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.
One-step weak defect of finite-state Poisson tau-leaping
Statement
Assume Countable Choice and Dependent Choice. Let be finite, let , and assume whenever . Extend every state outside as absorbing, as in Explicit Poisson tau-leaping with an invalid-state status. For , let be the exact reaction-chain transition kernel and the Poisson tau-leap transition kernel. If is bounded, then and hence The bounds include the multi-reaction leap probability that can trigger the invalid-state branch.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Finite reaction data Finite-channel reaction propensity systems and their generator, the exact reaction chain law specified there, the tau-leap kernel Explicit Poisson tau-leaping with an invalid-state status, and a bounded .
Finite-channel reaction propensity systems and their generator: a single channel- event from has destination and rate ; forbidden one-event transitions have zero propensity.
Competing exponential clocks give the reaction event law: at state , the next-event survival is and the channel- event density is .
Explicit Poisson tau-leaping with an invalid-state status: conditional channel counts are independent Poisson variables of means and any out-of- leap is absorbing.
The scalar Poisson count law: the count mass is for finite .
Normalization, moments, and generating function of the Poisson count law: a Poisson count of mean has mean and factorial second moment .
Finite-state Gillespie and next-reaction methods have the specified CTMC law: under Countable Choice and Dependent Choice, the finite-state reaction system has its specified exact path law and has finitely many events on finite horizons.
Countable Choice is assumed by [F2] for the exponential probability law. The Axiom of Countable Choice ()
Dependent Choice is assumed by [F6] for the countable input streams. The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an -indexed chain
Proof
Given: Countable Choice, Dependent Choice, a step , as in the Statement, and .
If , then and both kernels are the identity on , so every asserted bound is zero. Otherwise fix .
For the Poisson leap, the probability of zero total counts is . The probability that exactly channel fires once is , so its difference from is at most . Summing these errors over gives at most . If , independence and [F5] give hence . The zero-count probability differs from by at most . A single allowed channel event remains in by [F1], so only the part can trigger the invalid-state branch. The zero-count, total single-count, and multiple-count contributions are bounded respectively by , , and . Thus .
For the exact chain, the no-event probability is , which differs from by at most . The probability of one channel- event and no later event is Its difference from is at most , since all total rates on are at most ; summing over gives at most . The probability of two or more events is at most : conditional on a first event at time , a later event has probability at most , and integration against the first-event rate bounded by gives the bound. The no-event, total single-event, and multiple-event contributions are bounded respectively by , , and . Therefore .
Subtract the two first-order expansions from steps 1.1 and 1.2 and use the triangle inequality. This gives for every . Outside both kernels hold the state fixed, so the same bound holds there. Taking the supremum proves the final inequality.
Depends on
- Finite-channel reaction propensity systems and their generator
- Competing exponential clocks give the reaction event law
- Explicit Poisson tau-leaping with an invalid-state status
- The scalar Poisson count law
- Normalization, moments, and generating function of the Poisson count law
- The Axiom of Countable Choice ($\mathrm{AC}_\omega$)
- The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an $\mathbb{N}$-indexed chain
- Assuming countable and dependent choice, countable products of arbitrary probability spaces
- Finite-state Gillespie and next-reaction methods have the specified CTMC law
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
49 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
- Tiejun Li, Analysis of explicit tau-leaping schemes for simulating chemically reacting systems (standard reference, not scraped)
- Daniel T. Gillespie, Approximate accelerated stochastic simulation of chemically reacting systems (standard reference, not scraped)