Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
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.

Proposal mixing ratios alone do not bound SMC asymptotic variance over time

Statement refuted

Uniform bounds on the true transition density ratios g(x∣x′)/g(x∣x′′) and proposal density ratios qt(x∣x′)/qt(x∣x′′), together with a likelihood bounded above and away from zero and a bounded test oscillation, suffice by themselves to keep the SIR asymptotic variance Vt(ϕ) bounded uniformly in time.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite-horizon SMC variance recursion, density-ratio conventions, and SIR target/proposal setup in the cited definition.

[F1]

Finite-horizon SMC CLT classes and variance recursions: Eth(x0:t−1)=∫kt(x0:t−1,dxt)υt(x0:t)h(x0:t) and Vt is the weighted-estimator asymptotic covariance.

[F2]

Multinomial SMC variance unrolls into local contributions: For multinomial SIR, Vt(ϕ) is the sum of the proposal expectations of υk2(Ek+1:t(ϕ−πtϕ))2 over 0≤k≤t.

Counterexample

Given: Let X={0,1} with counting measure, an initial state X0=0, and a one-point observation space with likelihood density f(∗∣x)=1. Let the true transition density be g(x∣x′)=1/2 for both x=0,1 and all x′. For t≥1, let the proposal be independent of the preceding state, with qt(1∣x′)=ϵt=2−t−2 and qt(0∣x′)=1−ϵt. Use ϕ(x0:t)=1{xt=1}.

1.1F1givenalgebra

For every pair of preceding states, both g(x∣x′)/g(x∣x′′) and qt(x∣x′)/qt(x∣x′′) equal 1. The likelihood satisfies 0<1≤f(∗∣x)≤1, and Δϕ=1. The filtering target at every t≥1 has last-state law πt(Xt=1)=1/2, while the proposal last-state law is qt. Its normalized incremental Radon–Nikodym weight is υt(1)=1/(2ϵt) and υt(0)=1/(2(1−ϵt)).

2.1F1F2step 1.1algebra

For every preceding path, the forward image of the centered test is Et(ϕ−1/2)=∑x=01qt(x∣xt−1)υt(x)(1{x=1}−1/2)=∑x=01g(x∣xt−1)(1{x=1}−1/2)=0. Consequently Ek+1:t(ϕ−πtϕ)=0 for every k<t, so all earlier-time terms in [F2] vanish.

3.1F2step 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

The remaining k=t term in [F2] is Vt(ϕ)=ϵt(12ϵt)214+(1−ϵt)(12(1−ϵt))214=116ϵt+116(1−ϵt). Since ϵt=2−t−2↓0, Vt(ϕ)→∞ despite all the stated ratio, likelihood, and oscillation bounds. Thus those conditions alone do not imply the claimed time-uniform variance bound.

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.

Sources