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.

Hierarchical Bayes and partial pooling — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

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

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

An improper variance hyperprior can give an improper posterior

Example

Take one group with θ∣t∼N(0,t) and Y∣θ∼N(θ,1), where t=τ2>0. Observe y=0, but replace the proper hyperprior in Finite-group hierarchical Bayesian model by the improper measure Π(dt)=t−1dt on (0,∞). 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 y=0, and the improper hyperparameter density 1/t on (0,∞).

[F1]

For a∈R and v>0, the N(a,v) density is (2πv)−1/2e−(x−a)2/(2v). A positive-variance normal law has its location-scale density

[F2]

The standard normal density has Lebesgue integral one. The standard normal density has total mass one

[F3]

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

[A1]

AC is assumed for the library normal-law convention. The Axiom of Choice

[A2]

The hyperprior measure is Π(dt)=t−1dt on (0,∞).

Verification

Given: The model, observation, and improper hyperprior in the Example.

1.1A1A2F1F2givenalgebra

The prior is sigma-finite: the sets En=[1/n,n] increase to (0,∞) and Π(En)=∫1/nndt/t=2log⁡n<∞. Integrating out θ gives the evidence at fixed t, m(0∣t)=∫Re−θ2/(2t)2πte−θ2/22π dθ=12π(1+t). Indeed, the exponent is −(1+t−1)θ2/2; the substitution z=1+t−1 θ reduces the integral to the unit normal integral [F2]. It is positive and finite for every t>0.

2.1A2F3step 1.1algebra∎

The evidence-weighted density of t is q(t)=1/(t2π(1+t)) by [A2] and step 1.1. For each k≥0, let Ik=(2−(k+1),2−k). On Ik⊂(0,1), q(t)≥1/(t4π) and 1/t≥2k, while the interval has length 2−(k+1). Hence ∫Ikq(t) dt≥1/(24π), uniformly in k. The intervals are disjoint, so summing their lower bounds shows ∫01q(t) dt=∞. By [F3], no finite positive scaling makes this likelihood-weighted measure a posterior probability.

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

Integrating hyperparameter uncertainty versus plugging in

Example

Let the hyperparameter be t=τ2∈{1,4} with prior probability 1/2 at each value. There is one group, θ∣t∼N(0,t), and Y∣θ∼N(θ,1). Observe y=0. Specify the likelihood-density version pointwise by f(θ,y)=(2π)−1/2exp⁡(−(y−θ)2/2)(θ,y∈R). The full posterior for θ is a mixture of the two conditional normal posteriors. Plugging in the posterior mode of t instead yields just one component, which is not the full posterior.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A proper two-point hyperprior on t∈{1,4}, one group parameter θ∣t∼N(0,t), an observation kernel Y∣θ∼N(θ,1), and observed value y=0.

[F1]

The hierarchy's prior and observation kernels define the joint latent-data model. Finite-group hierarchical Bayesian model

[F2]

On positive finite evidence, the joint posterior is the normalized prior-times-likelihood measure. Hierarchical posterior normalization on positive finite evidence

[F3]

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

[F4]

For a∈R and v>0, the N(a,v) density is (2πv)−1/2e−(x−a)2/(2v). A positive-variance normal law has its location-scale density

[F5]

The standard normal density has Lebesgue integral one. The standard normal density has total mass one

[A1]

AC is assumed for the library normal-law convention. The Axiom of Choice

Verification

Given: The model and observed value in the Example.

1.1A1F1F4F5givenalgebra

The specified model supplies the prior and sampling kernels [F1]; their densities are given by [F4]. For fixed t>0, multiply the two densities and integrate over θ. The integrand is (2πt)−1exp⁡(−(1+t−1)θ2/2). Substituting z=1+t−1 θ and using [F5] for the unit normal integral gives the marginal evidence mt(0)=1/2π(1+t), which is positive and finite for t=1,4.

2.1F2step 1.1algebra

The two prior masses are equal, so [F2] gives posterior odds P(t=1∣y=0)/P(t=4∣y=0)=m1(0)/m4(0)=5/2>1. Thus the posterior mode is t=1, and the posterior weights w=P(t=1∣y=0) and 1−w are both strictly between zero and one.

3.1A1F3step 2.1algebra

By [F3], θ∣t=1,y=0∼N(0,1/2) and θ∣t=4,y=0∼N(0,4/5). The full posterior is their mixture with weights w and 1−w, so its second moment is w/2+(1−w)4/5>1/2.

4.1step 3.1algebra∎

Plugging in the posterior mode t=1 gives only N(0,1/2), whose second moment is 1/2. This differs from the full posterior's second moment in step 3.1, so the plug-in posterior is not the full posterior mixture.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedOpen item page →

Complete, partial, and no-pooling limits in the normal hierarchy

Example

In the known-variance normal hierarchy, fix μ, an observed group summary yˉj, and sj2>0. Specify the likelihood-density version pointwise by fj(θ,y)=(2πsj2)−1/2exp⁡ ⁣(−(y−θ)22sj2)(θ,y∈R). For finite τ2>0, the posterior mean is a strictly weighted average of yˉj and μ. As τ2↓0 it approaches complete pooling at μ; at the boundary τ2=0, the prior itself forces θj=μ. As τ2→∞, the posterior mean and variance approach the group-only values yˉj and sj2, the no-pooling limit. The value τ2=∞ is not an admissible proper prior.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite group hierarchy, fixed μ, observed yˉj, known sj2>0, and conditional variance τ2>0 except when examining the stated boundary limit.

[F1]

For positive τ2,sj2 and the canonical normal likelihood-density version specified in the Example, the conditional posterior mean and variance are θ^j=(yˉj/sj2+μ/τ2)/(1/sj2+1/τ2) and Vj=(1/sj2+1/τ2)−1. Conditional normal shrinkage in a finite hierarchy

[F2]

The library normal law includes the degenerate boundary N(μ,0)=δμ. Standard normal and normal laws

[A1]

AC is assumed for the library normal-law convention. The Axiom of Choice

[A2]

τ2>0 and sj2>0 for the conditional-posterior formula.

Verification

Given: The normal hierarchy in the Example and Facts & Assumptions.

1.1A1A2F1algebra

Set aj=τ2/(τ2+sj2). Algebra in [F1] gives θ^j=ajyˉj+(1−aj)μ and Vj=τ2sj2/(τ2+sj2). Since both variances are positive, 0<aj<1, so for finite positive τ2 the group mean uses both its own data and the population mean.

2.1A1A2F1F2step 1.1algebra

As τ2↓0, aj→0, Vj→0, and θ^j→μ. At τ2=0, [F2] makes the conditional prior δμ, so every group parameter equals μ and conditioning on the data leaves it there. This is complete pooling.

3.1A1A2F1step 1.1algebra∎

As τ2→∞, aj→1, Vj→sj2, and θ^j→yˉj. These are the group-only posterior mean and variance, so they describe the no-pooling limit. No posterior at τ2=∞ is asserted.

Sources