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-horizon SMC CLT classes and variance recursions
Definition
Fix a finite horizon . At each , let be a probability law on a measurable particle space . Let be an initial proposal with , and fix . For , let be a probability kernel from to , and put Assume and fix a nonnegative Radon–Nikodym version , so . The BCS-41 sequential importance-resampling algorithm Sequential importance resampling for Feynman–Kac path targets is this scheme on path spaces when appends a proposal transition. Under the support and measurable versions of Feynman–Kac path Radon–Nikodym weight, its normalized incremental weight is for , and initially. The previous normalized target is already part of ; one does not multiply by the full earlier path-weight product again.
For a measurable vector function , write and when the second moment is finite. Also write and
The source recursive test classes are and, for , Assume for every . This is the source theorem's explicit normalizing-weight condition. For the recursive post-resampling CLTs proved on this page, use the stronger classes . At , let consist of the for which and . The initial normalizing denominator needs only its finite first moment . For , let consist of the for which and . Here is the operator defined below. Only target second moments are required: fixed-tail truncation supplies the conditional selection Lindeberg condition without a target higher-moment assumption. The recursive target moments supply the offspring variance at every earlier selection used in the induction. The source conditions alone need not imply them. The source condition and these recursive target moments are the stated hypotheses for the CLT induction; no higher initial normalizer moment is required.
Define the mutation covariance operators recursively. At time zero, For , The weighted-estimator covariance is For a measurable vector function on , define the forward operator from by For , write ; set to the identity operator. For multinomial offspring resampling set For residual offspring resampling, let . When , define the formal source candidate Set and only when ; then and the finite-sample floor discontinuities are avoided. If -almost everywhere, put . Residual offspring are deterministic whenever all sampled weights equal one. In SIR this holds almost surely outside earlier zero-weight fallback events, whose probability tends to zero at a fixed horizon; the almost-everywhere condition alone does not prescribe weights on proposal-null states reached after a fallback. No residual covariance is assigned when but is not almost everywhere one: the finite-sample normalization can move positive integer weights across floor boundaries. The B-page counterexamples show why the general positive-integer-atom branch remains unassigned.
Remarks
The classes and recursions are definitions. The fixed-horizon CLT proofs below establish finiteness where their stated hypotheses apply. In particular, the source class alone does not ensure ; the recursive target-moment class is used for the stated post-resampling conclusions. The residual formula requires a separate continuity condition at positive integer weights; the B-page records finite-state failures without it. For an arbitrary weighted initial proposal, the source class is not by itself enough: the displayed initial weighted-numerator and target moments in are imposed explicitly.
The stronger hypotheses retain both locally proved fixed-horizon outputs, not the false claim that every source- test has finite post-selection covariance. Separately, a weighted-only initial ratio CLT needs only a target-integrable test and its centered weighted numerator in ; its denominator still needs only .
Depends on
Used by
- Proposal mixing ratios alone do not bound SMC asymptotic variance over time Counterexample
- Residual resampling is discontinuous at positive integer weights Counterexample
- The source function class need not give finite SMC CLT variances Counterexample
- Zero limiting remainder does not make finite residual offspring deterministic Counterexample
- A bounded-weight mixing filter has bounded asymptotic variance Example
- A dominant particle weight and the effective sample size Example
- Fixed-horizon asymptotic variance can grow without mixing Example
- Centered filtering Feynman–Kac operators contract terminal tests Lemma
- Conditional multinomial resampling central limit theorem Lemma
- Conditional mutation and weighted correction CLT Lemma
- Conditional residual resampling central limit theorem away from integer weights Lemma
- Finite-horizon SMC empirical laws converge for integrable tests Lemma
- Multinomial SMC variance unrolls into local contributions Lemma
- Uniform SMC backward-operator contraction controls oscillation Lemma
- Fixed-horizon SMC central limit theorem with multinomial resampling Theorem
- Fixed-horizon SMC central limit theorem with residual resampling away from integer weights Theorem
- Time-uniform SMC asymptotic variance under uniform weight and operator bounds Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
21 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
- Nicolas Chopin, Central Limit Theorem for Sequential Monte Carlo Methods and its Application to Bayesian Inference, §§2.1–2.3 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Hans R. Künsch, Recursive Monte Carlo Filters: Algorithms and Theoretical Analysis, §4 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Arnaud Doucet and Adam M. Johansen, A Tutorial on Particle Filtering and Smoothing: Fifteen Years Later, §3.6 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Simo Särkkä and Lennart Svensson, Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing, 2nd ed., Chapter 11 (standard reference, not scraped)