Alphabeta Math
PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck pendingjudge 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.

Homogeneous Poisson rate MLE in a positive-volume window

Statement

Let W be as in Finite-window spatial observations and configurations and suppose v=∣W∣>0. Consider the homogeneous family λρ(x)=ρ with parameter space either [0,∞) or (0,∞). For an observed configuration with n=η(W) occurrences, if n>0 the unique maximum likelihood estimate is ρ^=n/v. If n=0, the likelihood is maximized at ρ=0 when zero is in the parameter space; on (0,∞) its supremum is the boundary value at ρ↓0 and is not attained.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: v>0, a finite configuration η with count n=η(W), and the homogeneous intensity λρ=ρ.

[F1]

For ρ>0, the log likelihood up to a parameter-independent constant is nlog⁡ρ−vρ; for a zero event factor the likelihood is zero. (Finite-window spatial Poisson likelihood relative to unit rate)

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1givenF1F2algebra

Suppose n>0 and put ρ^=n/v>0. For ρ>0 set t=ρ/ρ^. By [F1] and the logarithm quotient law [F2], the log-likelihood difference is ℓ(ρ)−ℓ(ρ^)=n(log⁡t−t+1).

1.2givenF1algebra

Suppose n=0. For ρ>0, [F1] gives log likelihood −vρ, which is strictly below 0 and tends to 0 as ρ↓0. At ρ=0, the empty product is 1 and the density in Finite-window spatial Poisson likelihood relative to unit rate has log likelihood equal to its parameter-independent constant, so the normalized log likelihood value is 0. Thus zero is the maximizer when admitted and is only a supremum when the parameter space is (0,∞).

2.1givenstep 1.1F1F2F3algebra

Let ψ(t)=log⁡t−t+1. For each s>0, ψ(s+h)−ψ(s)h=log⁡(s+h)−log⁡sh−1⟶1s−1 as h→0, by [F2]; hence ψ′(s)=1/s−1. If t>1, apply [F3] on [1,t]: its intermediate point c>1 has ψ′(c)<0, so ψ(t)<ψ(1)=0. If 0<t<1, apply [F3] on [t,1]: its intermediate point has ψ′(c)>0, so again ψ(t)<ψ(1)=0. Equality holds at t=1. Therefore [F1] and step 1.1 give the unique maximum at ρ=ρ^ among positive rates; at ρ=0 the observed nonempty configuration has likelihood zero.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1step 1.2∎

Steps 1.1 and 2.1 prove the positive-count claim, and step 1.2 proves the zero-count boundary claim.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

46 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