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.
Distant alternatives can prevent uniform testability
Example
On with counting measure, let . Use labels , with at label and, for , Give label prior probability and label prior probability . Use the discrete metric if and otherwise, so every alternative is distance one from label . Take observations IID with the law at the selected parameter label.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The model, prior, parameter metric, and IID law in the Example.
KL projection sets and relative KL neighborhoods: the relative KL neighborhoods are defined using .
Assume AC through the imported KL convention The Axiom of Choice. The displayed finite density family is explicit.
Metric space: iff , symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric: a metric separates distinct points and obeys the triangle inequality.
Verification
For , direct substitution gives Thus . Every relative KL neighborhood contains and therefore has prior mass at least , while every lies in the distance-one alternative set.
Fix and choose . For one coordinate define a joint law of by masses at , at , and at , with zero mass at . Its marginals are and , and its disagreement probability is . Take the -fold product of this finite joint law. By the union bound, the coupled vectors differ with probability at most . For every event , the indicators of and can differ only when the vectors differ, so by [F2],
For probability laws on the finite set , : the set of points with positive difference attains the supremum over events, and no event can sum more than all positive differences. Hence for every test with , Taking , and rearranging gives If , then . Since the selected minimizer is the true law, here. Thus no test sequence has both error limits required by the KL-projection theorem.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
15 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
- R. V. Ramamoorthi, K. Sriram, and R. Martin, On Posterior Concentration in Misspecified Models, §1, pp. 760–761 (standard reference, not scraped)
- B. J. K. Kleijn and A. W. van der Vaart, The Bernstein-Von-Mises Theorem under Misspecification, §4.1, p. 378 (standard reference, not scraped)