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.
An EM likelihood with two strict local maxima
Example
Let with its Borel sigma-algebra, and let with the power-set sigma-algebra and counting measure. Set For the observed value , the likelihood has strict local maxima at and , and both points are global maximizers. Starting at , the exact Q maximizer set at either point contains both points. The fixed selector therefore produces the infinite sequence , which does not converge.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, the displayed finite latent model and the fixed observation .
The Axiom of Choice: AC is required by the cited observed-likelihood ascent theorem used to contextualize the example.
Latent-variable joint and observed-data factorization: a complete-data density is normalized on each parameter fiber.
The observed density is the latent marginal under Tonelli: the observed density is the latent marginal, and its positive finite fibers define normalized latent conditional densities.
Expectation-maximization: exact mode selects an attained Q maximizer over an admissible set containing the current iterate.
EM does not decrease the observed log likelihood: every admissible exact update with nondecreasing Q does not decrease the observed log likelihood.
Likelihood ascent alone gives no global optimality or convergence conclusion: the ascent theorem supplies no unique-mode or parameter-convergence conclusion.
Verification
Since on , . Thus is nonnegative and sums to one over for every . The observed density at is .
The squared term vanishes exactly at and is positive elsewhere. Therefore , and hence the observed likelihood and log likelihood, have strict local maxima at those two distinct parameter values; both are global maximizers with equal value, so neither is a strict global maximum.
For every current value , the latent conditional law is uniform on . For any candidate , , so its exact maximizer set is again . Starting from , choosing at each step is an attained exact M-step; all fibers have positive finite marginals and identical latent support, with finite Q and KL. The algorithm therefore emits the infinite alternating sequence, which has no limit while its log likelihood is constant. This verifies the limitation described in [F5] without contradicting the one-step ascent result [F4].
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
30 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
- A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird and D. B. Rubin, Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (standard reference, not scraped)
- Mario A. T. Figueiredo, Lecture Notes on the EM Algorithm (2004) (standard reference, not scraped)