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 improper variance hyperprior can give an improper posterior
Example
Take one group with and , where . Observe , but replace the proper hyperprior in Finite-group hierarchical Bayesian model by the improper measure on . Its evidence-weighted density is not integrable, so it cannot be normalized to a posterior probability. This is a warning example outside the proper-hyperprior hypotheses of the hierarchical posterior theorem.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The one-group normal model in the Example, observation , and the improper hyperparameter density on .
For and , the density is . A positive-variance normal law has its location-scale density
The standard normal density has Lebesgue integral one. The standard normal density has total mass one
For a sigma-finite prior measure, the evidence is the integral of the likelihood section, and a finite positive scaling of the likelihood-weighted measure is a probability exactly when the evidence is finite and positive. Evidence normalizer and fiberwise posterior update, Fiberwise posterior propriety is equivalent to finite positive evidence
AC is assumed for the library normal-law convention. The Axiom of Choice
The hyperprior measure is on .
Verification
Given: The model, observation, and improper hyperprior in the Example.
The prior is sigma-finite: the sets increase to and . Integrating out gives the evidence at fixed , . Indeed, the exponent is ; the substitution reduces the integral to the unit normal integral [F2]. It is positive and finite for every .
The evidence-weighted density of is by [A2] and step 1.1. For each , let . On , and , while the interval has length . Hence , uniformly in . The intervals are disjoint, so summing their lower bounds shows . By [F3], no finite positive scaling makes this likelihood-weighted measure a posterior probability.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
38 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., §5.7 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Alicia A. Johnson, Miles Q. Ott, and Mine Dogucu, Bayes Rules!, Chapter 16 (standard reference, not scraped)