Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedjudge 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.

An improper variance hyperprior can give an improper posterior

Example

Take one group with θ∣t∼N(0,t) and Y∣θ∼N(θ,1), where t=τ2>0. Observe y=0, but replace the proper hyperprior in Finite-group hierarchical Bayesian model by the improper measure Π(dt)=t−1dt on (0,∞). 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 y=0, and the improper hyperparameter density 1/t on (0,∞).

[F1]

For a∈R and v>0, the N(a,v) density is (2πv)−1/2e−(x−a)2/(2v). A positive-variance normal law has its location-scale density

[F2]

The standard normal density has Lebesgue integral one. The standard normal density has total mass one

[F3]

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

[A1]

AC is assumed for the library normal-law convention. The Axiom of Choice

[A2]

The hyperprior measure is Π(dt)=t−1dt on (0,∞).

Verification

Given: The model, observation, and improper hyperprior in the Example.

1.1A1A2F1F2givenalgebra

The prior is sigma-finite: the sets En=[1/n,n] increase to (0,∞) and Π(En)=∫1/nndt/t=2log⁡n<∞. Integrating out θ gives the evidence at fixed t, m(0∣t)=∫Re−θ2/(2t)2πte−θ2/22π dθ=12π(1+t). Indeed, the exponent is −(1+t−1)θ2/2; the substitution z=1+t−1 θ reduces the integral to the unit normal integral [F2]. It is positive and finite for every t>0.

2.1A2F3step 1.1algebra∎

The evidence-weighted density of t is q(t)=1/(t2π(1+t)) by [A2] and step 1.1. For each k≥0, let Ik=(2−(k+1),2−k). On Ik⊂(0,1), q(t)≥1/(t4π) and 1/t≥2k, while the interval has length 2−(k+1). Hence ∫Ikq(t) dt≥1/(24π), uniformly in k. The intervals are disjoint, so summing their lower bounds shows ∫01q(t) dt=∞. 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