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.
Common drift and strongly aperiodic minorization give a uniform geometric bound
Statement
Let be probability kernels on a measurable space with a common invariant probability (Invariant and stationary distribution for a Markov kernel). Suppose there are a measurable set , a finite measurable , and constants , , , and such that and, for every , there is a probability measure with satisfying Then there are constants and , depending only on , such that The support condition is the strong-aperiodicity hypothesis in the cited drift/minorization route.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The kernels, common invariant probability, set , drift function, and uniform minorization/drift constants in the Statement.
Small-set minorization and geometric drift: a one-step minorization means for every , and the geometric drift inequality is pointwise.
Measure kernel and probability kernel: kernel rows are probability measures and kernel evaluations are measurable.
Total variation duality, kernel contraction, and coupling bound: a measurable event on which coupled coordinates agree bounds total variation by its complement probability, and fixed kernels contract total variation.
Finite products of probability kernels are probability kernels: finite products of probability kernels are probability kernels.
Measurability of integration against a kernel: integration of nonnegative measurable functions against these kernels is measurable.
Monotone convergence for the integral: increasing truncations converge under integration.
Markov's inequality for random variables: for nonnegative and , .
Proof
Given: The Statement and [F1]–[F8]. No choice axiom is used: for each fixed the proof uses a witness and all resulting bounds depend only on the common numerical constants.
We record the finite-horizon construction used below. If is a probability kernel on , start with any probability measure on (in particular for a fixed start ). Given a probability measure on , the map is a probability kernel from to , since the last-coordinate projection is measurable. For , set The inner integral is measurable by [F6]. Sections of product-measurable sets are measurable, and countable additivity of the rows of together with [F7] gives countable additivity of ; its total mass is one. For every measurable prefix set and , Thus this recursion gives a probability law for each finite path, with the stated one-step transition identity; the identity for all prefix events is the displayed formula for arbitrary product-measurable . Kernel integration of a nonnegative measurable test has the corresponding form first for simple and then by [F7]. These identities are exactly the finite-horizon conditional transition and expectation rules used below. Kernel compositions used below are kernels as well: iterating preserves measurable evaluations by [F6] and countable additivity by [F7]. This applies to probability kernels and finite subprobability kernels.
Fix any . For , set . By [F2], . On the integrand is at most ; on it is at most ; and on it is at most zero, because . Hence Letting by [F7] gives the uniform finite bound .
Put and . Choose so , then choose with , and finally choose with . Let . For fixed , the killed subprobability kernel satisfies . To make its finite paths explicit, adjoin a cemetery point and equip with . Define the probability kernel on this measurable space by for , and . This is measurable: the first term is a kernel evaluation, the second is measurable, and each row has mass one. Step 1.1 constructs its finite path laws. Let on and ; then is -measurable, on , , and by iteration . The event that the killed path is in after transitions has probability . Under the finite -path law from step 1.1, the same recursive formula inserts at each current state, so for one has . for every . Hence .
Since , the minorization gives , and induction gives for every . Split the -step transition according to the first hit time of . From a state in , the first step minorizes by and the remaining steps preserve at least . Hence, for every and measurable , Thus is one-step small for , with common .
Iterating gives . Put . Outside , at least one coordinate has and the other has , so This is independent of .
For , . The residual probability is well-defined by step 3.1 and satisfies . Consequently for . All constants here are independent of .
Fix . Let ; this map from to is measurable, since inverse images of rectangles are measurable intersections. Write for the image of a measure . Extend the residual rows to all by setting on and on ; this is a probability kernel by step 3.1 and measurable piecewise definition. On , for a measurable write . Define a transition as follows: - from with , its row on flag is ; - from with , its row is on flag plus on flag ; - from , its row is on flag . Here each is measurable by sectioning the finite flag coordinate, and the displayed measures on are placed on their indicated flag sections. The maps and (and the analogous maps for ) are measurable by the coordinate projections, so [F5] gives the two product-kernel rows. The image-kernel rows are measurable by measurability of and of . Since is measurable, the three cases define a measurable probability kernel on . At flag , each coordinate marginal is its corresponding row, because on one has . At flag the coordinates coincide on every reachable state and both then advance with . Applying the finite-horizon construction in step 1.1 to defines the finite path laws used below. Starting from , once the coordinates remain equal; is measurable and on it .
Let and let count failed split attempts in the first transitions. Choose and define For each finite horizon, the coordinate process under its path law from step 1.1 is a nonnegative supermartingale with respect to its coordinate filtration: on an outside- update contracts expected by step 3.2 and leaves the flag and failure count unchanged; on a successful split makes the indicator zero, while the failed-split contribution has ratio at most because . Since , , and therefore for every finite .
For every integer , the probability of at least failed split attempts is at most , by conditioning successively at the first attempts. On , , so Markov's inequality [F8] gives Choose with and take . Both terms are bounded by for constants , determined only by . On the measurable event the flagged chains agree, so [F4] yields
For each finite , start the flagged path law with initial measure on , which exists by [F5] and step 1.1. The second coordinate has initial law and transition marginal , so invariance gives . Integrating step 6.1 over and using step 1.2 yields This bound is uniform in .
Write with . By kernel contraction and , Set and enlarge the constant by . The resulting is finite and depends only on , proving the stated bound.
Depends on
- Invariant and stationary distribution for a Markov kernel
- Measure kernel and probability kernel
- Small-set minorization and geometric drift
- Total variation distance for probability laws
- Markov's inequality for random variables
- Total variation duality, kernel contraction, and coupling bound
- Finite products of probability kernels are probability kernels
- Measurability of integration against a kernel
- Monotone convergence for the integral
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
35 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
- Gareth O. Roberts and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, Coupling and Ergodicity of Adaptive MCMC (standard reference, not scraped)
- Gersende Fort, Adaptive MCMC: theory and methods, Warwick lecture notes (standard reference, not scraped)