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.

Conditional residual resampling central limit theorem away from integer weights

Statement

Fix a time t in the finite-horizon SIR system of Finite-horizon SMC CLT classes and variance recursions. Let Xt1:N have proposal empirical law ηtN, corrected law ωtN, and residual-resampled law ηˇtN. Assume the proposal empirical law converges in probability for every integrable test as in Finite-horizon SMC empirical laws converge for integrable tests, the weighted estimate has a finite-variance CLT N{ωtN(ϕ)−πt(ϕ)}⇒N(0,V), and πt(ϕ2)<∞. Write u=υt and assume either u=1 π~t-almost everywhere, or π~t(u∈{1,2,…})=0. In the second case c=π~t(r(u))>0. Then, with Rt(ϕ)=π~t(r(u)ϕ2)−π~t(r(u)ϕ)2c, where Rt(ϕ)=0 in the constant-weight case, N{ηˇtN(ϕ)−ωtN(ϕ)}⇒N(0,Rt(ϕ)), asymptotically independently of the weighted-estimator fluctuation, and N{ηˇtN(ϕ)−πt(ϕ)}⇒N(0,V+Rt(ϕ)).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The proposal empirical-law convergence, the weighted-estimator CLT, the target second-moment condition, and the residual offspring algorithm in the Statement.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: AC is inherited through the finite-horizon particle-law construction and the cited probability limit theorem.

[F1]

Finite-horizon SMC CLT classes and variance recursions: u=dπt/dπ~t, π~t(u)=1, r(v)=v−⌊v⌋, and the formal residual candidate is assigned as Rt only in the no-positive-integer-atom branch or the constant-weight branch.

[F2]

Multinomial and residual offspring resampling: For normalized weights ρi, residual resampling gives each particle ⌊Nρi⌋ deterministic copies and fills the remaining count with IID draws proportional to r(Nρi).

[F3]

Finite-horizon SMC empirical laws converge for integrable tests: The proposal and corrected empirical laws converge in probability for integrable tests.

[F4]

Lindeberg-Feller central limit theorem: sufficiency: A centered independent triangular array with positive total variance and the Lindeberg condition, divided by its row standard deviation, converges to N(0,1).

[F5]

Chebyshev's inequality for random variables: For a square-integrable variable on any probability space, the probability of an absolute centered deviation at least a>0 is at most its variance divided by a2.

[F6]

Slutsky's theorem for real random variables: Multiplying a distributionally convergent real variable by one converging in probability to a constant gives the scaled limit.

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1F1F3givenalgebra

Put uˉN=ηtN(u) and biN=r(u(Xti)/uˉN) on the event uˉN>0, whose probability tends to one by [F3]. If u=1 almost everywhere, exclude all earlier zero-weight fallback events; their union has probability tending to zero by [F3] and the fixed horizon. On the remaining event every proposal particle avoids proposal-null sets almost surely: initially particles have the proposal law, and inductively positive-weight selection avoids target-null sets, after which mutation avoids π~s-null sets since π~s=πs−1ks. Thus all sampled u values equal one almost surely there, so residual selection is deterministic. The resampling fluctuation is zero outside an event of probability tending to zero, proving the constant-weight branch. In the other case, for the three tests a=1,ϕ,ϕ2, where πt(ϕ2)<∞, one has 1N∑ibiNa(Xti)→Pπ~t(r(u)a). To verify this triangular empirical limit, fix M and first restrict to u≤M and ∣ϕ∣≤M. The compact u interval meets only finitely many positive-integer discontinuities of r. Delete open γ-neighborhoods of those integers. On the remaining compact set, r(u/uˉN)→r(u) uniformly as uˉN→1, and ∣a∣≤max⁡(1,M,M2), so [F3] gives convergence of the restricted averages. Each deleted neighborhood has proposal integral of ∣a∣ tending to zero as γ↓0: it lies where u≥1/2, and π~t(u∣a∣)=πt(∣a∣)<∞; the no-atom condition gives the limit zero. [F3] controls its empirical average for each fixed γ. For the tails, when uˉN∈[1/2,2], biN≤2u(Xti); hence the ∣ϕ∣>M contribution is bounded by 2ηtN(u∣a∣1{∣ϕ∣>M}), whose limit tends to zero by target integrability. On u>M, use biN≤1 and π~t(∣a∣1{u>M})≤M−1πt(∣a∣), with [F3] again controlling the empirical average. The corresponding target tails obey the same bounds because r(u)≤u and r(u)≤1. Taking first N→∞, then γ↓0 and M→∞, proves the claim.

2.1F1F2step 1.1algebra

Taking a=1 in step 1.1 gives N−1∑ibiN→c. Here c>0: if c=0, then u is integer-valued almost surely; the no-positive-integer-atom assumption would force u=0 almost surely, contradicting π~t(u)=1. Thus the number MN=∑ibiN of residual draws diverges and MN/N→c. Their conditional sampling probabilities are biN/MN.

3.1F1F2F3F4step 1.1step 2.1givenalgebra

Let mN=MN−1∑ibiNϕ(Xti). Given the particles, the residual offspring contribution to the centered, N-scaled empirical mean is N−1/2∑ℓ=1MN(ϕ(YℓN)−mN), with IID conditional draws YℓN from probabilities biN/MN. By step 1.1 its conditional variance converges in probability to c{π~t(r(u)ϕ2)c−(π~t(r(u)ϕ)c)2}=Rt(ϕ). The residual draw mean mN is bounded in probability by the a=ϕ limit in step 1.1 and MN/N→c>0. Fix a threshold a0>0 and fixed K, then R≥K. On {∣mN∣≤K, uˉN∈[1/2,2]}, for sufficiently large N with a0N>R+K, the conditional Lindeberg sum for N−1/2∑ℓ=1MN(ϕ(YℓN)−mN) is at most 4N−1∑ibiNϕ(Xti)21{∣ϕ(Xti)∣>R}. Since biN≤2u(Xti) on this event, it is at most 8ηtN(uϕ21{∣ϕ∣>R}). For fixed R, [F3] makes this converge to 8π~t(uϕ21{∣ϕ∣>R})=8πt(ϕ21{∣ϕ∣>R}), which tends to zero as R→∞. Choosing K, then R, then N controls the exceptional mean event and the integrable fixed tail; uˉN→1 handles the normalization event. Thus conditional Lindeberg holds under target L2, with no target higher moment.

4.1A1F2F4F5F6givenstep 3.1algebra∎

Along any subsequence, choose a further subsequence on which the conditional residual variance converges almost surely. If Rt(ϕ)>0, the conditional standard deviation is eventually greater than Rt(ϕ)/2. Apply the bound in step 3.1 at threshold aRt(ϕ)/2 and divide by the conditional variance; this gives the Lindeberg condition after normalizing the residual sum by its conditional standard deviation. Conditional [F4] gives a standard-normal limit, and Slutsky [F6] with the conditional standard deviation converging to Rt(ϕ) gives the characteristic-function limit e−u02Rt(ϕ)/2. If Rt(ϕ)=0, conditional [F5] bounds the deviation probability by the conditional variance divided by the squared threshold, giving the same degenerate limit. AC is inherited only through the particle law and conditional CLT supplier [F4]; the finite residual calculation adds no choice. The subsequence criterion gives convergence in probability along the full sequence. These conditional characteristic functions are bounded by one. For arbitrary real v,u0, multiply this conditional characteristic function at u0 by eivN(ωtN(ϕ)−πt(ϕ)) and integrate. The limit is e−v2V/2e−u02Rt(ϕ)/2, proving joint asymptotic independence and adding Rt(ϕ) to V. The deterministic-floor part is centered at its conditional expectation, so the conditional mean of the selected empirical law is exactly ωtN(ϕ).

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

29 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