Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generated
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.

Homogeneous Poisson likelihood and a Hawkes intensity specification

Example

Homogeneous Poisson case. Let η be a supplied homogeneous Poisson process of rate θ≥0 on (0,T], with T>0, and let m=NT be the observed count. The likelihood ratio against the unit-rate Poisson reference is eTθme−θT, with 00:=1, so the parameter-dependent likelihood is θme−θT. Over the parameter space θ≥0, the maximum-likelihood estimate is m/T when m>0 and 0 when m=0.

For the temporal-model interface, extend the finite-window process by holding its count fixed after T. Thus the Poisson survivor formula below applies within (0,T]; after T the next-event kernel has only its terminal mass.

Hawkes specification. For parameters μ>0, α≥0, and β>0, condition on a common specified initial history h0 with finite initial excitation c0≥0. For past event times s≤0 and α>0, this is c0=α∑s∈h0eβs, requiring the weighted sum to be finite; take c0=0 when α=0 or the initial history is empty. Although the history is fixed, c0 may depend on the parameters. On 0<u≤T, consider the pre-event-history intensity λ∗(u)=μ+c0e−βu+α∑0<tj<ue−β(u−tj). For any supplied non-explosive law whose conditional hazards and separate compensator contract satisfy the temporal model with this specification, and any compatible event pattern 0<t1<⋯<tm≤T, the likelihood ratio is eT(∏i=1m(μ+c0e−βti+α∑j<ie−β(ti−tj)))exp⁡ ⁣[−μT−c0β(1−e−βT)−αβ∑i=1m(1−e−β(T−ti))]. For empty initial history, c0=0, so both initial-excitation terms vanish. This is a finite-pattern likelihood calculation conditional on a compatible law. Writing the candidate specification does not prove that such a law exists, is non-explosive, or is stationary.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Poisson and Hawkes cases above on (0,T], with the Hawkes law conditioned on the specified initial history and its finite excitation c0. For the Poisson case, extend η by zero after T and use the event-history filtration Hs=σ(η(B):B⊆(0,s∧T] Borel).

[F1]

Disjoint-set counts of a Poisson process are independent and have the specified scalar Poisson laws. (Poisson and Cox point processes)

[F2]

There exists a finite-window homogeneous Poisson process of rate θ>0 with no ties and ordered pattern density e−θTθm; the zero-rate Poisson count law is concentrated at zero. (Finite-window homogeneous Poisson construction and ordered event-time density, The scalar Poisson count law)

[F3]

A Poisson count C of finite mean λ has mean λ, factorial moment E[C(C−1)]=λ2, and second moment λ2+λ. (Normalization, moments, and generating function of the Poisson count law)

[F4]

Independence on a generating pi-system extends to the sigma-algebras it generates. (Independent pi-systems generate independent sigma-algebras)

[F5]

A deterministic Borel function of time is predictable for the predictable sigma-algebra convention. (Progressively measurable and predictable processes)

[F6]

The finite-horizon model contract requires a continuous predictable compensator with finite expectation and a square-integrable martingale N−A. (Simple counting-process intensity and compensator contract)

[F7]

Conditional-intensity pattern likelihoods use the product of pre-event intensities and the terminal integrated-hazard factor, with ratio eT against the unit-rate reference. (Conditional-intensity inter-event law and point-pattern likelihood)

[F8]

The natural logarithm has derivative 1/x on (0,∞). (The natural logarithm has derivative 1/x and equals the integral from 1 to x of 1/t)

[F11]

The temporal model requires a measurable history random element, a measurable event-append update, and a next-event probability kernel on (s,∞] with jointly measurable finite-time density compatible with the effective pre-event intensity. (Temporal point-process models and conditional intensity)

[A1]

AC is inherited through the temporal model and compensator contract. (The Axiom of Choice)

[A2]

Countable Choice is used by the finite-window Lebesgue construction. (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω))

Verification

1.1A1A2F1F3F4F5F6given

By [F1], the supplied process has total count with law Pois⁡(θT), hence finite almost surely; at θ=0 it is empty. For θ>0, partition (0,T] into 2n equal half-open intervals. A cell count C has mean λn=θT/2n, and 1{C≥2}≤C(C−1)/2 gives P(C≥2)≤λn2/2 by [F3]. Thus the probability that any cell contains two events is at most θ2T2/2n+1. Any repeated event forces such a collision for every n, so its probability is zero. The supplied process is therefore simple. Extend its count by Nt=η((0,t∧T]). For 0≤s<t, Nt−Ns is the count on (s,t]∩(0,T], independent of each finite cylinder of past Borel-set counts by [F1]. Indeed, refine any finite family of past Borel sets into the disjoint atoms of the finite Boolean algebra they generate. Each atom lies in (0,s∧T] and is disjoint from (s,t]∩(0,T], so [F1] makes the atom-count vector independent of the future increment; the cylinder vector is a function of those atom counts. Such cylinders generate Hs, so [F4] extends independence to the whole history sigma-algebra. Therefore E[Nt−Ns∣Hs]=θ((t∧T)−(s∧T)), and Nt−At is a martingale for At=θ(t∧T). The effective intensity is λ∗(t)=θ1(0,T](t), which is deterministic Borel and predictable by [F5]; its integral is At, continuous and bounded by θT. Also Nt has finite second moment by [F3]. Thus N−A is square-integrable and the Poisson process meets the compensator contract [F6].

1.2F1F2F11construct

Let H be the space of finite counting measures on (0,∞) with its evaluation sigma-algebra, and define Hs(B):=η(B∩(0,s∧T]) for Borel B⊆(0,∞). Each Hs is finite and measurable by the evaluation measurability of η, and σ(Hs)=Hs. For finite u>0 put h⊕u=h+δu; the evaluation identity (h⊕u)(B)=h(B)+1B(u) shows that the update is jointly measurable and appends one event.

1.3givenF10construct

The specified initial history contributes c0e−βu at time u>0; its past-event representation follows by factoring e−βu out of the nonnegative weighted sum. For a fixed finite observed pattern, the pre-event intensity at ti is therefore μ+c0e−βti+α∑j<ie−β(ti−tj). Integrating the baseline gives μT, and integrating the initial excitation gives c0(1−e−βT)/β by [F10]. For each observed event time ti, the integral ∫tiTe−β(u−ti) du equals 1−e−β(T−ti)β by [F10], also when ti=T, when both sides are zero. Summing these terms gives the displayed cumulative hazard.

2.1F1F2F7F11step 1.1step 1.2algebra

For s≥0 and h∈H, supply the next-event kernel, supported on (s,∞], by Ks,h(C):=∫C∩(s,T]θe−θ(u−s) du+e−θ(T−s)+1{∞∈C} for Borel C⊆[0,∞], where x+:=max⁡(x,0). Its finite-time mass is 1−e−θ(T−s)+, so each Ks,h is a probability measure, including when θ=0 or s≥T. For fixed C, the finite-time term is θeθs∫C∩(s,T]e−θu du, a Borel function of s because the tail integral is monotone on [0,T] and zero for s≥T; the atom mass is also Borel. The finite-time density fs,h(u)=θ1{s<u≤T}e−θ(u−s) is jointly measurable in (s,h,u). Independent increments give the same conditional survivor, Ss,h(u)=e−θ((u∧T)−s)+,u>s, so the kernel is compatible with the observed finite-window Poisson law and supplies its terminal continuation after T. Its hazard is θ on s<u≤T and 0 for u>T, agreeing with λ∗(u∣hu−)=θ1(0,T](u) (and is identically zero at θ=0). Thus the homogeneous survivor formula used in the likelihood is exactly e−θ(u−s) for s<u≤T.

2.2F7step 1.3givenalgebra

Substitute the Hawkes pre-event values and integrated hazard from step 1.3 into [F7], conditioning on the same specified initial history for every parameter value. This gives exactly the displayed Hawkes likelihood ratio, including the initial-excitation contribution when m=0; for empty history c0=0. The calculation is conditional on a compatible process law and proves no existence, non-explosion, or stationarity property for the specification.

3.1F1F6F7step 1.1step 2.1

Within the observation window, 0≤s<u≤T, the probability of no event in (s,u] is e−θ(u−s), so the no-event hazard is θ there. Applying [F7] to the m events gives exact ratio eTθme−θT, including m=0 by the empty-product and terminal-survival conventions.

4.1F7F8F9step 3.1algebra

If m>0 and θ>0, the log-likelihood is ℓ(θ)=mlog⁡θ−θT, with derivative ℓ′(θ)=m/θ−T by [F8]. It is positive for 0<θ<m/T and negative for θ>m/T. The mean value theorem [F9] therefore makes ℓ increase up to m/T and decrease thereafter; at θ=0 the likelihood is zero because m>0. Thus the unique maximum is θ^=m/T.

5.1F7F9step 3.1given∎

If m=0, the likelihood is e−θT, which strictly decreases on θ≥0 because T>0 and the exponential is strictly increasing. Its maximum is attained at θ=0. If zero were excluded from the parameter space, this case would have only a boundary supremum.

Source notes

Rasmussen's Examples 2.3 and 3.1 give the Hawkes conditional-intensity form and homogeneous-Poisson MLE; Proposition 3.1 derives the likelihood under an empty initial history (PDF p. 12). The local likelihood theorem allows a common specified initial history, whose exponential excitation is retained here. Kass, Eden, and Brown independently cover Poisson event-time densities and history-dependent conditional intensities. The Hawkes calculation proves only finite-pattern algebra under the stated compatibility hypotheses.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

89 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