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.
Bayes factorization of the smoothing backward kernel
Statement
Assume AC, a finite-horizon Markov state-space model with standard-Borel states, dominated observation kernels, and data-indexed filtering and smoothing kernels as in Filtering, predictive, and smoothing laws in a finite-horizon state-space model. Fix an observation history in the full-measure set where the dominated filtering recursion Exact state-space filtering recursion under dominated observations applies. Write for the filtering law of given . Suppose the transition kernel from time to has a product-measurable density with respect to a sigma-finite measure , meaning for every state and measurable set . Put The backward conditional kernel is It is a probability-kernel version of the conditional law of given and . The finite-horizon smoothing kernel factors as for observation-almost every full history, with the product interpreted as successive backwards kernel integration. If the transition is supplied only as a probability kernel, the same factorization uses a supplied regular conditional kernel of given ; no transition density is asserted in that case. Null-history values remain version-dependent.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC; the finite-horizon Markov state-space model; the stated filtering, predictive, and smoothing kernels; dominated observation laws; and the transition density or supplied backward conditional kernels.
AC supports the finite-horizon kernel law and the regular conditional-law interfaces used below. The Axiom of Choice
Filtering and smoothing kernels are data-indexed probability kernels and are regular conditional distributions after composition with the observed histories; conditional versions can differ on null histories. Filtering, predictive, and smoothing laws in a finite-horizon state-space model
For standard-Borel state and observation spaces the finite-horizon filtering, predictive, and smoothing kernels exist. Filtering and finite-horizon smoothing laws exist
Under dominated observations, the recursive normalized update gives the exact filtering kernels and their predictive laws. Exact state-space filtering recursion under dominated observations
A joint probability with a product-measurable density has a conditional-density kernel equal to the normalized density on finite positive marginal-density fibers and a supplied probability filler elsewhere. Conditional density formula
The finite-horizon state-space path law has the ordered Markov-kernel factorization; future transitions and observations depend on the past through the current state. Finite-horizon state-space kernel law exists and is unique
Nonnegative product-measurable functions integrate measurably against probability kernels. Measurability of integration against a kernel
Equality of finite measures on generating measurable rectangles extends to the generated history sigma-algebra. Dynkin's pi-lambda theorem
Proof
Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.
Fix and condition on . The conditional pair law of is the ordered kernel integral by [F3] and [F5]. In the density case this pair law has density with respect to , and its second marginal has density . Applying [F4] gives the displayed on and the supplied filler off it. The conditional-density result proves that is an everywhere probability kernel and the conditional law of given on its predictive support.
In the full path factorization [F5], after fixing and the observations through time , every factor after time depends only on and the future states. Those factors cancel from the conditional distribution of ; the observation factor at time is also constant in . The remaining factors are exactly the conditional pair law in step 1.1, so the conditional distribution of given equals almost surely. With a general transition kernel the same cancellation leaves the supplied regular conditional kernel, without evaluating a density or particle-point singleton.
Apply the conditional chain rule successively from down to . Step 2.1 identifies each conditional factor with , while the terminal factor is the filtering law . Integrating first over rectangles in the finite product state space gives the displayed product kernel; [F6] makes each iterated kernel measurable, and [F7] extends the conditional identities to all Borel path events. Thus the product is a version of the finite-horizon smoothing kernel. The argument concerns histories under their actual observation law and makes no pointwise uniqueness claim on null histories.
Depends on
- The Axiom of Choice
- Filtering, predictive, and smoothing laws in a finite-horizon state-space model
- Filtering and finite-horizon smoothing laws exist
- Exact state-space filtering recursion under dominated observations
- Conditional density formula
- Measure kernel and probability kernel
- Measurability of integration against a kernel
- Dynkin's pi-lambda theorem
- Finite-horizon state-space kernel law exists and is unique
Used by
- Particle backward simulator Algorithm
- A zero backward-simulation denominator is inadmissible Example
- Delayed information creates fixed-lag smoothing bias Example
- Exact-kernel fixed-lag smoothing targets the truncated conditional law Theorem
- Fixed-horizon particle backward smoothing is consistent under stated conditions Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
38 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
- Simo Särkkä, Bayesian Filtering and Smoothing, Chapter 11, §11.2 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Arnaud Doucet and Adam M. Johansen, A Tutorial on Particle Filtering and Smoothing: Fifteen Years Later, §2.3.1 (standard reference, not scraped)