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.

✓ 2 results · all verified · 0 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 2 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

MCMC central limit theorems, MCSE, and long-run variance — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Summary

These examples isolate what the CLT and MCSE hypotheses do. An identity-kernel chain has finite variance but no root-n normal limit without ergodicity; a stationary Gaussian AR(1) chain has an explicit L2 Poisson solution whose martingale and covariance long-run variances agree; and a square-root batch sequence fails a specific Flegal–Jones sufficient-condition limit. The batch-size example establishes only inapplicability of that sufficient route, not inconsistency of the estimator.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passOpen item page →

A stationary sticky chain with finite variance and no root-n CLT

Statement refuted

Finite variance of a centered observable alone guarantees a root-n central limit theorem for every stationary Markov chain.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A two-state measurable space, a transition kernel, an initial law, and a real observable.

[A1]

AC is used by the library's Markov-chain law/stationarity convention. (The Axiom of Choice)

[F1]

A stationary distribution is an invariant probability for the transition kernel. (Invariant and stationary distribution for a Markov kernel)

[F2]

An invariant initial law makes the Markov chain strictly stationary. (Invariant initial law makes a Markov chain stationary)

[F3]

Variance is the centered second moment. (Moments, variance, and covariance on a probability space)

[F4]

Convergence in distribution requires convergence of distribution functions at every continuity point of the limiting law. (Convergence in distribution for real random variables)

[F5]

ϕ-irreducibility requires every ϕ-positive set to be reachable from every state; Harris recurrence strengthens this to almost-sure hitting from every state. (Phi-irreducibility for a general-state Markov kernel, Harris recurrence relative to an irreducibility measure)

Counterexample

1.1A1F1F2F3given

Let X={0,1}, P(0,{0})=P(1,{1})=1, and let π({0})=π({1})=1/2. The identity kernel leaves π invariant, so the chain initialized with X0∼π is stationary by [F2]. Set f(0)=−1 and f(1)=1. Then π(f)=0 and π(f2)=1.

2.1F4step 1.1algebra

The transition is deterministic, hence Xk=X0 for every k and Sn:=∑k=0n−1f(Xk)=nf(X0). Thus Sn/n=nf(X0) takes values ±n with equal probabilities. For each fixed t>0, once n>t2 its distribution function at t is 1/2, while any N(0,σ2) has distribution function strictly greater than 1/2 at t when σ2>0 and equal to 1 when σ2=0. Since t is a continuity point of every such normal law, [F4] rules out convergence to any normal distribution.

3.1F5step 1.1algebra∎

Choose ϕ=π and A={1}. Then ϕ(A)=1/2>0, but Pn(0,A)=0 for every n≥1 because the chain stays at 0. By [F5] the chain is not ϕ-irreducible and is not Harris recurrent relative to ϕ. This counterexample shows only that finite variance without an ergodicity assumption does not guarantee a root-n CLT.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedOpen item page →

A batch-size sequence fails the OBM consistency conditions

Example

Set δ=1 and bn=⌊n1/2⌋ for n≥2. This sequence fails one Flegal–Jones batch-size condition, n2/(2+δ)(log⁡n)3/bn→0. The example establishes inapplicability of this sufficient condition only; it does not imply that the OBM estimator is inconsistent.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The sequence bn=⌊n1/2⌋ and the lower-growth batch-size premise retained in the corrected Flegal–Jones OBM contract.

[F1]

The Flegal–Jones batch-size contract for exponent δ includes the lower-growth limit n2/(2+δ)(log⁡n)3/bn→0. (Flegal–Jones overlapping-batch size conditions)

[F2]

The OBM estimator uses overlapping batch means of integer length bn<n. (Overlapping batch means for MCMC standard errors)

Verification

1.1F1givenalgebra

For n≥2, n1/2−1<bn≤n1/2, so bn/n1/2→1. Thus n2/3(log⁡n)3/bn∼n1/6(log⁡n)3→∞, which violates the required limit in [F1] at δ=1.

2.1F2step 1.1givenalgebra∎

Since 1≤bn≤n1/2<n for n≥2, the finite OBM procedure in [F2] is defined. Step 1.1 establishes failure of one source sufficient condition only, not inconsistency of the estimator.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passOpen item page →

Poisson equation and long-run variance for a stationary AR(1) chain

Example

Take a∈(−1,1) and innovation variance vϵ>0. Let Xk+1=aXk+ϵk+1, where the innovations are independent N(0,vϵ) variables and X0∼N(0,vϵ/(1−a2)) is independent of them. For f(x)=x, the Poisson solution is g(x)=x/(1−a) and the long-run variance is vϵ/(1−a)2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Gaussian AR(1) chain and observable in the Example.

[A1]

AC supplies the Markov-chain and conditional-expectation conventions used by the stationary-chain theorem. (The Axiom of Choice)

[F1]

An invariant initial law makes all finite-dimensional laws stationary. (Invariant initial law makes a Markov chain stationary)

[F2]

Dominated convergence passes a pointwise-convergent sequence of densities through the Lebesgue integral under one integrable majorant. (Dominated convergence)

[F3]

For a stationary chain on a countably generated state space, pointwise total-variation convergence for π-almost every start implies strong mixing. (Stationary Markov-chain total-variation convergence implies strong mixing)

[F4]

Strong mixing means αX(n)→0, and its coefficient bounds event dependence between separated past and future sigma-algebras. (Strong, uniform, and maximal-correlation mixing coefficients)

[F5]

The local Poisson theorem proves the martingale decomposition and identifies its variance with the covariance long-run variance under absolute covariance summability. (Poisson-equation martingale decomposition and MCMC CLT)

[F6]

The covariance long-run variance is γ0+2∑k≥1γk when the covariance series is absolutely convergent and the CLT holds. (Long-run variance for a stationary Markov chain)

[F7]

A stationary real process has a measure-preserving canonical left shift, and ergodicity means every shift-invariant event has probability zero or one. (Stationary process and canonical path shift)

Verification

1.1A1F1givenalgebra

Put v=vϵ/(1−a2). If Xk∼N(0,v) independently of ϵk+1, then aXk+ϵk+1 is normal with mean zero and variance a2v+vϵ=v. Thus π=N(0,v) is invariant, and initializing with π gives a stationary chain by [F1].

1.2F2givenalgebra

Iterating the recursion gives Xn=anx+∑j=1nan−jϵj when X0=x, so Pn(x,⋅)=N(anx,vn) with vn=v(1−a2n). For each fixed x, anx→0 and vn→v, so the Gaussian densities pnx(y) converge pointwise to the density p(y) of N(0,v). For sufficiently large n, v/2≤vn≤v and ∣anx∣≤1. On ∣y∣≤2, pnx(y)≤(πv)−1/2; on ∣y∣>2, ∣y−anx∣≥∣y∣/2, hence pnx(y)≤(πv)−1/2e−y2/(8v). This gives one integrable majorant for pnx; with p added it also dominates ∣pnx−p∣. By [F2], ∫∣pnx−p∣ dy→0. Therefore ∥Pn(x,⋅)−π∥TV≤∫∣pnx−p∣ dy→0 for every x.

2.1F3step 1.2given

The Borel sigma-algebra of R has the countable generating algebra of finite unions of rational half-open intervals and rational rays. Applying [F3] to step 1.2 gives αX(n)→0.

3.1F4F7step 2.1given

Let E be an event invariant under every power of the canonical left shift and put p=P(E). Finite-coordinate cylinders form a generating pi-system. The events approximable in probability by such cylinders form a sigma-algebra: complements preserve symmetric-difference probability, and for a countable union one first truncates by continuity from below and then approximates the finitely many sets. Hence for every η>0 there are j and A∈σ(X0,…,Xj) with P(E△A)<η. For m>j, B=θ−mE is measurable with respect to σ(Xm,Xm+1,…), stationarity gives P(B)=p, and shift invariance gives E=B. Thus ∣p−p2∣=∣P(E∩B)−pP(B)∣≤2η+αX(m−j). Let m→∞ using step 2.1 and then η↓0; we obtain p(1−p)=0. By [F7], every invariant event having probability zero or one is precisely ergodicity of the canonical shift.

4.1F5step 1.1step 3.1givenalgebra

Set f(x)=x and g(x)=x/(1−a). Both are in L2(π) and π(f)=0. The kernel action is Pg(x)=E[(ax+ϵ1)/(1−a)]=ax/(1−a), so g−Pg=f. Also Dk+1=(aXk+ϵk+1)/(1−a)−aXk/(1−a)=ϵk+1/(1−a), whence E[Dk+12]=vϵ/(1−a)2. Steps 1.1 and 3.1 verify the stationary and ergodic hypotheses of [F5], so this is the Poisson CLT variance.

5.1F6step 1.1step 4.1givenalgebra∎

Iterating the recursion gives Xk=akX0+∑j=1kak−jϵj. Independence implies γk=Cov⁡(X0,Xk)=vak. Since ∣a∣<1, the covariance series is absolutely summable, and [F6] gives σf2=v+2v∑k≥1ak=v+2va/(1−a)=vϵ/(1−a)2. This agrees with step 4.1, including a=0 and negative a.

Sources