Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-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.

Normalized product likelihood expansion under QMD

Statement

Assume AC and Quadratic-mean differentiability at a parameter at θ0 with score s and information I. Let hn→h in Rd, put un=hn/n, and write P0=Pθ0 and Pun=Pθ0+un. On S={pθ0>0} define, for all sufficiently large n, qn(x)=1S(x)pθ0+un(x)(1−αn)pθ0(x),αn=Pun(Sc). Then qn is a probability density relative to P0. For IID X1,…,Xn∼P0, let Ln=∏i=1nqn(Xi) and Δn=n−1/2∑i=1ns(Xi). Under P0⊗n, log⁡Ln=hnTΔn−12hTIh+oP(1),P0⊗n(Ln=0)→0. Moreover, if Pˉn=qnP0 is the normalized absolutely continuous component of Pun relative to P0, then ∥Pun⊗n−Pˉn⊗n∥TV→0. No full likelihood ratio for Pun⊗n is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC; a common sigma-finite dominator μ, the QMD density versions at θ0 and θ0+u, a square-integrable score s, and hn→h.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: AC supplies the simultaneous density versions in Likelihood densities.

[L1]

Likelihood densities: Each selected pθ is a measurable nonnegative density with Pθ(A)=∫Apθ dμ.

[F1]

Quadratic-mean differentiability at a parameter: With p0=pθ0, pθ0+u−p0−12(uTs)p0=ru,∥ru∥L2(μ)=o(∥u∥2).

[F2]

A QMD score is centered and has finite information: E0s=0 and I=E0[ssT] is finite.

[F3]

QMD controls singular and zero-overlap masses: If α(u)=Pθ0+u(p0=0) and β(u)=P0(pθ0+u=0), then both are o(∥u∥22).

[F4]

Khinchin weak law for integrable IID variables: For IID integrable real variables Zi, n−1∑i=1nZi→EZ1 in probability.

[F5]

Identical distribution and IID families: Under P0⊗n, the coordinate variables Xi are IID with common law P0.

[F7]

Total variation distance for probability laws: Total variation is sup⁡A∣P(A)−Q(A)∣ over measurable events.

[F9]

L1 convergence implies uniform integrability: An L1-convergent sequence of nonnegative random variables is uniformly integrable.

[F10]

Markov's inequality for random variables: For a nonnegative integrable variable W and a>0, P(W>a)≤EW/a.

[F11]

The Lagrange and Cauchy forms of Taylor's remainder: A C3 function with bounded third derivative on an interval has a quadratic Taylor remainder bounded by a constant times the cube of the increment.

Proof

Proof technique: square-root expansion, a triangular-array logarithm calculation, and a product-mixture bound.

1.1A1F1F2F3F8L1givenalgebra

Write pu=pθ0+u, S={p0>0}, and α(u)=∫Scpu dμ. For small u, [F3] gives α(u)<1/2. Define qu=1Spu/((1−α(u))p0) on S and qu=0 on Sc. It is nonnegative and measurable, and ∫qu dP0=(1−α(u))−1∫Spu dμ=1, so it is a probability density. At u=0, α(0)=0 and q0=1 P0-almost surely, since P0(Sc)=∫Scp0 dμ=0. On S, qu=(1−α(u))−1/2(1+12uTs+rup0). The residual term has L2(P0) norm ∥ru1S∥L2(μ)=o(∥u∥2). Also ∣(1−α)−1/2−1∣=α1−α(1+1−α)=O(α), and [F2], [F8] give ∥uTs∥L2(P0)=O(∥u∥2). Therefore Yu:=2(qu−1)=uTs+Ru,∥Ru∥L2(P0)=o(∥u∥2). This is the required square-root expansion.

1.2F5F6givenalgebra

The product function Ln=∏iqun(Xi) is a density of Pˉn⊗n relative to P0⊗n. For a measurable rectangle A1×⋯×An, Tonelli gives ∫A1×⋯×An∏iqun(xi) dP0⊗n=∏i∫Aiqun dP0=∏iPˉn(Ai). By [F6], agreement on rectangles identifies the product measures. Taking the whole space gives EP0⊗nLn=1.

2.1F2F8step 1.1givenalgebra

Since E0qu=1, E0Yu=−14E0Yu2. By step 1.1, [F2], and [F8], E0Yu2=uTIu+o(∥u∥22),E0Yu=−14uTIu+o(∥u∥22). Indeed, the difference between Yu and uTs has L2(P0) norm o(∥u∥2), so Cauchy–Schwarz makes the difference of their squared norms o(∥u∥22).

2.2F2F4F8step 1.1givenalgebra

Apply [F4] to Zi=∥s(Xi)∥22, whose mean is finite by [F2]. Then 1n∑i=1n(hnTs(Xi))2→hTIh in probability: for fixed h this is [F4] applied to (hTs)2, and the difference for hn is bounded by ∥hn−h∥2∥hn+h∥21n∑i=1n∥s(Xi)∥22→0. Step 1.1 and [F8] also give ∑i=1nYun(Xi)2−1n∑i=1n(hnTs(Xi))2→0 in probability, because its expected absolute value is at most n∥Run∥2(∥Yun∥2+∥unTs∥2)=o(n∥un∥22)=o(1). Consequently ∑iYun(Xi)2→hTIh.

2.3F3F8F9F10step 1.1givenalgebra

Put Vn=nYun(X1). Step 1.1 implies Vn−hnTs(X1)→0 in L2(P0), so Vn→hTs(X1) in L2. By [F8], Vn2→(hTs(X1))2 in L1; [F9] makes (Vn2) uniformly integrable. For every ε>0, [F10] and the union bound give P0⊗n ⁣(max⁡i≤n∣Yun(Xi)∣>ε)≤ε−2E0[Vn21{∣Vn∣>εn}]→0. Also P0⊗n(Ln=0)≤nβ(un)→0 by [F3] and the union bound.

3.1F2F5F10step 2.1givenalgebra

Let Run=Yun−unTs. Its centered IID sum has variance at most nE0Run2=o(n∥un∥22)=o(1). By step 2.1, nE0Run=nE0Yun=−14hnTIhn+o(1)→−14hTIh. Markov's inequality [F10], applied to the square of the centered sum, gives ∑iYun(Xi)=hnTΔn−14hTIh+oP(1). This is the required expansion of the sum.

4.1F11step 2.2step 3.1step 2.3given

On the event that every qun(Xi)>0 and max⁡i∣Yun(Xi)∣≤1, Taylor's formula gives log⁡qun(Xi)=Yun(Xi)−14Yun(Xi)2+O(∣Yun(Xi)∣3), with one constant valid for all i,n by [F11], since the third derivative of y↦2log⁡(1+y/2) is bounded on [−1,1]. The total cubic remainder is bounded by a constant times max⁡i∣Yun(Xi)∣∑iYun(Xi)2, which tends to zero by the square-sum limit in step 2.2 and the maximum bound in step 2.3. Combining the sum expansion in step 3.1 with the square-sum limit gives log⁡Ln=∑ilog⁡qun(Xi)=hnTΔn−12hTIh+oP(1). This is the normalized log-likelihood expansion.

5.1F3F7givenalgebra∎

The full one-observation law decomposes as Pun=(1−αn)Pˉn+αnSn, where Sn is the normalized restriction of Pun to Sc when αn>0. In the product mixture, the probability that at least one coordinate is drawn from Sn is at most nαn. Conditioning on the all-absolutely-continuous component shows, for every event, its probability under the full product differs from that under Pˉn⊗n by at most nαn. Since nαn=o(n∥un∥22)=o(1), [F7] proves the total-variation claim. If αn=0, the singular component is absent and the same bound is zero.

Depends on

Used by

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