Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge 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.

A shared hyperparameter can couple group parameters

Example

Give H=Θ={0,1} their discrete sigma-algebras. Let η∈{0,1} have prior probability 1/2 at each value. Given η, let θ1,θ2 be conditionally independent with θj=η almost surely. For each group, let the observation space be the singleton {∗} with its full sigma-algebra and counting measure νj({∗})=1. Let the observation kernel be point mass at ∗, with specified jointly measurable density fj(θj,∗)=1 relative to νj. The data contain no information about η.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite two-group hierarchy and singleton observation kernels specified in the Example.

[F1]

In a finite-group hierarchy, a proper hyperprior and conditional group kernel define the latent prior; the groups are conditionally independent given the shared hyperparameter. Finite-group hierarchical Bayesian model

[F2]

On a fiber with positive finite evidence, the hierarchical posterior is the normalized joint likelihood times latent prior. Hierarchical posterior normalization on positive finite evidence

[F3]

Type-II maximum marginal likelihood selects an attained maximizer only where it exists, and its plug-in posterior fixes the chosen hyperparameter. Type-II maximum marginal likelihood and empirical-Bayes plug-in posterior

[F4]

A measurable space is standard Borel when it is bimeasurably isomorphic to a Polish space. The finite discrete spaces here are Polish. Standard Borel spaces

Verification

Given: The hierarchy and singleton observations in the Example.

1.1F1F2F4given

The finite discrete spaces are standard Borel by [F4]. The two-point hyperprior is proper, G0=δ0 and G1=δ1 are probability kernels, and each singleton observation measure νj is finite, hence sigma-finite. Its observation kernel has the specified density fj(θj,∗)=1, jointly measurable on the finite product space. Thus the hierarchy in [F1] is well-defined and its joint evidence is Z(∗)=1. By [F2], the full posterior equals the prior: it assigns probability 1/2 to (η,θ1,θ2)=(0,0,0) and 1/2 to (1,1,1).

2.1F1F3step 1.1given

For either fixed η, the conditional marginal likelihood is m(∗∣η)=1, so both values attain the maximum. The map from the singleton data space to η=0 is measurable, hence [F3] permits the plug-in choice η^(∗)=0; its posterior is δ0⊗δ0.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

Under the full posterior in step 1.1, Pr⁡(θ1=1)=Pr⁡(θ2=1)=1/2 but Pr⁡(θ1=1,θ2=1)=1/2≠1/4. Therefore the group parameters are dependent after the shared hyperparameter is integrated out, and the full posterior differs from the plug-in posterior in step 2.1.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

19 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