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.
Finite-group hierarchical Bayesian model
Definition
Fix a finite group count , a standard Borel hyperparameter space , and a standard Borel parameter space . Let be a probability measure on and let be a probability kernel. For each , let be a measurable observation space, let be a sigma-finite measure on it, and let be a probability kernel from to with a specified jointly measurable density :
The finite-group hierarchical model is the following specified kernel construction. First draw . Conditional on , draw from the finite product kernel Thus the group parameters are conditionally independent and have the same conditional law . Conditional on the parameter tuple, draw the group observations from the product kernel . The product-kernel laws are probability kernels by Finite products of probability kernels are probability kernels. For each fixed , the coordinate maps under are independent random elements, so their joint law is the finite product law (Independent random elements have product joint law).
Put with its finite product sigma-algebra. The proper latent prior on is well-defined by A prior and model kernel define a joint law. For , lift each observation kernel to the common source by The coordinate projection is measurable, so the kernel definition shows that each is a probability kernel. Its specified jointly measurable density is , by composition with the same measurable coordinate projection. Let , , and . The observation kernel from has jointly measurable density with respect to , by Finite products of dominated kernels have the product density. Its evidence is the possibly extended nonnegative number The normalized likelihood measure is called a pointwise joint posterior on a fiber only when ; no quotient is formed at zero or infinite evidence.
For each group, is a parametric statistical model in the sense of Parametric statistical models, with its parameter-measurable kernel representation as in Parameter-measurable statistical models as kernels. Here “conditionally independent given ” is shorthand for the explicit finite product-kernel specification above. The library's random-element conditional-independence terminology is defined in Conditional independence given a sigma-algebra; its conditional-expectation-class convention assumes AC. The finite product-kernel definition here does not use that class convention or any choice axiom.
Remarks
The product-kernel assumption is part of this model. An arbitrary finitely exchangeable law need not be a mixture of iid laws; no finite de Finetti theorem is claimed here. When is unknown, the joint posterior retains its uncertainty and induces dependence between group parameters after is integrated out.
Depends on
- Finite products of dominated kernels have the product density
- Parametric statistical models
- Parameter-measurable statistical models as kernels
- Measure kernel and probability kernel
- Standard Borel spaces
- Conditional independence given a sigma-algebra
- The Axiom of Choice
- Independent random elements have product joint law
- Finite products of probability kernels are probability kernels
- A prior and model kernel define a joint law
Used by
- Current-group and new-group posterior prediction Definition
- Type-II maximum marginal likelihood and empirical-Bayes plug-in posterior Definition
- A shared hyperparameter can couple group parameters Example
- An improper variance hyperprior can give an improper posterior Example
- Complete, partial, and no-pooling limits in the normal hierarchy Example
- Integrating hyperparameter uncertainty versus plugging in Example
- A finite-group hierarchical model has a conditional law of its latent tuple Theorem
- Conditional normal shrinkage in a finite hierarchy Theorem
- Current-group and new-group posterior predictions are probability kernels Theorem
- Hierarchical posterior normalization on positive finite evidence Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
36 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
- Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, David B. Dunson, Aki Vehtari, and Donald B. Rubin, Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd ed., §§5.1–5.4 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Alicia A. Johnson, Miles Q. Ott, and Mine Dogucu, Bayes Rules!, Chapters 15–16 (standard reference, not scraped)