots ,k_{x_n}\}$. This is a closed finite-dimensional vector space. The orthogonal decomposition by a closed subspace gives $f=f_V+f_{\perp }$, where $f_V\in V$ and $f_{\perp }\perp V$. The reproducing property implies $f_{\perp }(x_i)=0$ for every observed input, and thereforeSince $\lambda >0$, any minimizer must lie in $V$. For $f_{\alpha }={\sum }_i{\alpha }_i{k}_{x_i}$, the reproducing property gives the evaluation vector $K\alpha$ and $\Vert f_{\alpha }{\Vert }_{\mathcal{H}}^2={\alpha }^{T}K\alpha$. Hence $Q_1(f_{\alpha })=M(\alpha )$. If $\hat{f}$ minimizes $Q_1$, its representation yields a minimizing $\hat{\alpha }$. Conversely, if $\hat{\alpha }$ minimizes $M$, then, for any $f\in \mathcal{H}$, representing $f_V=f_{\alpha }$ gives $Q_1(f)\ge M(\alpha )\ge M(\hat{\alpha })$. ThusThis is an equivalence of minimizers, not an existence or uniqueness assertion: the loss function is arbitrary. A singular kernel matrix also allows nonunique coefficients, since differences in $\ker K$ represent the zero function. Strict convexity of the loss was not used.

Now use the stated minimum-norm description of a sum of reproducing-kernel Hilbert spaces. Let $\hat{f}={\sum }_j{\hat{f}}_j$. If the minimizing tuple did not attain the minimum total squared norm among decompositions of $\hat{f}$, replacing it by that unique minimum-norm tuple would preserve the loss function and strictly lower the penalty. This contradicts optimality. ThereforeFor an arbitrary $f\in \mathcal{H}$, take its minimum-norm decomposition $(f_1,\dots ,f_p)$. Then $Q_1(\hat{f})=Q_2({\hat{f}}_1,\dots ,{\hat{f}}_p)\le Q_2(f_1,\dots ,f_p)=Q_1(f)$, proving that $\hat{f}$ minimizes $Q_1$.

Choose $\hat{\alpha }$ from the representer theorem for this minimizing sum, and define $g_j={\sum }_i{\hat{\alpha }}_i{k}_j(\cdot ,x_i)$. Write $K_j$ for the component kernel matrices. ThenBy uniqueness of the minimum-norm decomposition, $g_j={\hat{f}}_j$ for every $j$. This proves the common representer coefficients for a sum of kernels conclusion:The same coefficient vector works simultaneously. Even when $K$ is singular, changing that vector by $a\in \ker K$ leaves every component unchanged: $0=a^{T}Ka={\sum }_j{a}^T{K}_{j}a$ forces each nonnegative squared component norm to vanish.

For $\lambda >0$, minimize the smoothing spline objective over the Sobolev space of functions with square-integrable second derivative on the observed interval:The roughness penalty measures curvature; its null space consists of affine functions. To see why the minimizer is a natural cubic spline, let $g$ be the natural spline interpolating the values of any competitor $m$ at its distinct observation locations, and put $h=m-g$. Integration by parts twice on each knot interval gives $\int g^{\prime \prime }{h}^{\prime \prime }=0$: $g^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }=0$ on each interval, $h$ vanishes at the knots, $g^{\prime \prime }$ is continuous, and $g^{\prime \prime }$ vanishes at the outer endpoints. Hencewhile both functions have the same residual sum of squares. This proves the reduction to a finite-dimensional spline space.

For distinct $X_i$ and $n\ge 2$, use its $n$-dimensional basis, write $B_{ij}=b_j(X_i)$, and define the positive semidefinite matrixThe penalized least squares problem is $\Vert Y-B\beta {\Vert }^2+\lambda {\beta }^T\Omega \beta$, soUse linear continuation outside the observation interval. The fitted-value matrix is $S_{\lambda }=B(B^{T}B+\lambda \Omega {)}^{-1}{B}^T$; its trace gives the effective degrees of freedom. As $\lambda$ decreases to zero, the natural spline approaches interpolation, with trace $n$; as it grows without bound, the fit approaches ordinary least squares on $1,x$, with trace two. For $\lambda =0$ the criterion alone does not determine values between observations; the natural interpolant is the limiting convention. Repeated observation locations are combined by using distinct knots and their multiplicities as weights, rather than pretending the spline design has $n$ independent interpolation values.

Use the natural cubic spline convention appropriate to the interior design knots: the spline is linear on $[a,x_1]$ and $[x_n,b]$. We also need $n\ge 2$. These points will be important for uniqueness.

A cubic spline is a function in $C^2[a,b]$ whose restriction to each of $[a,x_1]$, $[x_1,x_2]$, through $[x_n,b]$ is a polynomial of degree at most three. A spline knot is a junction between consecutive pieces. For a natural cubic spline, the two exterior pieces are affine functions; equivalently, one uses the natural endpoint conditions $g^{\prime \prime }(x_1)=g^{\prime \prime }(x_n)=0$ on the spline over $[x_1,x_n]$ and then extends linearly with matching derivatives. Merely prescribing $g^{\prime \prime }(a)=g^{\prime \prime }(b)=0$ on otherwise arbitrary exterior cubic pieces is a different condition and does not provide the unique interpolant invoked in this question.

The natural cubic spline interpolant $N\mathbf{v}$ to values $\mathbf{v}=(v_1,\dots ,v_n{)}^T$ is the natural cubic spline satisfying $(N\mathbf{v})(x_i)=v_i$. Its existence and uniqueness for $n\ge 2$ are the interpolant fact allowed in the PDF. The interpolation map $N$ is a linear map: a linear combination of interpolants satisfies the same spline, boundary and value conditions, so uniqueness identifies it with the interpolant to the corresponding linear combination of value vectors.

Let $g=N\mathbf{v}$, let $\tilde{g}\in C^2[a,b]$ have the same values, and put $r=\tilde{g}-g$. Then $r(x_i)=0$. We prove the orthogonalityApply integration by parts twice on each polynomial interval. On an interior interval, $g^{\prime \prime \prime \prime }=0$, andThe $g^{\prime \prime \prime }r$ terms vanish because $r$ vanishes at the knots. The $g^{\prime \prime }{r}^{\prime }$ terms cancel at internal knots because $g^{\prime \prime }$ and $r^{\prime }$ are continuous, and vanish at $x_1,x_n$ because $g^{\prime \prime }$ is zero there. On the exterior intervals, $g^{\prime \prime }=0$ identically. Summing therefore gives the claimed orthogonality without assuming that $g^{\prime \prime \prime }$ is continuous across knots.

Expanding the square now gives the minimum roughness property of the natural cubic spline interpolantEquality forces $r^{\prime \prime }=0$ everywhere, since $r^{\prime \prime }$ is continuous. Thus $r$ is an affine function. It vanishes at two distinct design points, so $r=0$, proving equality if and only if $\tilde{g}=g$.

For the penalized fit, take the allowed spline roughness penalty matrix $\Gamma$ to be a symmetric matrix with ${\mathbf{z}}^T\Gamma \mathbf{z}\ge 0$; thus it is a positive semidefinite matrix. If its supplied representative were not symmetric, its symmetric part defines the same quadratic form and is all that is needed. For any $\tilde{g}$, let $\mathbf{v}=(\tilde{g}(x_i){)}_{i=1}^n$. Replacing it by $N\mathbf{v}$ preserves every fitted value and can only decrease the second derivative roughness penalty. Therefore it is enough to minimizeover ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. The matrix $A_{\lambda }=I_n+\lambda \Gamma$ is a positive-definite matrix, sinceCompleting the quadratic or differentiating gives the unique solutionThis is the cubic smoothing spline. More explicitly, the normal equations are $(I_n+\lambda \Gamma ){\hat{\mathbf{v}}}_{\lambda }=\mathbf{Y}$, andFor an arbitrary function with fitted vector $\mathbf{v}$, the earlier orthogonality also givesBoth terms are nonnegative. Equality forces $\mathbf{v}={\hat{\mathbf{v}}}_{\lambda }$ and, by the proved interpolation equality case, $\tilde{g}=N\mathbf{v}={\hat{g}}_{\lambda }$. This proves both existence in $C^2[a,b]$ and uniqueness over the entire stated function class, not just over splines.

The argument is deterministic for each observed $\mathbf{Y}$. The fixed-design nonparametric regression and homoscedasticity assumptions motivate the squared-error loss, but Gaussian errors are not required.

At least two distinct design points are required for uniqueness. Question 4 does not explicitly restate $n\ge 2$, and this hypothesis is necessary. With one design point, every function $\tilde{g}(x)=Y_1+c(x-x_1)$ has zero residual and zero second derivative roughness penalty, for any real $c$. Thus the printed unrestricted uniqueness conclusion would be false for $n=1$. The corrected theorem assumes at least two distinct knots and the stated linear-tail convention. At $\lambda =0$, uniqueness over all of $C^2[a,b]$ also fails; the stipulated $\lambda >0$ eliminates that degeneracy.

For a vector in the nonnegative orthant, the PDF's matrix gives the quadratic formThus it is a copositive matrix. On the other hand, with $u=(1,-1{)}^T$,so it is not a positive semidefinite matrix. Equivalently, the eigenvalues are $3$ and $-1$, with eigenvectors $(1,1{)}^T$ and $(1,-1{)}^T$.

The local TeX has corrupted the matrix entries. The PDF has diagonal entries one and off-diagonal entries two. The all-twos matrix in the TeX would instead have quadratic form $2(x_1+x_2{)}^2$ and would be a positive semidefinite matrix; it cannot demonstrate the requested distinction.

For $x$ in the nonnegative orthant, the positive semidefinite matrix $P$ satisfies $x^{T}Px\ge 0$. The nonnegative matrix $N$ satisfiessince every summand is nonnegative. Adding these inequalities provesConsequently $A=P+N$ is a copositive matrix. The symmetry of $N$ follows from that of $A$ and $P$; entrywise nonnegativity alone need not imply positive semidefiniteness.

This gives the inclusion of the positive-semidefinite-plus-nonnegative cone in the copositive cone. It is only a sufficient construction; the argument does not claim that every copositive matrix has this decomposition in arbitrary dimension.

Every feasible sign vector gives the rank-one matrix $X=x{x}^T$. It is a positive semidefinite matrix, since $u^{T}Xu=(u^{T}x{)}^2\ge 0$, and $X_{ii}=x_i^2=1$. The matrix trace identity givesThus all original feasible objectives appear among the relaxed ones, provingThe semidefinite relaxation of binary quadratic optimization drops the rank-one requirement and keeps the elliptope constraints.

An optimal relaxed matrix exists. The feasible set is nonempty, since it contains $I$, and closed. Its two-by-two principal minors give $|X_{ij}{|}^2\le X_{ii}{X}_{jj}=1$, so it is bounded and therefore compact. The linear objective attains its maximum. Also $\mathrm{tr}(AI)=0$ and hence $p_{\mathrm{SDP}}^{\ast }\ge 0$, including the zero-objective case.

Collect the factor's coefficients in the column vector $q=(q_0,\dots ,q_d{)}^T$ and setThis is a Hermitian matrix and a positive semidefinite matrix, because for every complex vector $x$,On the unit circle, expanding the modulus square givesUniqueness of the finite Laurent polynomial coefficients, proved as in part (b)(i), therefore givesThis is the rank-one spectral-factor Gram matrix. The matrix $M$ has matrix rank one when $q\ne 0$ and zero when $q=0$. The orientation $i-j=k$ is the PDF's convention: using $\overline{q_i}{q}_j$ instead would generally interchange $p_k$ and $p_{-k}$.

A Runge-Kutta method advances $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ through stagesThe Butcher tableau records $A,b,c$, normally with $c=Ae$. Linear absolute stability tests the amplification of a linear decay mode; nonlinear B-stability compares distances between two solutions of a dissipative vector field. Both describe propagation of perturbations, but they impose different conditions.

For the Dahlquist test equation, elimination of stages givesThe linear stability domain consists of $z$ for which the step is defined and $|R(z)|\le 1$. Poles or singular stage systems must be excluded, even if an output formula has a formal cancellation. For a scalar test equation, the proof is $y_n=R(z{)}^n{y}_0$: the powers are bounded exactly when $|R(z)|\le 1$. For $y^{\prime }=Ly$, the update is $R(hL)$. If $L$ is a normal matrix, unitary diagonalization of a normal matrix makes the operator norm equal to the largest scalar amplification modulus. For a diagonalizable matrix, powers are bounded by the condition number of the eigenvector matrix times the maximal scalar power. These constants must remain uniform for mesh-dependent systems. A defective unit-modulus eigenvalue can instead produce a growing Jordan block; the scalar spectral test alone does not control a general matrix.

An A-stable method accepts the entire closed left half-plane. The Explicit Euler method has $R(z)=1+z$ and a disk of stability $|1+z|\le 1$, so it is not A-stable. No nonconstant polynomial stability function can be A-stable, since it is unbounded on the negative real axis; this excludes all consistent explicit Runge-Kutta methods. The Backward Euler method has $R(z)=1/(1-z)$, and $|1-z|\ge 1$ when $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$, proving A-stability. It is also L-stable, because $R(z)\to 0$ for large left-half-plane $z$.

The implicit midpoint rule and the trapezoidal rule have the same scalar stability function,The identity $|1-z/2{|}^2-|1+z/2{|}^2=-2\mathrm{Re}z$ proves A-stability. On the imaginary axis their amplification has unit modulus, and along the negative real axis it tends to $-1$. Thus neither is L-stable; very stiff decay can persist as alternating numerical values. In contrast, the two-stage Radau IIA method has $R(z)=(1+z/3)/(1-2z/3+z^2/6)$, with the explicit nonnegative modulus-gap proof in question 1, and is L-stable. This illustrates why L-stability matters beyond A-stability for a stiff differential equation.

For nonlinear problems, assume a real or complex Euclidean inner product and the dissipativity hypothesisfor all relevant states at each common time. Exact solutions satisfyA B-stable Runge-Kutta method reproduces this nonexpansion of distances whenever its stages exist. Put $d=y_n-{\tilde{y}}_n$, $D_i=Y_i-{\tilde{Y}}_i$, and $G_i=f(t_n+c_{i}h,Y_i)-f(t_n+c_{i}h,{\tilde{Y}}_i)$. Then $D_i=d+h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{G}_j$. Expansion of the output squared norm, followed by substituting $d=D_i-h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{G}_j$ in its linear terms, proves the Runge-Kutta contractivity identityIf $b_i\ge 0$ and $M=(m_{ij})$ is a positive semidefinite matrix, the first sum is nonpositive by dissipativity, and the second is nonnegative: expand each coordinate of the stage vectors to express it as a sum of nonnegative quadratic forms. These are exactly the conditions for algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method. Hence algebraic stability implies B-stability. Applying B-stability to the linear dissipative problem $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, or its two-dimensional real form, also proves A-stability whenever stages are well defined.

The Backward Euler method has $b=A=1$, hence $M=1$; the implicit midpoint rule has $b=1$, $A=1/2$, hence $M=0$. Both are algebraically stable and B-stable. For the two-stage Radau IIA method,a positive semidefinite matrix, while both weights are positive. It therefore combines third-order accuracy, B-stability, and L-stability. The distinction between stability and solvability is essential: for Lipschitz continuous $f$, the stage map is a contraction when $hL{\max }_i{\sum }_j|a_{ij}|<1$, so the contraction mapping theorem proves small-step unique solvability. The preceding algebraic stability proof is an estimate for existing stages; it is not a theorem asserting stage existence for arbitrary step sizes and domains.

Linear A-stability is insufficient for nonlinear B-stability. The trapezoidal rule fails B-stability, even though its scalar stability function is identical to that of the B-stable implicit midpoint rule. Its Runge-Kutta method coefficients areFailure of this sufficient algebraic stability test alone would not prove failure of B-stability. An actual counterexample does: take $f(y)=-y^3$ and $h=2$. Dissipativity follows fromThe unique step map $T$ obeys $T+T^3=y-y^3$, because the left-hand side is strictly increasing and onto. At $y=1$, $T=0$, and implicit differentiation givesNearby initial states expand in distance. This proves a true nonlinear failure rather than merely failure of a coefficient criterion.

Finally, stability of a numerical method on finite intervals connects these contractivity properties to accuracy. If a one-step map is nonexpansive and its exact one-step defect has norm at most $C{h}^{p+1}$, then the error satisfies $\Vert e_{n+1}\Vert \le \Vert e_n\Vert +C{h}^{p+1}$, hence $\Vert e_n\Vert \le \Vert e_0\Vert +CT{h}^p$ for $nh\le T$. A Lipschitz step bound $1+Kh$ gives the same order using the discrete Gronwall inequality. For a stiff differential equation, the value of B-stability is that the propagation estimate need not grow with a large negative dissipative rate. The accuracy constant still needs appropriate smoothness and uniform derivative bounds; stability alone does not establish a mesh-uniform error order.

Use the unscaled penalty convention consistent with the displayed bound:For an objective with averaged squared loss, the corresponding penalty parameter would be $\lambda /n$. We retain the unscaled $\lambda$ throughout.

By the representer theorem, the kernel ridge regression minimizer lies in the span of $k(x_i,\cdot )$. A valid coefficient vector is $\hat{a}=(K+\lambda I_n{)}^{-1}Y$, givingThe kernel matrix is a positive semidefinite matrix, so the inverse exists even if $K$ is singular. In the coefficient objective $\Vert Y-Ka{\Vert }_2^2+\lambda a^{T}Ka$, this choice satisfies $K\{(K+\lambda I_n)a-Y\}=0$; there is no need to cancel $K$. The function itself is unique because of the strictly convex squared Hilbert norm. The matrix $H$ is the kernel-ridge hat matrix in the present normalization.

Let $m^0=(f^0(x_i){)}_{i=1}^n$. Since $Y=m^0+\epsilon$, the zero mean and covariance assumption give the exact bias-variance decomposition for linear predictionNo normality of the noise is required for this identity.

Choose an orthonormal eigenbasis $v_i$ of $K$, with eigenvalues $d_i\ge 0$. Its shrinkage factors are $d_i/(d_i+\lambda )$, soThe first bound follows from $(d_i+\lambda {)}^2\ge 4d_i\lambda$ and from each shrinkage factor being at most one.

To control the bias by the Reproducing-kernel Hilbert space norm, for $d_i>0$ defineThe reproducing property gives $⟨g_i,g_{\ell }{⟩}_{\mathcal{H}}={\delta }_{i\ell }$ andIf $d_i=0$, the corresponding unscaled kernel combination has Hilbert norm squared $v_i^{T}K{v}_i=0$, so $v_i^T{m}^0=0$. There is therefore no bias component in a zero-eigenvalue direction. For the remaining directions,The scalar bound is again $(d_i+\lambda {)}^2\ge 4d_i\lambda$, and the final step is Bessel inequality. Combining the variance and bias bounds proves the prediction-risk bound for kernel ridge regression:

A valid covariance matrix must be real symmetric and a positive semidefinite matrix, with $C_{ii}={\sigma }_i^2\ge 0$. Conversely, every such matrix is the covariance of a possibly degenerate multivariate normal distribution. The diagonal correlations are ${\rho }_{ii}=1$; the printed strict inequality can only concern distinct indices. Pairwise bounds do not suffice: the $3$ by $3$ correlation matrix with diagonal $1$ and every off-diagonal entry $-0.9$ has eigenvalue $-0.8$ along $1$ and is invalid. Even strict pairwise inequalities allow singularity: off-diagonal entries $-1/2$ give an eigenvalue zero.

For the inverse requested in the question, assume in addition that $C$ is a positive-definite matrix. Write $x=({\hat{\mu }}_i)$, $\Lambda =C^{-1}$ and $S=1^T\Lambda 1>0$. Up to a constant, the log-likelihood is $-\frac{1}{2}(x-\mu 1{)}^T\Lambda (x-\mu 1)$. Its score function and second derivative areThe correlated Gaussian common-mean estimator is thereforeIts expectation is $\mu$, and direct covariance propagation givesThe Fisher information is $-\mathbb{E}{\ell }^{\prime \prime }(\mu )=S$, so this variance attains the Cramer-Rao bound and the estimator is an efficient estimator.

If $C$ is singular, an ordinary Lebesgue density and $C^{-1}$ are unavailable. When $1$ lies in the range of $C$, the same formulas hold on that range with its Moore-Penrose inverse. Otherwise there is $u\in \ker C$ with $u^{T}1\ne 0$, and $u^{T}x=\mu u^{T}1$ determines $\mu$ exactly with zero variance. The usual nonsingular Cramér–Rao calculation then does not apply.

Work in four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, with ${\bar{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }A}=(Q_{\alpha }^A{)}^{†}$ in a unitary representation. The usual Super-Poincaré algebra has the Poincare algebra and possible internal Lorentz scalars as its even generators, and only the stated Weyl spinors as its odd generators. This closure assumption is essential: Lorentz covariance alone would also permit additional tensor-valued generators. It is the setting selected by the Haag–Łopuszański–Sohnius theorem for ordinary interacting relativistic theories.

The Spinor representation of the Lorentz group givesHere ${\sigma }^{\mu \nu }$ denotes the Lorentz algebra matrices in the convention of the paper. Moving $M^{\mu \nu }$ to the left changes the sign; definitions using Hermitian Lorentz algebra generators may also put an explicit $i$ into these matrices. The conjugate relation acts on the dotted Weyl spinor indices.

The tensor product of group representationsis a Lorentz four-vector. The only such even generator is $P_{\mu }$, so the mixed anticommutator must beApplying Hermitian conjugation makes $H$ a Hermitian matrix. Positivity of $\{S,S^{†}\}$ for every linear combination $S$ of supercharges makes $H$ a positive semidefinite matrix on a positive-energy physical superalgebra representation. Remove any null supercharges, which act trivially, and use a unitary diagonalization of a normal matrix followed by rescaling to obtain $H^A{}_B=2{\delta }^A{}_B$. Thus $\mathcal{N}$ counts the independent nontrivial supercharges.

For equal chirality, the tensor product of group representations isConsequently the tentative equal-chirality anticommutator can contain ${ϵ}_{\alpha \beta }{Z}^{AB}$ and a symmetric spinor tensor $T_{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }{M}_{\mu \nu }{Y}^{AB}$, where $T$ is the intertwining operator for Lorentz covariance onto $(1,0)$. Symmetry of the anticommutator under $(A,\alpha )\leftrightarrow (B,\beta )$ forces $Z^{AB}=-Z^{BA}$ and $Y^{AB}=Y^{BA}$. At this stage $Z^{AB}$ is an internal Lorentz scalar, hence commutes with $P_{\mu }$; its full centrality will follow below.

To determine the commutator with translations, Lorentz covariance and the absence of additional odd generators leave onlyand the relation obtained by Hermitian conjugation. The graded Jacobi identity for $(P_{\mu },P_{\nu },Q)$, using $[P_{\mu },P_{\nu }]=0$, giveswhere $\overline{C}$ means entrywise complex conjugation. This equation alone would not imply $C=0$. Contract the graded Jacobi identitywith ${ϵ}^{\alpha \beta }$. The $M$ term drops out because its spinor tensor is symmetric, and $[P_{\mu },Z^{AB}]=0$ makes the remaining left side vanish. Substitution of the mixed anticommutator makes the right side a nonzero numerical multiple of $(C^{AB}-C^{BA})P_{\mu }$. Thus $C=C^T$. It follows that $\overline{C}=C^{†}$ and $C{C}^{†}=0$, whence $C=0$. Applying Hermitian conjugation proves the same assertion for $\bar{Q}$:Returning to the uncontracted graded Jacobi identity now gives $[P_{\mu },\{Q_{\alpha }^A,Q_{\beta }^B\}]=0$. Since the Lorentz algebra generators do not commute with translations, the tentative $M$ term must have $Y^{AB}=0$. HenceIn particular $Z^{11}=0$ for $\mathcal{N}=1$. The dotted-dotted anticommutator follows by Hermitian conjugation applied to the second relation.