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.
Hierarchical Bayes and partial pooling — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Areas of Elementary Plane Figures
- Bayesian models, priors, and posterior laws
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Central Limit Theorems
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Complete Metrizability, Čech-Completeness, and Baire Category
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Conditional Distributions and Regular Conditional Probability
- Conditional Expectation
- Conjugate families and Gaussian conditioning
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Countability Axioms and Cardinal Functions
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Domination and Likelihood Ratios
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Finite Probability and the Probabilistic Method
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Fubini and Change of Variables
- Fundamental Trigonometric Identities
- Gaussian Elimination, Elementary Matrices and Reduced Row Echelon Form
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Hierarchical Bayes and partial pooling
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Improper and Parameter-Dependent Multiple Integrals
- Improper Integrals
- Independence Borel Cantelli and Zero One Laws
- Infinite Product Measures and Kolmogorov Extension
- Lebesgue Measure on Euclidean Space
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Loss, Risk and Decision Theory
- Markov Kernels and Markov Chains
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Outer Measure and the Caratheodory Extension Theorem
- Pointwise Extended-Real Function Products
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Posterior propriety and dominated Bayes formula
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Product Measures and the Fubini Tonelli Theorems
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- SCM, DAGs, adjustment
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Signed and Complex Measures Hahn and Jordan
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Sine, Cosine, and the Definition of Pi
- Statistical Experiments, Models and Identifiability
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Inverse and Implicit Function Theorems
- The Lebesgue and Riemann Integrals Compared
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Lᵖ Spaces Holder Minkowski and Riesz Fischer
- The Radon Nikodym Theorem and Lebesgue Decomposition
- The Riemann Integral in Rᵐ and Jordan Content
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
- Weak Convergence Tightness and Representation
2 · Summary
The examples identify the complete-pooling boundary and the no-pooling limit of the conditional normal update, with finite positive variance giving partial pooling. A two-point proper hyperprior shows by direct calculation that integrating hyperparameter uncertainty can produce a posterior different from the posterior at a plug-in mode. A separate one-group calculation shows that an improper log-scale variance hyperprior can leave the posterior unnormalizable even with a finite observation and a proper conditional normal model.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
An improper variance hyperprior can give an improper posterior
Example
Take one group with and , where . Observe , but replace the proper hyperprior in Finite-group hierarchical Bayesian model by the improper measure on . Its evidence-weighted density is not integrable, so it cannot be normalized to a posterior probability. This is a warning example outside the proper-hyperprior hypotheses of the hierarchical posterior theorem.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The one-group normal model in the Example, observation , and the improper hyperparameter density on .
For and , the density is . A positive-variance normal law has its location-scale density
The standard normal density has Lebesgue integral one. The standard normal density has total mass one
For a sigma-finite prior measure, the evidence is the integral of the likelihood section, and a finite positive scaling of the likelihood-weighted measure is a probability exactly when the evidence is finite and positive. Evidence normalizer and fiberwise posterior update, Fiberwise posterior propriety is equivalent to finite positive evidence
AC is assumed for the library normal-law convention. The Axiom of Choice
The hyperprior measure is on .
Verification
Given: The model, observation, and improper hyperprior in the Example.
The prior is sigma-finite: the sets increase to and . Integrating out gives the evidence at fixed , . Indeed, the exponent is ; the substitution reduces the integral to the unit normal integral [F2]. It is positive and finite for every .
The evidence-weighted density of is by [A2] and step 1.1. For each , let . On , and , while the interval has length . Hence , uniformly in . The intervals are disjoint, so summing their lower bounds shows . By [F3], no finite positive scaling makes this likelihood-weighted measure a posterior probability.
Integrating hyperparameter uncertainty versus plugging in
Example
Let the hyperparameter be with prior probability at each value. There is one group, , and . Observe . Specify the likelihood-density version pointwise by The full posterior for is a mixture of the two conditional normal posteriors. Plugging in the posterior mode of instead yields just one component, which is not the full posterior.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A proper two-point hyperprior on , one group parameter , an observation kernel , and observed value .
The hierarchy's prior and observation kernels define the joint latent-data model. Finite-group hierarchical Bayesian model
On positive finite evidence, the joint posterior is the normalized prior-times-likelihood measure. Hierarchical posterior normalization on positive finite evidence
With the canonical normal likelihood density specified in the Example and positive conditional variances, the group posterior conditional on fixed normal hyperparameters is the normal law from the Normal–Normal update. Conditional normal shrinkage in a finite hierarchy
For and , the density is . A positive-variance normal law has its location-scale density
The standard normal density has Lebesgue integral one. The standard normal density has total mass one
AC is assumed for the library normal-law convention. The Axiom of Choice
Verification
Given: The model and observed value in the Example.
The specified model supplies the prior and sampling kernels [F1]; their densities are given by [F4]. For fixed , multiply the two densities and integrate over . The integrand is . Substituting and using [F5] for the unit normal integral gives the marginal evidence , which is positive and finite for .
The two prior masses are equal, so [F2] gives posterior odds . Thus the posterior mode is , and the posterior weights and are both strictly between zero and one.
By [F3], and . The full posterior is their mixture with weights and , so its second moment is .
Plugging in the posterior mode gives only , whose second moment is . This differs from the full posterior's second moment in step 3.1, so the plug-in posterior is not the full posterior mixture.
Complete, partial, and no-pooling limits in the normal hierarchy
Example
In the known-variance normal hierarchy, fix , an observed group summary , and . Specify the likelihood-density version pointwise by For finite , the posterior mean is a strictly weighted average of and . As it approaches complete pooling at ; at the boundary , the prior itself forces . As , the posterior mean and variance approach the group-only values and , the no-pooling limit. The value is not an admissible proper prior.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite group hierarchy, fixed , observed , known , and conditional variance except when examining the stated boundary limit.
For positive and the canonical normal likelihood-density version specified in the Example, the conditional posterior mean and variance are and . Conditional normal shrinkage in a finite hierarchy
The library normal law includes the degenerate boundary . Standard normal and normal laws
AC is assumed for the library normal-law convention. The Axiom of Choice
and for the conditional-posterior formula.
Verification
Given: The normal hierarchy in the Example and Facts & Assumptions.
Set . Algebra in [F1] gives and . Since both variances are positive, , so for finite positive the group mean uses both its own data and the population mean.
As , , , and . At , [F2] makes the conditional prior , so every group parameter equals and conditioning on the data leaves it there. This is complete pooling.
As , , , and . These are the group-only posterior mean and variance, so they describe the no-pooling limit. No posterior at is asserted.
Sources
- Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, David B. Dunson, Aki Vehtari, and Donald B. Rubin, Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed., §5.7
- Alicia A. Johnson, Miles Q. Ott, and Mine Dogucu, Bayes Rules!, Chapter 16
- Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, David B. Dunson, Aki Vehtari, and Donald B. Rubin, Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed., §§5.3–5.4
- Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, David B. Dunson, Aki Vehtari, and Donald B. Rubin, Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed., §5.4
- Alicia A. Johnson, Miles Q. Ott, and Mine Dogucu, Bayes Rules!, Chapters 15–16