Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

✓ 3 results · all verified · 3 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs; all 3 also cleared it.

Scores and Information Bounds

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This page defines the score and Fisher information for a dominated parameterized model, then proves the mean-zero score and expected log-likelihood Hessian identities under explicit common-support and integrable-envelope conditions. Those conditions give one sufficient differentiation-under-the-integral route; they are not a claim that all valid information bounds require common support.

The scalar bound applies to estimators with the stated local mean, finite second moment at the chosen parameter, and score-covariance derivative identity. The vector bound states its pointwise mean and score-derivative conditions separately, then proves the covariance inequality by expanding a residual vector's covariance. These hypotheses include globally finite-variance unbiased estimators when the required score identities hold; neither theorem asserts that an estimator attaining a bound exists.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Score and Fisher information

Definition

Let E=((X,A),Θ,(Pθ)θ∈Θ) be a statistical experiment dominated by a fixed sigma-finite positive measure μ, and let pθ be selected finite-valued measurable Radon–Nikodym density representatives as in Likelihood densities. The simultaneous selection of this arbitrary-index family uses the Axiom of Choice. No measurability of θ↦Pθ or common exceptional null set for an arbitrary uncountable Θ is implied.

Let Θ be open in Rd, and fix a parameter θ at which the selected family η↦pη(x) is differentiable for μ-almost every x, with measurable coordinate derivatives. On {x:pθ(x)>0}, define the log-likelihood ℓθ(x)=log⁡pθ(x) and the score Sθ(x):=∇θℓθ(x)=(∂∂θjlog⁡pθ(x))j=1d. Set Sθ(x)=0 where pθ(x)=0, which is Pθ-null. For d=1, this is Sθ=∂θlog⁡pθ.

For d=1, the scalar Fisher information is I(θ):=Eθ[Sθ(X)2]∈[0,+∞]. When d>1 and Sθ is square-integrable, the Fisher information matrix is I(θ)=Eθ[Sθ(X)Sθ(X)T]; its i,j entry is Eθ[Sθ,iSθ,j]. No scalar information is defined here for a vector parameter. The information matrix is a second-moment matrix by definition; it equals the score covariance matrix when the score has mean zero.

The derivatives, score and information are defined relative to the specified differentiable representative family. The Radon–Nikodym definition alone does not supply parameter differentiability or a canonical score version.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Mean-zero score and the information identity

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice for the selected density representatives. Let Θ be open in Rd, let μ be a fixed sigma-finite dominating measure, and let pη be the selected densities of a statistical model. Fix θ∈Θ. Suppose that on a neighborhood U of θ there are a fixed measurable support S and a μ-null set N such that, for every x∈S∖N, pη(x)>0 and η↦pη(x) has continuous first and second partial derivatives on U; outside S∪N, pη(x)=0 for all η∈U. Suppose there are nonnegative g1,g2∈L1(μ) that uniformly dominate every first partial derivative and every second partial derivative, respectively, on U. Also assume Eθ∥Sθ(X)∥2<∞.

Then EθSθ(X)=0, and, entrywise, I(θ)=Eθ[Sθ(X)Sθ(X)T]=−Eθ[∇θ2ℓθ(X)]. For a scalar parameter this reads EθSθ=0 and I(θ)=EθSθ2=−Eθ[ℓθ′′(X)].

This common-support, integrable-envelope setup is sufficient, not necessary: the theorem does not claim that every model with valid score identities must have common support or these envelopes.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC; Θ⊆Rd open; a fixed sigma-finite dominating measure μ; a selected density family pη; a fixed support S and common null set N on a neighborhood U; pointwise continuous first and second partial derivatives on S∖N; integrable uniform envelopes g1,g2 for those derivatives; and a finite second moment of the score.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: AC says every family of nonempty sets has a choice function; here it supplies the simultaneous family of density representatives.

[F1]

Dominated statistical experiments: every sampling law Pη is dominated by the fixed sigma-finite positive measure μ.

[F2]

Likelihood densities: pη is a selected measurable Radon–Nikodym representative of dPη/dμ.

[F5]

The measure with density f relative to μ and Integrating against a density agrees with integrating the product: if Pη=pη dμ, then Eηf(X)=∫fpη dμ for nonnegative f. For real integrable f, apply this identity to f+ and f−; applying it first to ∣f∣ shows ∣f∣pη is integrable, so the signed identity follows from the definition of the signed integral.

[F7]

Dominated convergence: pointwise almost-everywhere convergence under one integrable majorant implies convergence of the integrals.

[F8]

Score and Fisher information: on pθ>0, the score is ∇θlog⁡pθ and the information matrix has entries Eθ[Sθ,iSθ,j].

[F10]

Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable and Integrable real and complex functions, and their integrals: expectations are integrals and signed expectations require integrability.

[F11]

The Lebesgue integral is linear on L1(μ): for integrable functions, the integral commutes with differences and scalar multiplication.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1A1F1F2F3F4F5F6F7F8F11givenchoose

By [F2]–[F4], every selected density has ∫pη dμ=Pη(X)=1. Fix a coordinate j and a sequence hn→0 with θ+hnej∈U. For almost every x∈S, the mean value theorem [F6] bounds ∣(pθ+hnej(x)−pθ(x))/hn∣ by g1(x), and the quotient converges to ∂jpθ(x). Dominated convergence [F7] therefore gives convergence of the quotient integrals. Linearity [F11] shows each quotient integral is (1−1)/hn=0, so ∫∂jpθ dμ=0. Since EθSθ,j2<∞ and Pθ is a probability, Sθ,j is integrable (use ∣z∣≤(1+z2)/2). On S, the signed density identity [F5] and [F8] identify EθSθ,j with this integral; outside S the law is zero. Thus every score coordinate has mean zero.

2.1F6F7F11step 1.1given

For any coordinates i,j, apply the same sequence argument to ∂ipθ+hnej. The mean value theorem bounds its difference quotient by g2, so [F7] interchanges this derivative and the integral. Step 1.1 holds at every parameter in U, hence ∫∂ipη dμ=0 throughout U; linearity [F11] turns each difference-quotient integral into the difference of these zero integrals. Dominated convergence then gives ∫∂ijpθ dμ=0.

3.1F5F8F9F10F11step 2.1givenalgebra

On S∖N, differentiate ℓθ=log⁡pθ using [F9]. Multiplying the Hessian formula by pθ, integrating with the signed density identity [F5] and linearity [F11], and using step 2.1 yields Eθ[∂ijℓθ]=∫∂ijpθ dμ−Eθ[Sθ,iSθ,j]=−Eθ[Sθ,iSθ,j]. The terms are integrable: ∫∣∂ijpθ∣ dμ≤∫g2 dμ, and 2∣Sθ,iSθ,j∣≤Sθ,i2+Sθ,j2.

4.1step 1.1step 3.1∎

The coordinate identities in step 3.1 give the asserted matrix identity; when d=1 they give the scalar identity. Step 1.1 supplies the score mean-zero claim in both cases.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Scalar Cramér–Rao lower bound

Statement

Assume AC for the selected density representatives. Let Θ be an open interval, fix θ∈Θ, and let ψ:Θ→R be differentiable at θ. Let T be a real-valued estimator (Statistics and estimators) with EηT=ψ(η) on a neighborhood of θ and Eθ[T2]<∞. Let the score Sθ have EθSθ=0 and Fisher information I(θ)=EθSθ2∈(0,∞). If Cov⁡θ(T,Sθ)=ψ′(θ), then Var⁡θ(T)≥ψ′(θ)2I(θ). Equality holds exactly when T−ψ(θ)=ψ′(θ)I(θ)SθPθ-almost surely.

The covariance identity is an explicit hypothesis. One sufficient way to establish it is to assume the regularity hypotheses of Mean-zero score and the information identity on a neighborhood, together with a neighborhood V of θ, a nonnegative integrable H, and one μ-null set NH such that ∣T(x)∂ηpη(x)∣≤H(x) for every x∉NH and every η∈V. The mean value theorem and dominated convergence then differentiate EηT=∫Tpη dμ and give the covariance identity. This is only one sufficient regularity route; the bound itself does not require common support if its score and covariance identities have been established by another valid argument. The theorem's hypotheses also include every finite-variance unbiased estimator in the sense of Unbiased estimators and UMVU estimators whenever its score-covariance identity holds.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC; an open scalar parameter interval and a fixed θ∈Θ; a measurable real estimator T with EηT=ψ(η) locally, finite EθT2, and differentiable ψ; a score Sθ with EθSθ=0, I(θ)=EθSθ2∈(0,∞); and the score-covariance identity Cov⁡θ(T,Sθ)=ψ′(θ). Alternatively, assume the sufficient common-support density and integrable-envelope route stated above.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: AC says every family of nonempty sets has a choice function; it supplies the density representatives used by the score definition.

[F1]

Score and Fisher information: on positive support, Sθ=∂θlog⁡pθ and I(θ)=EθSθ2.

[F2]

Mean-zero score and the information identity: under the displayed common-support and derivative-envelope hypotheses, the score has mean zero and the information identity holds.

[F3]

Statistics and estimators: an estimator is a measurable statistic with the target measurable space specified.

[F4]

Moments, variance, and covariance on a probability space: for square-integrable real random variables, variance is E[(T−ET)2] and covariance is E[(T−ET)(S−ES)].

[F5]

The space Lp(μ) as the quotient by null functions and Measure-null sets and almost-everywhere statements relative to a measure: L2(Pθ) consists of square-integrable real functions modulo equality Pθ-almost everywhere.

[F6]

The Lebesgue integral is linear on L1(μ) and A nonnegative measurable function has integral 0 exactly when it vanishes almost everywhere: expectations are linear on integrable functions, and a nonnegative function with integral zero vanishes almost everywhere.

[F7]

Real and complex inner product spaces, with the inner product linear in the first argument: a real inner product is a symmetric bilinear positive-definite pairing.

[F8]

Cauchy–Schwarz: ∣⟨u,v⟩∣≤∥u∥∥v∥, with equality exactly for linearly dependent vectors: in a real inner product space, Cauchy–Schwarz holds, with equality exactly when the two vectors are linearly dependent.

[F9]

The mean value theorem, as the case g(x)=x of Cauchy's: for f continuous on [a,b] with a<b and differentiable on (a,b) there is c∈(a,b) with f(b)−f(a)=f′(c)(b−a) and Dominated convergence: a differentiable parameter function has its difference quotient bounded by a derivative bound on the segment, and an integrable majorant permits the limit to pass through the integral.

[F10]

Likelihood densities: pη is a selected RN density representative of the sampling law.

[F12]

The measure with density f relative to μ and Integrating against a density agrees with integrating the product and Integrable real and complex functions, and their integrals: for the density law Pη=pη dμ, the density identity holds for nonnegative g. For real integrable g, applying the nonnegative identity to g+ and g− gives the signed identity; applying it to ∣g∣ verifies that gpη is integrable.

[F13]

Unbiased estimators and UMVU estimators: unbiasedness means integrability and EηT=ψ(η) at every parameter; finite-variance unbiasedness also requires T∈L2(Pη) at every parameter.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1A1F1F2F3F4F6F9F10F11F12F13givenchoose

Every globally finite-variance unbiased estimator in [F13] satisfies the theorem's local mean and second-moment hypotheses. For the stated broader class, if the score-covariance identity is assumed directly, it is already available. Under the sufficient density route, linearity [F6] and [F12] give ψ(θ+hn)−ψ(θ)hn=∫T(x)pθ+hn(x)−pθ(x)hn dμ. The mean value theorem [F9] bounds the integrand by the common integrable envelope outside NH; its pointwise limit is T(x)∂θpθ(x). Dominated convergence [F9] therefore gives ψ′(θ)=∫T ∂θpθ dμ. On the common positive support, [F1] gives ∂θpθ=pθSθ. The product TSθ is integrable by 2∣TSθ∣≤T2+Sθ2. By [F10], [F11], and [F12], Pθ=pθ dμ and ∫T∂θpθ dμ=Eθ[TSθ]. Since EθSθ=0 by [F2] and EθT=ψ(θ), [F4] identifies this with Cov⁡θ(T,Sθ). Thus either allowed route supplies the covariance identity.

2.1F4F5F6F7step 1.1givenalgebra

Put U=T−ψ(θ). The Pθ-almost-everywhere classes of U and Sθ lie in L2(Pθ) by [F4]–[F5]. Their product is integrable since 2∣USθ∣≤U2+Sθ2. Expectation linearity [F6] and EθSθ=0 give ⟨U,Sθ⟩:=Eθ[USθ]=Cov⁡θ(T,Sθ)=ψ′(θ). The pairing ⟨V,W⟩=Eθ[VW] is an inner product on these classes: symmetry and bilinearity follow from [F6], and positive definiteness follows from [F6].

3.1F4F8step 2.1givenalgebra

By Cauchy–Schwarz [F8] in this real inner product space, ψ′(θ)2=∣⟨U,Sθ⟩∣2≤⟨U,U⟩⟨Sθ,Sθ⟩=Var⁡θ(T)I(θ). Divide by I(θ)>0 to obtain the stated lower bound.

4.1F8step 2.1step 3.1givenalgebra∎

Since I(θ)>0, equality in step 3.1 holds exactly when the L2(Pθ) classes of U and Sθ are linearly dependent [F8]. Taking their inner product with Sθ and using step 2.1 fixes the coefficient as ψ′(θ)/I(θ); conversely that relation gives equality by direct substitution. This is precisely the asserted almost-sure equality condition.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Multivariate Cramér–Rao bound

Statement

Assume AC for the selected density representatives. Let Θ⊆Rd be open and fix θ∈Θ. Let T:X→Rk be a measurable estimator (Statistics and estimators) with finite second moments and EθT=ψ(θ) coordinatewise (this is the meaning of unbiasedness here), where ψ:Θ→Rk is differentiable at θ. Let the score vector Sθ be square-integrable, have mean zero, and have nonsingular information matrix I(θ)=Eθ[SθSθT]. Assume the vector score-derivative identity Eθ[(T−ψ(θ))SθT]=Dψ(θ), where Dψ(θ) is the k×d Jacobian matrix with entries ∂ψa/∂θj. Then Cov⁡θ(T)⪰Dψ(θ)I(θ)−1Dψ(θ)T. Here A⪰B means aT(A−B)a≥0 for every a∈Rk, and Cov⁡θ(T) is the matrix whose a,b entry is Cov⁡θ(Ta,Tb). The mean-zero and score-derivative identities are explicit hypotheses; common support with suitable derivative-interchange conditions is one sufficient regular route, not the only possible route. If each coordinate Ta is a finite-variance unbiased estimator of the real estimand ψa in the sense of Unbiased estimators and UMVU estimators, then T satisfies the pointwise mean and moment premises; the score-derivative identity remains a separate condition.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC; an open d-dimensional parameter set; a measurable Rk-valued estimator T with finite second moments and mean ψ(θ); a square-integrable score vector Sθ with mean zero and nonsingular I(θ)=Eθ[SθSθT]; the vector derivative identity; and the stated quadratic-form definition of ⪰.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: AC supplies the arbitrary-index family of selected density representatives used by the score.

[F1]

Score and Fisher information: the score is the gradient of the log density and I(θ) has entries Eθ[Sθ,iSθ,j].

[F2]

Mean-zero score and the information identity: under its regularity hypotheses, the score mean is zero and the information matrix is its second-moment matrix.

[F3]

Statistics and estimators: an estimator is a measurable statistic with its target measurable space specified.

[F4]

Moments, variance, and covariance on a probability space: covariance is the expectation of centered coordinate products; for a vector, this defines the covariance matrix entrywise.

[F5]

Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable: expectation is integration against the sampling probability measure.

[F6]

Unbiased estimators and UMVU estimators, applied to each real coordinate: if Ta is finite-variance unbiased for ψa, then EηTa=ψa(η) and EηTa2<∞ at every parameter.

[F7]

The Lebesgue integral is linear on L1(μ): expectation is linear on integrable real random variables. Finite second moments imply first moments on a probability space (use ∣z∣≤(1+z2)/2), and all products of coordinates in the covariance expansion are integrable by 2∣YZ∣≤Y2+Z2.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1A1F1F2F3F4F5F6F7givenconstruct

Applying [F6] to each coordinate of a globally finite-variance unbiased vector estimator shows that it satisfies the theorem's pointwise mean and moment premises; the score-derivative identity is separately assumed. Define R:=T−ψ(θ)−Dψ(θ)I(θ)−1Sθ. The stated mean assumptions and expectation linearity [F7] give EθR=0, so Cov⁡θ(R)=Eθ[RRT].

2.1F1F4F7step 1.1givenalgebra

Expand the residual covariance using expectation linearity [F7], Eθ[(T−ψ)SθT]=Dψ, Eθ[Sθ(T−ψ)T]=DψT, and Eθ[SθSθT]=I. The products are integrable by the coordinate bound in [F7]. Since I is symmetric and nonsingular, I−1 is symmetric, and matrix multiplication yields Cov⁡θ(R)=Cov⁡θ(T)−Dψ(θ)I(θ)−1Dψ(θ)T.

3.1step 2.1givenalgebra∎

For every a∈Rk, aTCov⁡θ(R)a=Eθ[(aTR)2]≥0. By the definition of ⪰ in the Statement and step 2.1, this is exactly Cov⁡θ(T)⪰Dψ(θ)I(θ)−1Dψ(θ)T.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources