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 · 2 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; all 2 also cleared it.

State-space models and exact Bayesian filtering

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Overview

For a finite-horizon state-space model on standard-Borel state and observation spaces, this page defines filtering, predictive, and full-path smoothing laws as conditional kernels. AC supplies the finite-horizon model law and the regular conditional distributions. When each observation kernel has a jointly measurable density against a sigma-finite reference measure, the recursive procedure first propagates the previous state law through the transition kernel and then applies the dominated Bayes update. The theorem proves that its outputs are conditional-law kernels. Evidence is normalized only when it is finite and positive; zero or infinite fibers receive the predictive law as a conditional-version filler and carry no pointwise posterior interpretation. The results are finite-horizon conditional identities. They make no particle approximation, convergence, or long-time stability claim.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Filtering, predictive, and smoothing laws in a finite-horizon state-space model

Definition

Assume AC and fix a finite horizon T≥0 with a state-space model by probability kernels as in General finite-horizon state-space models by kernels. If T=0, put ΩT=E0; otherwise put ΩT=E0×E1×F1×⋯×ET×FT. Let ZT be the corresponding finite-product sigma-algebra and write (ΩT,ZT,PT) for its finite-horizon probability space. The law PT is the unique law supplied by Finite-horizon state-space kernel law exists and is unique. Let Xt and Yt be the coordinate random elements taking values in Et and Ft. For t≥1, write Y1:t:=(Y1,…,Yt) and F1:t:=F1×⋯×Ft with its finite-product sigma-algebra; let F1:0 be a singleton and Y1:0 its constant map. The factors are standard Borel, meaning measurably isomorphic to Polish spaces (Standard Borel spaces), and their finite products are standard Borel (Finite products of standard Borel spaces are standard Borel).

The initial filtering kernel π0:F1:0→E0 assigns μ0 to the unique empty history; it is the conditional law of X0 given the trivial history. For 1≤t≤T, a filtering kernel at time t is a probability kernel πt:F1:t→Et such that ω↦πt(Y1:t(ω),⋅) is a regular conditional distribution of Xt given σ(Y1:t). For 1≤t≤T, a predictive kernel at time t is a probability kernel πt∣t−1:F1:t−1→Et whose composition with Y1:t−1 is a regular conditional distribution of Xt given σ(Y1:t−1). A finite-horizon smoothing kernel is a probability kernel ψT:F1:T→E0×⋯×ET whose composition with Y1:T is a regular conditional distribution of the full state path (X0,…,XT) given σ(Y1:T). Here a regular conditional distribution is an everywhere probability kernel satisfying the conditional event identities in Regular conditional distribution, and a conditional law given a random element is its data-indexed kernel form in Conditional law given a random element.

These kernels are versions: their values can be changed on a measurable set of observation histories of probability zero without changing the conditional identities. No density is assumed in these definitions. The state-space model here is one fixed law. A parametric statistical model is instead a map θ↦Pθ from a parameter set to probability laws; its measurability is not asserted without a parameter sigma-algebra (Parametric statistical models).

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Filtering and finite-horizon smoothing laws exist

Statement

Assume AC and a finite-horizon state-space model by standard-Borel state and observation spaces, an initial probability measure, and transition and observation probability kernels, as in General finite-horizon state-space models by kernels. Let PT be its finite-horizon path law. The initial filtering kernel is π0=μ0 on the singleton empty-history space. For each 1≤t≤T, data-indexed filtering and predictive kernels from Filtering, predictive, and smoothing laws in a finite-horizon state-space model exist. A data-indexed finite-horizon smoothing kernel for the full state path also exists, including when T=0. The claim is existence of conditional versions only; it asserts no density, filtering recursion, uniqueness on null observation histories, or numerical approximation.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, a finite horizon T≥0, standard-Borel state spaces (Et,Et) and observation spaces (Ft,Ft), an initial probability measure and probability kernels as in the Statement.

[A1]

AC states that every family of nonempty sets has a choice function. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

A finite-horizon model supplies standard-Borel state and observation spaces, an initial law, transition kernels, and observation kernels. General finite-horizon state-space models by kernels

[F2]

Under AC these data determine a unique probability law on the interleaved finite path space with the stated iterated-kernel formula. Finite-horizon state-space kernel law exists and is unique

[F3]

Every finite product of standard-Borel spaces, with its finite-product sigma-algebra, is standard Borel. Finite products of standard Borel spaces are standard Borel

[F4]

Under AC, a random element with standard-Borel target has a regular conditional distribution given any sub-sigma-algebra. Existence of regular conditional distributions for standard borel targets

[F5]

Under AC, an RCD given σ(Y) factors through a standard-Borel random element Y as a probability kernel on its observation space. Regular conditional kernels factor through a standard borel conditioning variable

[F6]

A data-indexed conditional law is a probability kernel whose composition with the conditioning random element is an RCD. Conditional law given a random element

[F7]

An RCD is an everywhere probability kernel satisfying all conditional event identities. Regular conditional distribution

[F8]

Filtering, predictive, and smoothing kernels have the definitions and conditioning sigma-algebras stated above. Filtering, predictive, and smoothing laws in a finite-horizon state-space model

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1A1F1F2givenconstruct

If T=0 put ΩT:=E0; otherwise put ΩT:=E0×E1×F1×⋯×ET×FT. Let ZT be its finite-product sigma-algebra. By [F1] and [A1], [F2] supplies a probability measure PT on (ΩT,ZT) with the stated iterated-kernel law; the coordinate maps Xt,Yt and history maps Y1:t are measurable projections.

2.1F1F3step 1.1

The initial probability makes E0 nonempty; recursively, probability-kernel sections on each nonempty state space force the next state and observation spaces to be nonempty. By [F1] each factor is standard Borel, so [F3] makes E0×⋯×ET, every Et, and each history target F1:t standard Borel, including the empty-history singleton.

3.1A1F2F4step 1.1step 2.1

For each 1≤t≤T, apply [F4] under [A1] to Xt given σ(Y1:t) and given σ(Y1:t−1); their state targets and history targets are standard Borel by step 2.1. The path law [F2] has X0-marginal μ0, so the constant kernel π0((),⋅)=μ0 satisfies the conditional identities for the trivial empty history. Apply [F4] under [A1] to (X0,…,XT) given σ(Y1:T); its target is standard Borel by step 2.1.

4.1A1F2F4F5F6F7F8step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1∎

Each nonempty observation-history target is standard Borel by step 2.1, so [F5] under [A1] factors the RCDs from step 3.1 through their history maps; [F6]–[F8] identify the resulting probability kernels as the required conditional laws. The initial kernel was checked directly in step 3.1. AC is used only through [F2], [F4], and [F5]. No density or pointwise uniqueness on null histories is inferred.

AlgorithmAlgorithm: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Recursive Bayesian filtering under dominated observations

Definition

Assume AC and a finite-horizon model as in General finite-horizon state-space models by kernels. For each 1≤t≤T, suppose the observation kernel has a supplied product-measurable density gt:Et×Ft→[0,∞] with respect to a sigma-finite measure νt on Ft, normalized so that Gt(x,B)=∫Bgt(x,y) νt(dy),∫Ftgt(x,y) νt(dy)=1 for every state x and measurable B⊆Ft.

The procedure takes the initial law μ0, transition kernels Kt, observation densities gt and measures νt as inputs. It defines data-indexed prediction, evidence, and filtering functions on every observation history as follows.

  1. Initialize π0 on the singleton empty-history space by π0(∗,A)=μ0(A).

  2. For t=1,…,T, each history h∈F1:t−1 and each measurable state set A∈Et, form the predictive measure π^t(h,A):=∫Et−1Kt(x,A) πt−1(h,dx).

  3. For each y∈Ft, calculate the evidence density zt(h,y):=∫Etgt(x,y) π^t(h,dx).

  4. Define the filtering measure at (h,y) by πt(h,y,A):={∫Agt(x,y) π^t(h,dx)zt(h,y),0<zt(h,y)<∞,π^t(h,A),zt(h,y)=0 or zt(h,y)=∞. Use πt as the input filtering function at the next time step.

The procedure returns the initialized filter π0=μ0 and, for every 1≤t≤T, π^t, zt, and πt. It is an exact measure-valued recursion; it makes no claim that the integrals have closed forms or can be evaluated with finite computational cost. Exact state-space filtering recursion under dominated observations ↗ proves that the returned time-t functions are predictive and filtering kernels for the specified finite-horizon model.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Exact state-space filtering recursion under dominated observations

Statement

Assume AC and a finite-horizon model as in General finite-horizon state-space models by kernels. For each 1≤t≤T, let νt be a sigma-finite measure on (Ft,Ft) and suppose the observation kernel has a specified product-measurable density gt:Et×Ft→[0,∞] with respect to Et⊗Ft: Gt(x,B)=∫Bgt(x,y) νt(dy),∫Ftgt(x,y) νt(dy)=1 for every state x∈Et and measurable B⊆Ft. For h∈F1:t−1, let πt−1 be the filtering kernel at time t−1 from Filtering, predictive, and smoothing laws in a finite-horizon state-space model when t>1, and for t=1 let π0 be the initial kernel μ0 on the singleton empty-history space. For A∈Et, define the predictive kernel π^t(h,A):=∫Et−1Kt(x,A) πt−1(h,dx), the evidence density zt(h,y):=∫Etgt(x,y) π^t(h,dx), and for h∈F1:t−1, y∈Ft, and A∈Et define the update πt(h,y,A):={∫Agt(x,y) π^t(h,dx)zt(h,y),0<zt(h,y)<∞,π^t(h,A),zt(h,y)=0 or zt(h,y)=∞. Then π^t is a predictive kernel for Xt given Y1:t−1, and πt is a filtering kernel for Xt given Y1:t. For each fixed history h, the observation marginal under the conditional version determined by π^t(h,⋅) has density zt(h,⋅) with respect to νt and assigns zero mass to both {y:zt(h,y)=0} and {y:zt(h,y)=∞}. Thus the formula never divides by zero or infinity; values on those fibers are conditional-law fillers. The statement is exact and finite-horizon and gives no numerical approximation or long-time stability claim.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC; the finite-horizon state-space model; for every 1≤t≤T, a sigma-finite νt and product-measurable gt≥0 satisfying the displayed kernel-density identity and pointwise normalization; and the stated time-(t−1) filtering kernel.

[A1]

AC states that every family of nonempty sets has a choice function. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

The model path law has the ordered factorization μ0(dx0)∏s=1TKs(xs−1,dxs)Gs(xs,dys). Finite-horizon state-space kernel law exists and is unique

[F2]

A filtering kernel composed with the observation history is an RCD of the current state given that history; the initial filtering kernel is μ0 on the singleton empty history. Filtering, predictive, and smoothing laws in a finite-horizon state-space model

[F3]

Integrating a nonnegative measurable function through an RCD gives the conditional integral identities for every conditioning event. Conditional integration through a regular conditional law

[F4]

Integrating a nonnegative product-measurable function against a probability kernel gives a measurable function of the source variable. Measurability of integration against a kernel

[F5]

A probability kernel has pointwise probability-measure sections and measurable evaluations. Measure kernel and probability kernel

[F6]

For a proper prior probability and a jointly measurable normalized kernel density, the dominated Bayes kernel has density-normalizer marginal; it uses the quotient only at finite positive evidence and fills both zero and infinite evidence fibers with the supplied prior probability. Bayes formula for dominated kernels

[F7]

Measurable rectangles generate the finite product sigma-algebra. The product sigma-algebra and its finite iterates

[F8]

A pi-system generating a sigma-algebra determines finite measures and extends equality of finite measures from the pi-system. Dynkin's pi-lambda theorem

[F9]

Expectations of measurable functions of a random element equal their integrals against its law. Change of variables for expectation

[F10]

Increasing limits pass through nonnegative integrals. Monotone convergence for the integral

[F11]

Under AC, the required data-indexed filtering kernels and smoothing kernel exist on the standard-Borel state and observation spaces. Filtering and finite-horizon smoothing laws exist

[F12]

The recursive filtering procedure defines prediction, evidence, and finite-positive updates with the predictive measure as the zero/infinite evidence filler. Recursive Bayesian filtering under dominated observations

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1A1F2F4F5F10F11given

For t=1 use π0=μ0; for t>1 use the filtering kernel supplied by [F11] under [A1], and define π^t by the displayed mixture. Each section has mass ∫Kt(x,Et)πt−1(h,dx)=1; countable additivity follows by applying [F10] to increasing partial sums for disjoint target sets, and measurability in h follows from [F4].

2.1F2F4F5step 1.1given

Regard (h,y)↦π^t(h,dx) as a probability kernel constant in y. Product measurability of (h,y,x)↦gt(x,y) and [F4] make zt and each numerator measurable. On 0<zt<∞ the numerator is a finite measure of total mass zt, so division gives a probability; off that set the predictive measure is a probability. Thus πt is an everywhere probability kernel with measurable evaluations, including zero and infinite fibers.

2.2A1F1F2F3F7F8F11step 1.1

For a history rectangle H and measurable A⊆Et, inserting Kt at the transition factor of [F1] gives PT(H∩{Xt∈A})=EPT[1HKt(Xt−1,A)], since later kernels integrate to one; at t=1 this is the one-step transition integral. These are finite measures of H, so [F7]–[F8] extend equality from history rectangles to all H∈σ(Y1:t−1). Then [F3] for the filtering kernel from [F11] turns the right side into EPT[1Hπ^t(Y1:t−1,A)], proving that π^t is predictive.

3.1F6step 1.1step 2.1

Fix h. The prior π^t(h,⋅) is a probability and Gt has the specified jointly measurable normalized density, so [F6] gives observation marginal zt(h,y)νt(dy) and conditional kernel πt(h,y,⋅); the zero and infinite evidence fibers have zero marginal. In particular, ∫Cπt(h,y,A)zt(h,y)νt(dy)=∫AGt(x,C)π^t(h,dx).

4.1A1F1F2F3F6F7F8step 2.1step 2.2step 3.1

For a history rectangle B and an observation set C∈Ft, the path law [F1], predictive identity from step 2.2, and conditional integration [F3] applied to x↦1A(x)Gt(x,C) give PT(Y1:t−1∈B,Xt∈A,Yt∈C)=∫B∫AGt(x,C) π^t(h,dx)PY1:t−1(dh). By step 3.1 this is ∫B∫Cπt(h,y,A)zt(h,y) νt(dy)PY1:t−1(dh). Taking A=Et and using πt(h,y,Et)=1 from step 2.1 identifies the law of (Y1:t−1,Yt) on history-observation rectangles with PY1:t−1(dh)zt(h,y)νt(dy); [F7]–[F8] extend this to the product sigma-algebra.

5.1A1F2F3F7F8F9F11F12step 2.1step 2.2step 4.1∎

Step 2.1 makes πt(⋅,⋅,A) measurable and bounded. The joint-observation law just established and [F9] therefore give, on each history-observation rectangle B×C, EPT[1{Y1:t−1∈B,Yt∈C}πt(Y1:t−1,Yt,A)]=∫B∫Cπt(h,y,A)zt(h,y) νt(dy)PY1:t−1(dh). By step 4.1 this is PT(Y1:t−1∈B,Xt∈A,Yt∈C). Such rectangles generate σ(Y1:t) by [F7], and for fixed A both sides are finite measures of the conditioning event, so [F8] extends the identity to every event in σ(Y1:t). Thus πt is a filtering kernel; step 2.2 already proves prediction, and the procedure [F12] returns the claimed kernels.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources