Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: 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-intensity inter-event law and point-pattern likelihood

Statement

Assume AC, Countable Choice and Dependent Choice for the cited likelihood and hazard-calculus interfaces. Fix T>0 and a common specified initial history. Let (Pθ) be a supplied family of laws for actual simple, non-explosive temporal point-process models on (0,T] satisfying Temporal point-process models and conditional intensity, with jointly measurable conditional history-update and waiting-time kernels. Let P0 be the supplied unit-rate Poisson reference on the finite-pattern space XT=⨆m≥0Δm,Δ0={∅},Δm={(t1,…,tm):0<t1<⋯<tm≤T}, equipped with the disjoint-union Borel sigma-algebra. For a pattern 0<t1<⋯<tm≤T, let hi−1 be the initial history updated by t1,…,ti−1. On each simplex, the laws are dominated by P0 and the following chosen density representative gives the Radon–Nikodym derivative P0-almost everywhere: dPθdP0(t1,…,tm)=eT(∏i=1mλθ∗(ti∣hi−1))exp⁡ ⁣(−∫0Tλθ∗(u∣hu−) du). Here hu− is the history immediately before u. Thus the likelihood as a function of θ is proportional to the product of pre-event intensities times the terminal integrated-hazard factor; eT is parameter-independent. If an observed event has zero intensity, the density is zero; a finite log-likelihood requires positive intensity at each observed event. For m=0, the event product is the empty product 1 and the terminal no-event factor remains.

For marked patterns, let marks lie in a supplied measurable space with a common mark probability measure Q. Here hi records all past event times and marks, and the marked-history update is supplied and measurable. Require that the supplied waiting-time kernels, conditioned on this full marked history, satisfy the same temporal model; an unmarked marginal waiting-time law alone is not this hypothesis. If each event also has a supplied jointly measurable conditional mark density qθ(ki∣ti,hi−1) relative to Q, and the reference uses independent marks with law Q, evaluate the displayed intensity factors on these marked histories and multiply the ratio by ∏iqθ(ki∣ti,hi−1). The ground intensity does not determine a mark law.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A supplied family of non-explosive simple process laws on (0,T], conditioned on one common initial history, with measurable history updates and conditional waiting-time kernels satisfying the temporal model.

[F1]

The temporal model supplies jointly measurable history updates and conditional waiting-time kernels with finite-time densities and hazards; the process has finite event count on (0,T] almost surely. (Temporal point-process models and conditional intensity)

[F2]

Given a history h at time s, the next-event survivor and density are exp⁡(−∫suλh∗(v) dv) and λh∗(u)exp⁡(−∫suλh∗(v) dv). (Inter-event survival and density from a conditional intensity)

[F3]

On each m-event ordered simplex, the unit-rate Poisson reference has strictly positive density e−T, and its empty-pattern mass is e−T. (Finite-window homogeneous Poisson construction and ordered event-time density)

[F4]

A likelihood ratio is the Radon–Nikodym derivative of the absolutely continuous component; when Pθ≪P0, it is a full density. (Likelihood ratio as a Radon–Nikodym derivative)

[A1]

AC is required by the temporal model and likelihood-ratio interfaces; Countable Choice and Dependent Choice are the declared axioms for [F2]'s calculus proof. (The Axiom of Choice, The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω), The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an N-indexed chain)

Proof

1.1F1givenconstruct

For m≥1, recursively define the density of the first i event times by g0=1 and gi(t1,…,ti)=gi−1(t1,…,ti−1)fθ(ti∣hi−1) on the ordered prefix simplex. At i=1 this is the supplied conditional density. If the first i−1 times have density gi−1, conditioning on that prefix and integrating its supplied probability kernel for the next waiting time multiplies the density by fθ(ti∣hi−1); iterated kernel integration proves the formula for i. The measurable update and kernel assumptions in [F1] make each factor measurable. For exactly m events by T, the final history must have no event in (tm,T], whose conditional probability is Sθ(T∣hm). Thus the pattern density is ∏i=1mfθ(ti∣hi−1)Sθ(T∣hm); for m=0 it is the initial no-event probability. The simplices exhaust the pattern space because the event count is finite almost surely.

2.1F2step 1.1algebra

By [F2], each event-time density is its pre-event intensity times exp⁡ ⁣(−∫ti−1tiλθ∗(u∣hu−) du), where t0=0, and the terminal survivor is exp⁡(−∫tmTλθ∗(u∣hu−) du). Multiplying these terms adds the integrals over the adjacent intervals (0,t1],…,(tm,T], so on Δm the pattern density is pθ(t1,…,tm)=(∏i=1mλθ∗(ti∣hi−1))exp⁡ ⁣(−∫0Tλθ∗(u∣hu−) du). For m=0 there are no event factors and the same expression uses the empty product.

3.1A1F3F4step 2.1algebra

By [F3], the reference density equals e−T>0 on each Δm and its empty-pattern mass is positive. If a measurable set in XT has P0-measure zero, its section in every Δm is Lebesgue-null and it excludes the empty pattern. Step 2.1 gives a Lebesgue density for Pθ on every simplex, so each section has Pθ-measure zero; countable additivity over the disjoint union gives Pθ≪P0. By [F4], the Radon–Nikodym derivative is the ratio of the two pattern densities, namely pθ/e−T=eTpθ, P0-almost everywhere. If any factor at an observed event is zero, this representative is zero; when all are positive, taking logarithms and discarding the parameter-free term T gives the stated likelihood form.

4.1F1step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1algebra∎

In the marked case, condition successively on the full past marked history: the next event time has its supplied waiting-time kernel under that history, and then the new mark has its supplied conditional density qθ(ki∣ti,hi−1). Update the history by both time and mark before taking the next waiting-time kernel. The measurable updates and density hypotheses allow the same iterated integration as in step 1.1, so the joint pattern measure acquires one mark-density factor per event in addition to the waiting-time and terminal-survivor factors evaluated on marked histories. Relative to the reference product mark measure Q⊗m, whose density is 1, these factors multiply the unmarked density ratio from step 3.1. This uses the supplied mark law and introduces no mark distribution assumption from the ground intensity.

Source notes

Rasmussen's Proposition 3.1 gives the finite-window likelihood and derives it by multiplying inter-event densities with the terminal no-event probability; its marked case includes conditional mark-density factors. Kass, Eden, and Brown independently derive the same factorization in Section 19.4. This theorem is conditional on supplied process laws and makes no existence or stationarity claim from an intensity formula.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

61 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