Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)verified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)
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.

Expected information gain is joint relative entropy

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice. Fix a design d in a design-indexed dominated inverse experiment, with prior μ0, likelihood density pd(y∣θ) relative to the common sigma-finite measure ν, predictive density pd(y), and posterior μdy on Gd={y:0<pd(y)<∞}. Let Pd be the joint law of (θ,Y), so on measurable rectangles Pd(A×B)=∫B∫Apd(y∣θ) μ0(dθ) ν(dy), let PY∣d(B)=∫Bpd(y) ν(dy), and let Qd=μ0⊗PY∣d. Then EIG⁡(d)=D(Pd∥Qd)∈[0,+∞]. On Gd, the Radon–Nikodym density dPd/dQd is pd(y∣θ)/pd(y) almost everywhere. The identity is valid as an extended integral: its negative part is finite, its positive part may be infinite, and no subtraction of two infinite entropies occurs.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The hypotheses and notation in the Statement, including AC and the finite design-indexed dominated experiment.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice supplies the Radon–Nikodym convention used by the library KL definition. The Axiom of Choice

[F1]

A design-indexed experiment has a proper prior, a jointly measurable probability-kernel density, predictive density pd(y)=∫pd(y∣θ) μ0(dθ), and posterior μdy(dθ)=pd(y∣θ)μ0(dθ)/pd(y) on positive finite evidence fibers. Design-indexed dominated inverse experiment

[F2]

The joint law has density pd(y∣θ) relative to μ0⊗ν, the observation marginal has density pd, and the posterior formula is a conditional-law version on 0<pd<∞; the zero and infinite normalizer fibers have zero marginal mass. Bayes formula for dominated kernels

[F3]

Tonelli's theorem makes section integrals measurable and equates a nonnegative product integral with either iterated integral on sigma-finite measure spaces. Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product

[F4]

Two measures agreeing on a generating pi-system are equal when it contains an increasing exhaustion on which their common masses are finite. Measures agreeing on a generating pi-system are equal under an increasing finite-measure exhaustion from that pi-system

[F5]

A nonnegative measurable function with integral zero vanishes almost everywhere. A nonnegative measurable function has integral 0 exactly when it vanishes almost everywhere

[F6]

For P≪Q with RN derivative r, D(P∥Q)=∫rlog⁡r dQ with 0log⁡0=0 and finite negative part; on a probability space, ∫(rlog⁡r)− dQ≤1/e. Kullback–Leibler divergence

[F7]

KL divergence between probability measures is nonnegative. Kullback–Leibler divergence is nonnegative

[F8]

For a nonnegative measurable function f, the set function C↦∫Cf dμ is a measure. The indefinite integral of a nonnegative measurable function is a measure

[F9]

For nonnegative measurable f,g, integration against the density measure satisfies ∫g d(f dμ)=∫gf dμ. Integrating against a density agrees with integrating the product

[F10]

Sigma-finiteness gives a countable cover by finite-measure sets; taking finite unions yields an increasing finite-measure exhaustion. Finite, sigma-finite, and semifinite measures

[F11]

Sigma-finite factors have a product measure with the rectangle formula, and that product measure is sigma-finite. For sigma-finite factors, the product measure exists, has the rectangle formula, is sigma-finite, and is unique

Proof

Given: The hypotheses and notation in the Statement.

1.1givenF1F2F3algebra

By [F1] and [F3], Tonelli makes pd measurable and gives ∫Ypd(y) ν(dy)=∫Θ∫Ypd(y∣θ) ν(dy) μ0(dθ)=1. Thus PY∣d is a probability measure and pd(y)<∞ for ν-almost every y. By [F2], its mass on {pd=0}∪{pd=∞} is zero, and the posterior formula in [F1] is the conditional-law version on Gd.

2.1A1F1F2F3F4F5F8F9F10F11step 1.1constructalgebra

By [F2], the joint law Pd has density pd(y∣θ) relative to μ0⊗ν. By step 1.1, pd is measurable and its lift to the product is product-measurable. Define Md(C):=∫Cpd(y) d(μ0⊗ν); [F8] makes Md a measure. By [F11], the product measures μ0⊗ν and Qd=μ0⊗PY∣d exist. For each measurable rectangle A×B, Tonelli [F3] gives Md(A×B)=μ0(A)∫Bpd(y) ν(dy)=Qd(A×B). By [F10], choose Bk↑Y with ν(Bk)<∞. The measurable rectangles form a generating pi-system, and Θ×Bk is an increasing exhaustion in it; both Md and Qd assign it the same finite mass PY∣d(Bk)≤1. Thus [F4] gives Md=Qd on the full product sigma-algebra. By [F9], for every nonnegative product-measurable g, ∫g dQd=∫gpd(y) d(μ0⊗ν). Since Gd is measurable, define rd(θ,y)=pd(y∣θ)/pd(y) on Gd where pd(y∣θ)<∞, and set it to zero elsewhere. The numerator and lifted denominator are product-measurable, and division is Borel on this region, so rd is finite-valued and product-measurable. For each y∈Gd, the omitted set where pd(y∣θ)=∞ is μ0-null because its integral is the finite number pd(y); hence rd(⋅,y) is a density of μdy. The set where pd(y∣θ)=∞ is product-null because the joint density has total integral one. On {pd=0}, [F1] gives ∫Θpd(y∣θ) μ0(dθ)=0, so [F5] and Tonelli show that this region has zero joint mass; the {pd=∞} fibers are ν-null by step 1.1. Thus Pd(Gdc)=0. Since Qd=Md has density pd relative to μ0⊗ν, it also gives the product-null set where the likelihood is infinite zero mass, and step 1.1 gives Qd(Gdc)=0. On Gd outside that product-null set, rdpd=pd(y∣θ). Applying [F9] to g=1Crd therefore gives ∫Crd dQd=∫Cpd(y∣θ) d(μ0⊗ν)=Pd(C) for every product-measurable C, so rd=dPd/dQd.

3.1F1F3F6step 1.1step 2.1algebra

For each y∈Gd, [F1] makes rd(⋅,y) a probability density relative to μ0, so [F6] gives D(μdy∥μ0)=∫rd(θ,y)log⁡rd(θ,y) μ0(dθ) and bounds the fiber's negative part by 1/e. Weighting by pd(y) and using step 1.1 bounds the full negative part by 1e∫Gdpd(y) ν(dy)=1/e. Tonelli [F3] on the positive and negative parts separately, together with the product density in step 2.1, therefore gives EIG⁡(d)=∫rdlog⁡rd dQd with finite negative part and possibly infinite positive part.

4.1A1F6F7step 2.1step 3.1algebra∎

Substituting the fiber identity from step 3.1 into the definition of EIG and using the separate Tonelli exchanges from that step gives EIG⁡(d)=∫rdlog⁡rd dQd. By [F6] and step 2.1, this is D(Pd∥Qd); [F7] gives nonnegativity. The finite negative part from step 3.1 rules out an ∞−∞ subtraction, proving the stated extended identity.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

79 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