Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Dirichlet normal-mixture posterior contraction — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Objective

The examples verify a compact scale hyperprior, balance the theorem's bandwidth terms explicitly, and distinguish failure of a prior-tail premise from failure of posterior contraction. A polynomial scale tail falls outside the stated theorem; the calculations assert no posterior inconsistency or failure result.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A compact scale hyperprior removes the tail term and permits an explicit bandwidth balance

Example

Take G to be uniform on [1,2], and suppose p0 satisfies the hypotheses of Dirichlet normal-mixture posterior contraction. Let σn=n−1/5(log⁡n)2/5. For γ=2, use a1=1/4 and a2=1/6.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: G=Unif⁡[1,2], γ=2, σn=n−1/5(log⁡n)2/5, and a truth satisfying the main theorem hypotheses.

[F1]

Dirichlet normal-mixture posterior contraction: when G is compactly supported in (0,∞), the middle tail term is absent and the rate is max⁡{(nσn)−1/2log⁡n,σn2log⁡n}.

Verification

1.1givenalgebra

For large n, n−1/4≤σn≤n−1/6 because n1/20(log⁡n)2/5→∞ and n−1/30(log⁡n)2/5→0. Thus 0<a2<a1<1 and a2=(4+γ)−1. The compactly supported G satisfies the lower scale-tail bound since G(s)=0 for s<1, and the upper tail is zero for s≥2.

2.1F1givenstep 1.1algebra∎

Direct calculation gives (nσn)−1/2log⁡n=n−2/5(log⁡n)4/5 and σn2log⁡n=n−2/5(log⁡n)4/5. Hence [F1] yields this Hellinger contraction upper bound in P0n-probability. It is not a minimax claim.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A polynomial scale tail is outside the stated theorem

Example

Let G be the mixture with weight 1/2 on Unif⁡[1,2] and weight 1/2 on the Pareto law with density 2s−21[2,∞)(s). This scale law has a polynomial upper tail.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The scale law G just defined and the upper-tail premise in Dirichlet normal-mixture posterior contraction.

[F1]

Dirichlet normal-mixture posterior contraction: the theorem requires 1−G(s)≲e−βsγ for some β>0, γ>1 as s→∞.

Verification

1.1givenalgebra

The Pareto density integrates to one because ∫2∞2s−2ds=1, so G is a probability measure. For s<1, G(s)=0, which satisfies every required lower-tail upper bound near zero.

1.2givenalgebra

For s≥2, the uniform component has no mass above s and the Pareto survival function is 2/s; the mixture weight 1/2 therefore gives 1−G(s)=1/s.

2.1F1step 1.2givenalgebra∎

For any β>0 and γ>1, eβsγ/s→∞, so 1/s is not bounded above by a constant multiple of e−βsγ. Thus this prior is outside the theorem's upper-tail hypotheses. This example says nothing about whether its posterior contracts or is inconsistent.

Sources