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.
A boundary truth can give an equal-tailed credible interval zero coverage
Statement refuted
Every equal-tailed posterior credible interval has frequentist coverage at least its nominal level, even when the truth is on the boundary of the parameter space.
Setup
For , observe IID Bernoulli with parameter space and prior density on . For every data vector, let be the equal-tailed posterior interval between the and posterior quantiles. The truth lies on the boundary. Under this truth all observations are zero with probability one. The posterior density is then , with CDF on . Its lower endpoint is , so the interval excludes for every .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Bernoulli model, uniform prior, and equal-tailed posterior interval in the Counterexample.
Posterior credible set: a graph-measurable set rule is level- credible when its posterior probability is at least for each data value.
Bayes formula for dominated kernels: a dominated prior and sampling model give posterior density proportional to prior density times likelihood when the marginal likelihood is positive and finite.
At a fixed parameter , the frequentist coverage of a set rule is .
In the usual topology on , is a boundary point and is not an interior point.
Refutation
For data with successes, the likelihood is . It is bounded by and positive for , so its integral against the uniform prior is finite and strictly positive. [F2] therefore gives the posterior density proportional to that likelihood. The sample space is finite for fixed , so the interval rule's membership graph is a finite union of measurable slices. The posterior density is positive on , making its CDF continuous and strictly increasing there; the posterior probability between its two quantiles is . Thus the rule is credible by [F1].
At , the data are all zero with probability one, so the likelihood is . Its normalizing integral is , giving posterior density and CDF . Solving yields . In particular , so for every .
Because the truth is zero and all data are zero almost surely, [L1] gives frequentist coverage . This contradicts the asserted lower bound and exhibits failure at the boundary identified in [A1].
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
7 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.