Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge 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.

Finite-model posterior probabilities and Bayes-factor odds

Statement

Assume the finite dominated model setup of Marginal likelihoods, proper model evidence, and Bayes factors. Fix a data value y such that 0<mi(y)<∞ for every i∈I. A version of the posterior model probabilities at this fiber is Pr⁡(M=i∣y)=wimi(y)∑ℓ∈Iwℓmℓ(y). For any two models i,j∈I, the posterior odds satisfy Pr⁡(M=j∣y)Pr⁡(M=i∣y)=wjwi BFji(y). The displayed version uses the specified jointly measurable density representatives; no quotient is formed if an evidence is zero or infinite.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite collection of proper model priors, the common sigma-finite data measure, specified jointly measurable likelihood densities, positive model weights, and a data fiber where every model evidence is finite and positive.

[F1]

Each mi(y) is the evidence integral against the proper within-model prior, and BFji=mj/mi is defined when both evidence values are finite positive. Marginal likelihoods, proper model evidence, and Bayes factors

[F2]

A likelihood-weighted measure has a finite positive normalization exactly when its evidence is finite and positive. Fiberwise posterior propriety is equivalent to finite positive evidence

[F3]

For a proper parameter prior and a probability kernel with a specified jointly measurable density, the quotient by the prior-predictive density on finite positive fibers is a regular conditional law. Bayes formula for dominated kernels

[F4]

For a finite partition and a positive-probability data event, Bayes' formula gives posterior cell probability as prior cell probability times conditional event probability divided by the total event probability. Bayes' theorem over a finite partition

[F5]

Separate parameter-indexed likelihood-density versions do not by themselves assert joint measurability in parameter and data; this theorem requires the joint measurability separately. Likelihood densities

Proof

Proof technique: form the finite disjoint-union parameter model, apply the dominated-kernel Bayes formula, and take the image on the model index.

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement.

1.1F1F2F5givenconstruct

Form the measurable disjoint union E=⨆i∈I({i}×Θi) and put Π(A)=∑iwiΠi(Ai), where Ai={θ:(i,θ)∈A}. This is a probability measure because each Πi is a probability measure and the finite weights sum to one. On (i,θ) use the observation kernel Qi(θ,⋅) with density ℓ((i,θ),y)=fi(θ,y). Each section is a probability kernel, and finite piecewise measurability plus the stipulated joint measurability makes ℓ a specified jointly measurable density; [F5] warns that separate density versions alone would not suffice. Its prior-predictive density is m(y)=∑iwimi(y). The given finite-positive hypotheses make m(y) finite and positive, so [F2] confirms its likelihood-weighted prior has a probability normalization.

2.1F1F3step 1.1givenalgebra

Apply [F3] to (E,Π) and this dominated observation kernel. Define its global posterior kernel K(y,⋅) by the normalized likelihood-weighted prior on G={y:0<m(y)<∞} and by the fixed prior Π on Gc, exactly as in [F3]. The set G is measurable, and [F3] states that Gc has predictive probability zero. At the specified fiber, where every model evidence is finite and positive, this posterior kernel assigns the tagged slice {i}×Θi mass ∫{i}×Θiℓ((l,θ),y) Π(dl,dθ)/m(y)=wi∫Θifi(θ,y) Πi(dθ)/(∑lwlml(y))=wimi(y)/(∑lwlml(y)). The model-index map (i,θ)↦i is measurable, so the image of this regular conditional law is the stated posterior model probability.

3.1F1F3F4step 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

For any measurable data event B with positive predictive probability, the global kernel in step 2.1 has the event identity ∫BK(y,{i}×Θi)m(y) dμ(y)=wi∫Bmi(y) dμ(y) by [F3]. The integral on the left means integration against the predictive measure m dμ, so no product with an infinite density on an exceptional fiber is evaluated pointwise. Dividing by the event probability agrees with [F4]. This event identity uses the global kernel, whereas the displayed odds claim only concerns the given finite-positive fiber. At that fiber, divide the positive finite probabilities from step 2.1 for j and i; [F1] gives (wj/wi)(mj/mi)=(wj/wi)BFji.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

20 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