Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: 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.

Posterior quantiles stabilize under scalar weak convergence

Statement

Let Qn(y,⋅) be data-indexed probability kernels on R, let Q be a fixed law with continuous CDF F, and suppose βBL(Qn(y,⋅),Q)→0 in probability. Fix 0<u<1 and let q=qu(Q):=inf⁡{r∈Q:Q((−∞,r])≥u}, using the canonical rational embedding. Assume F is strictly increasing on some open interval containing q. Define qu(Qn(y,⋅)) by the same convention. Then qu(Qn)→q in probability. The local strict-increase hypothesis permits CDFs, such as norms of nonnegative random elements, that are constant on part of R.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The data-indexed kernels, fixed Q, and u∈(0,1) in the Statement; βBL(Qn,Q)=sup⁡{∣∫h dQn−∫h dQ∣:∥h∥∞≤1,Lip⁡(h)≤1}.

[F1]

Posterior quantiles are measurable and bracket their probability level: the lower quantile is the real infimum of {r∈Q:Q((−∞,r])≥u} and its CDF satisfies Q((−∞,q))≤u≤Q((−∞,q]).

[F2]

Continuity from above when one set has finite measure: probabilities of decreasing measurable sets with finite first measure converge to the probability of their intersection.

[A1]

The limiting CDF is continuous on R and strictly increasing on an open interval containing qu(Q).

Proof

1.1A1F2givenalgebra

Fix x∈R and η>0. Choose 0<δ<min⁡(1,η). The piecewise-linear ramps that fall from 1 to 0 on [x−δ,x] and on [x,x+δ] bound 1(−∞,x] below and above. Multiplying each ramp by δ makes its sup norm and Lipschitz constant at most 1. Comparing the lower and upper ramps under Qn with their integrals under Q gives ∣Qn((−∞,x])−F(x)∣≤δ−1βBL(Qn,Q)+Q([x−δ,x+δ]). By [A1], Q({x})=0; [F2] then gives Q([x−δ,x+δ])→0 as δ↓0. First choose δ small and then let n→∞; this proves Qn((−∞,x])→F(x) in probability.

2.1A1F1step 1.1algebra∎

Write q=qu(Q) as in [F1]. Since [A1] makes F continuous, the CDF bracket in [F1] gives F(q)=u. For every sufficiently small ε>0, strict increase near q then gives F(q−ε)<u<F(q+ε). Step 1.1 at these two points implies, with probability tending to one, Qn((−∞,q−ε])<u<Qn((−∞,q+ε]). By monotonicity, no rational at or below q−ε is in the defining set for qu(Qn), while every rational above q+ε belongs to it. Its infimum therefore lies in [q−ε,q+ε]. Since arbitrarily small such ε are available, the quantiles converge in probability.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

18 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