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.

✓ 5 results · all verified · 5 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 5 also cleared it.

Latent factors, ICA, NMF, and representation ambiguity

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Logical flowchart

3 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

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

Covariance factor model with diagonal residual covariance

Definition

Let p,q be positive integers with q<p, let (Ω,F,P) be a probability space, and let S:Ω→Rq and ε:Ω→Rp be measurable random vectors with finite second moments. For finite-second-moment random vectors U,V, define

Cov⁡(U,V)=E[(U−EU)(V−EV)T],Cov⁡(U)=Cov⁡(U,U),

where expectation is integration with respect to P. A covariance factor model is a representation

X=AS+ε

with a fixed matrix A∈Rp×q and assumptions

ES=0,Eε=0,Cov⁡(S)=Iq,Cov⁡(ε)=D=diag⁡(d1,…,dp),di>0,Cov⁡(S,ε)=0.

The model assumes only the stated moment and cross-covariance conditions; it does not assume that S and ε are independent.

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

Square independent-component model with standardized sources

Definition

Let p≥1 and let X,S be random vectors in Rp, considered through their probability laws. A square independent-component representation of X is a representation in distribution

X=dAS

where A∈GLp(R) is an invertible mixing matrix and S=(S1,…,Sp)T has mutually independent real-valued components. Mutual independence means that for all Borel sets B1,…,Bp⊆R,

P(S1∈B1,…,Sp∈Bp)=∏j=1pP(Sj∈Bj).

Each source is standardized: ESj=0 and ESj2=1. A source is Gaussian if its law has density (2π)−1/2e−x2/2, and is non-Gaussian otherwise. All vectors are columns and matrix transposes use the standard Euclidean inner product. The definition specifies a latent representation, not a claim that it can be recovered uniquely from the law of X.

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

Poisson nonnegative matrix-factorization model

Definition

Let n,p,r be positive integers and write N0={0,1,2,…}. An observed count matrix X=(xij)∈N0n×p is admissible when every row and every column contains a positive entry. A Poisson nonnegative matrix-factorization parameter of inner dimension r consists of matrices

W∈[0,∞)n×r,H∈[0,∞)r×p,λij=(WH)ij=∑k=1rWikHkj.

At this parameter, the random counts Yij are mutually independent and have Poisson means λij. For λ>0, the Poisson law is

P(Y=m)=e−λλmm!,m∈N0;

for λ=0, it assigns probability 1 to m=0 and probability 0 to every m>0. This model defines a likelihood for the observed matrix; it makes no convexity or global-optimality assertion about the factor parameters.

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

Orthogonal rotation preserves the covariance factor model

Statement

In the covariance factor model, write X=AS+ε with A∈Rp×q, q<p, E[S]=E[ε]=0, Cov⁡(S)=Iq, Cov⁡(ε)=D diagonal positive, and Cov⁡(S,ε)=0. Then

Cov⁡(X)=AAT+D.

For every orthogonal matrix R∈Rq×q, the transformed loadings and factors AR=ART and SR=RS give another representation with the same covariance matrix. Thus covariance alone does not identify a unique loading matrix or latent orientation. This is a covariance-model claim; if the factors are additionally required to be mutually independent, the proposition does not claim that arbitrary rotations preserve that extra requirement.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A covariance factor model and an orthogonal matrix R, so RTR=Iq.

[F1]

Covariance factor model with diagonal residual covariance: X=AS+ε, with zero means, Cov⁡(S)=Iq, Cov⁡(ε)=D, and Cov⁡(S,ε)=0.

Proof

1.1F1givenalgebra

By [F1], bilinearity of covariance gives Cov⁡(X)=ACov⁡(S)AT+ACov⁡(S,ε)+Cov⁡(ε,S)AT+Cov⁡(ε)=AAT+D.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra∎

The transformed factors have mean zero, covariance RIqRT=Iq, and cross-covariance Cov⁡(RS,ε)=RCov⁡(S,ε)=0. Also ARSR=ARTRS=AS, and ARART+D=ARTRAT+D=AAT+D. Hence the transformed pair is another covariance factor model with the same covariance.

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

Whitening a square ICA model gives orthogonal mixing

Statement

Let X=dAS be a square independent-component representation with A∈GLp(R) and centered unit-variance independent sources, so Cov⁡(S)=Ip. Put C=Cov⁡(X)=AAT. Choose a real singular value decomposition A=UΣVT with positive diagonal Σ and orthogonal U,V, and define the symmetric inverse square root of C by C−1/2=UΣ−1UT. This matrix is the unique positive-definite symmetric matrix whose square is C−1. The whitened mixing matrix is

C−1/2A=UVT,

which is orthogonal. Thus whitening reduces the square mixing ambiguity to an orthogonal transformation.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A square ICA representation X=dAS with A invertible and Cov⁡(S)=Ip.

[F1]

Square independent-component model with standardized sources: the source components are centered with variance one and A is invertible.

[F2]

Every linear map between finite-dimensional real or complex inner product spaces admits a singular value decomposition: every finite-dimensional real linear map has a singular value decomposition with orthonormal left and right bases and nonnegative singular values.

[F3]

Proof

1.1F1givenalgebra

By [F1], C=Cov⁡(X)=AIpAT=AAT. For every nonzero v∈Rp, vTCv=∥ATv∥2>0 because A is invertible; hence C is symmetric positive definite.

2.1F2step 1.1algebra

By [F2], write A=UΣVT with U,V orthogonal. Since A is invertible, every diagonal entry of Σ is positive. Thus C=UΣ2UT, and B=UΣ−1UT is symmetric positive definite with B2=C−1.

3.1F3step 2.1algebra

If K is another symmetric positive-definite matrix with K2=C−1, then K commutes with C−1 and preserves each eigenspace Eλ of C−1. On each such subspace, [F3] gives an orthonormal eigenbasis for K∣Eλ. Its eigenvalues μ are positive and satisfy μ2=λ, so K∣Eλ=λI. This determines K uniquely and agrees with B.

4.1givenstep 2.1step 3.1algebra∎

Therefore C−1/2=B and C−1/2A=UΣ−1UTUΣVT=UVT. Since (UVT)T(UVT)=Ip, the whitened mixing is orthogonal and C−1/2X=d(UVT)S.

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

Positive component rescaling and permutation preserve an NMF rate matrix

Statement

Let W∈[0,∞)n×r and H∈[0,∞)r×p. For any positive scalars c1,…,cr, replacing column k of W by ckW⋅k and row k of H by ck−1Hk⋅ leaves WH unchanged. For any permutation π of {1,…,r}, replacing W⋅k by W⋅π(k) and Hk⋅ by Hπ(k)⋅ also leaves WH unchanged. Therefore both transformations preserve every Poisson rate and the corresponding likelihood.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Nonnegative factor matrices W,H and positive component scales c1,…,cr or a permutation π.

[F1]

Poisson nonnegative matrix-factorization model: the rate matrix is the matrix product WH.

Proof

1.1F1givenalgebra

For the rescaled factors, each entry is (W′H′)ij=∑k=1r(ckWik)(ck−1Hkj)=∑k=1rWikHkj=(WH)ij. Thus every rate is unchanged.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra∎

For the permuted factors, (W′′H′′)ij=∑k=1rWi,π(k)Hπ(k),j=(WH)ij because π reorders the finite sum. Equal rate matrices give the same independent Poisson law and likelihood by [F1].

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

Independent Poisson counts have the stated NMF log-likelihood

Statement

For an admissible count matrix X=(xij) and a Poisson NMF parameter with rates λij=(WH)ij, the joint log-likelihood is

log⁡L(W,H)=∑i=1n∑j=1p[xijlog⁡λij−λij−log⁡(xij!)].

After dropping the data-only term −∑i,jlog⁡(xij!), the objective is

ℓ(W,H)=∑i=1n∑j=1p[xijlog⁡λij−λij].

Use 0log⁡0=0; if xij>0 and λij=0, the log-likelihood is −∞.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An admissible observed count matrix, nonnegative factors W,H, and rates λij=(WH)ij.

[F1]

Poisson nonnegative matrix-factorization model: the cell counts are mutually independent; a positive-rate cell has Poisson mass e−λλm/m!, and a zero-rate cell is concentrated at zero.

Proof

1.1F1givenalgebra

When all rates are positive, [F1] and independence give joint likelihood L(W,H)=∏i,je−λijλijxij/xij!. Taking logarithms and using log⁡∏aij=∑log⁡aij gives the displayed formula.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra∎

If λij=0, [F1] gives cell likelihood 1 when xij=0 and 0 when xij>0; their log-likelihoods are respectively 0 and −∞, exactly the stated conventions. The factorial term depends only on the fixed data, so removing it leaves the same maximizing objective in W,H.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A characteristic function that is Gaussian near zero is globally Gaussian

Statement

Let Y be a real random variable. If there is r>0 such that EeitY=e−t2/2 for every ∣t∣<r, then Y has the standard Gaussian law, with density g(x)=(2π)−1/2e−x2/2. No moment or density assumption on Y is required.

Statement references

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A real random variable Y with characteristic function φ equal to e−t2/2 on (−r,r), where r>0.

[F1]
[F2]

Fatou's lemma bounds the integral of a nonnegative pointwise limit by the lower limit of its integrals.

[F3]

Dominated convergence passes dominated limits through integrals; Monotone convergence for the integral does the same for increasing nonnegative limits.

[F4]

Moments give derivatives of the characteristic function gives φ(k)(0)=ikEYk whenever the kth absolute moment is finite.

[F5]

Fubini's theorem for L^1 functions on a sigma-finite product and Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product allow iterated integration of absolutely integrable and nonnegative product-measurable functions, respectively.

[F6]

The Gaussian integral ∫−∞∞e−x2 dx=π gives ∫−∞∞e−x2 dx=π.

[F7]

Finite measures agreeing on a generating pi-system and on the whole space are equal identifies finite measures that agree on a generating pi-system and on the whole space.

[F9]

Substitution: if φ is differentiable on [c,d] with φ′ integrable and f is continuous on an interval containing φ([c,d]), then ∫φ(c)φ(d)f=∫cd(f∘φ) φ′ gives compact substitution for continuous integrands and a differentiable change of variable with integrable derivative. For the absolutely integrable whole-line expressions below, apply it on finite intervals and pass to the limit using the integrable tails.

[F10]

A continuous function on [a,b] is Riemann integrable, by Heine-Cantor and Riemann's criterion gives compact Riemann integrability, with uniform partitions whose upper and lower sums approach one another.

[F11]

A function continuous on an interval I whose derivative vanishes at every interior point of I is constant on I; consequently two such functions with the same derivative differ by a constant makes a continuous real function with zero derivative on an interval constant; apply it to real and imaginary parts for complex functions.

Proof

1.1F3F4F6F8F9F10F11algebra

By [F9], substitution x=2u in [F6] gives ∫g(x) dx=1, so g defines a probability law γ. These integrals can be read as Lebesgue integrals: on each [−m,m], the uniform dyadic lower and upper sums of the continuous integrand converge to the same Riemann integral and bound its Lebesgue integral; increasing truncations then give the whole-line equality by [F3]. For each integer k≥0, ∣x∣kg(x) is integrable: its tail is bounded by a constant times e−x2/4, since ∣x∣ke−x2/4 is bounded (differentiate it on x>0). If G has law γ, integration by parts [F8] on [−m,m], followed by [F3], using g′(x)=−xg(x) and vanishing polynomial times Gaussian boundary terms, gives EG2n=(2n−1)EG2n−2 and odd moments zero. Hence m2n:=EG2n=(2n)!/(2nn!). Also φG′(t)=∫ixeitxg(x) dx=−tφG(t) by the same integration by parts, justified by ∫∣x∣g(x) dx<∞. By [F11], differentiation of et2/2φG(t) gives zero and its value at zero is one: φG(t)=e−t2/2 for every real t. All integrations by parts first concern smooth functions on compact intervals, whose derivatives are continuous and therefore integrable by [F10]; the same dyadic comparison identifies their Riemann and Lebesgue integrals.

2.1givenF1F2F3step 1.1algebra

Fix an integer n≥1 and define Hn,t(x)=(2sin⁡(tx/2)/t)2n for t≠0. It is nonnegative and bounded for fixed t. The binomial theorem and 2isin⁡(v/2)=eiv/2−e−iv/2 give Hn,t(x)=(−1)nt−2n∑k=02n(−1)k(2nk)ei(n−k)tx. For 0<∣t∣<r/n, its expectation under Y therefore equals its expectation under G, since every frequency (n−k)t lies in (−r,r). On the prescribed sequence tℓ=r/(2nℓ), Hn,tℓ(x)→x2n; moreover Hn,t(x)≤∣x∣2n because ∣sin⁡v∣≤∣v∣. By [F3] applied to G, EHn,tℓ(G)→m2n. Fatou's lemma [F2] applied to Y now gives E∣Y∣2n≤m2n<∞. Applying [F3] again, now with the integrable majorant ∣Y∣2n, shows equality EY2n=m2n.

3.1F3F4step 1.1step 2.1algebra

Every absolute moment of Y is finite, since ∣y∣k≤1+∣y∣2k. By [F4], equality of φ and φG on a neighborhood of zero implies equality of their derivatives there, hence EYk=EGk for every k≥0. For every a≥0, the nonnegative partial sums of cosh⁡(aY) increase to it; [F3] and step 2.1 give Ecosh⁡(aY)=∑n=0∞a2nm2n(2n)!=ea2/2. Since ea∣y∣≤2cosh⁡(ay), Eea∣Y∣<∞. The identical calculation applies to G. For every real t, the partial sums of the exponential series for eitY have modulus at most e∣t∣∣Y∣, so [F3] and moment equality yield φ(t)=∑k=0∞(it)kEYkk!=∑k=0∞(it)kEGkk!=e−t2/2. This proves global equality without presupposing analyticity of φ.

4.1F5F9step 1.1step 3.1algebra

For completeness identify the law directly, without importing a general Fourier uniqueness theorem. For ε>0 set gε(y)=ε−1g(y/ε). The Gaussian transform computed in step 1.1, with the substitution s=εt, gives gε(y)=12π∫Re−itye−ε2t2/2 dt. If μ is the law of Y, then hμ,ε(z)=∫gε(z−x) μ(dx) is a probability density by Tonelli. Substituting the displayed identity and applying Fubini gives hμ,ε(z)=12π∫e−itze−ε2t2/2φ(t) dt. Absolute integrability for this interchange follows from μ(R)=1 and ∫e−ε2t2/2 dt<∞. By step 3.1 this density equals hγ,ε for every z.

5.1F3F5F7F9step 4.1algebra∎

For a bounded continuous real f, Fubini and substitution give ∫f(z)hμ,ε(z) dz=∫ ⁣∫f(x+εu)g(u) du μ(dx). The product-integrand is bounded in absolute integral by ∥f∥∞. Along ε=1/ℓ, dominated convergence gives limit ∫f dμ; the same holds for γ. Step 4.1 therefore implies ∫f dμ=∫f dγ for every such f. For a∈R take the continuous functions fa,n(x) equal to 1 on x≤a, equal to 1−n(x−a) on a<x<a+1/n, and zero on x≥a+1/n. They are bounded by one and converge pointwise to 1(−∞,a], so [F3] gives equality of both measures on every such half-line. These half-lines are a pi-system generating the Borel sets: open intervals are countable unions and differences of half-lines with rational endpoints, and every open subset of R is the union of the rational-endpoint intervals contained in it. Both measures have total mass one; [F7] proves μ=γ. This proves the assertion.

Remarks

The finite-difference step is essential. Agreement near zero alone does not identify arbitrary characteristic functions. Here it first forces all Gaussian moment bounds and exponential integrability. The argument uses only the displayed deterministic sequences, finite sums, and ordinary integration; it imports no choice-bearing general Fourier uniqueness theorem.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A shared column of an independent orthogonal mixing must be Gaussian

Statement

Let S=(S1,…,Sp)T have mutually independent centered real coordinates with ESi2=1, and let O∈Rp×p be orthogonal. Suppose the coordinates of T=OS are mutually independent. If column i of O contains nonzero entries in two different rows, then Si has the standard Gaussian law. Thus each non-Gaussian source column has exactly one nonzero entry, which is 1 or −1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Mutually independent centered unit-variance Si, an orthogonal matrix O, and mutually independent coordinates of T=OS.

[F1]

Square independent-component model with standardized sources specifies mutual independence and the standard Gaussian convention.

[F2]

Moments give derivatives of the characteristic function gives C2 characteristic functions for finite-second-moment variables, with φ′(0)=iESi=0 and φ′′(0)=−ESi2=−1.

[F3]

Characteristic functions under affine maps and independent sums factors the characteristic function of a finite independent linear sum into the corresponding one-variable characteristic functions.

[F4]

A characteristic function that is Gaussian near zero is globally Gaussian proves that agreement with e−u2/2 on any interval around zero forces the standard Gaussian law.

[F5]

A continuous function on [a,b] is Riemann integrable, by Heine-Cantor and Riemann's criterion makes each continuous real integrand integrable on compact subintervals; The first fundamental theorem: if f is integrable on [a,b] and continuous at c, then F′(c)=f(c); in particular a continuous f has F as a primitive differentiates its integral there. Apply both componentwise to the real-parameter complex integrals below.

Proof

1.1givenF1F2F5F6constructalgebra

Let φi(u)=EeiuSi and θj(v)=EeivTj. Each Tj has a finite second moment, since (∑iOjiSi)2≤(∑iOji2)(∑iSi2) pointwise. Thus [F2] makes all these functions C2, and each is one at zero. Choose δ>0 such that none vanishes on (−δ,δ); this is possible by continuity and finiteness of the families. Define ψi(u)=∫0uφi′(s)φi(s) ds,χj(v)=∫0vθj′(s)θj(s) ds. By [F5] applied on every compact subinterval, these are complex-valued C2 functions on that interval, equal to zero at zero. Differentiation shows (e−ψiφi)′=0, so eψi=φi; likewise eχj=θj. Moreover ψi′(0)=0 and ψi′′(0)=φi′′(0)−φi′(0)2=−1. This constructs the needed local logarithms without any global nonvanishing hypothesis.

2.1F3step 1.1algebra

For ∥t∥<δ, also ∥OTt∥<δ. Factoring the characteristic function of tTT=(OTt)TS in both independent coordinate systems by [F3] gives ∏iφi((OTt)i)=∏jθj(tj). Consequently D(t):=∑iψi((OTt)i)−∑jχj(tj) has eD(t)=1. It is continuous on the ball, is zero at zero, and takes values in the discrete set 2πiZ. Along each line segment s↦st the intermediate value property of its imaginary part makes it constant; hence D(t)=0 throughout the ball. Differentiating this C2 identity with respect to distinct coordinates tj,tk gives ∑iOjiOkiψi′′((OTt)i)=0(j≠k).

3.1F4F6step 1.1step 2.1algebra

Fix i and two distinct rows j,k with OjiOki≠0. Orthogonality maps the ball onto itself, so in the last identity one may set OTt=u for every ∥u∥<δ. First take u=vei, ∣v∣<δ, and then u=0. Subtraction cancels all summands except the ith, giving OjiOki(ψi′′(v)−ψi′′(0))=0. Thus ψi′′(v)=−1 throughout (−δ,δ). With ψi′(0)=ψi(0)=0, [F6] applied successively to ψi′(v)+v and ψi(v)+v2/2 gives ψi(v)=−v2/2 and φi(v)=e−v2/2 there. By [F4], Si is standard Gaussian.

4.1givenstep 3.1algebra∎

The contrapositive of step 3.1 says that a non-Gaussian source column has at most one nonzero entry. Its squared norm is one because OTO=I, so it has exactly one entry, whose square is one. This proves both assertions.

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

Square ICA is identifiable up to signs and permutation with at most one Gaussian source

Statement

Let a probability law on Rp admit two square independent-component representations X=dAS and X=dA′S′, with invertible A,A′∈Rp×p. Suppose that the components of S and S′ are mutually independent, centered, and have unit variance, and that at most one component of S is Gaussian. Then there is a signed-permutation matrix Q—a matrix with exactly one nonzero entry, equal to 1 or −1, in each row and each column—such that A′=AQ and S′=QTS in distribution.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The two standardized square independent-component representations in the Statement, with at most one Gaussian coordinate of S.

[F1]

Square independent-component model with standardized sources gives independence, centering, unit variances, invertibility and the equality-in-law convention.

[F2]

A shared column of an independent orthogonal mixing must be Gaussian shows that a non-Gaussian source column of an orthogonal matrix preserving coordinate independence has exactly one nonzero entry, equal to 1 or −1.

Proof

1.1givenF1constructalgebra

Work on the probability space of S and define T=A′−1AS. The given equality AS=dA′S′ implies T=dS′ by applying the fixed invertible linear map A′−1 to both laws. In particular the coordinates of T are mutually independent, centered and have unit variance. Write O=A′−1A, so T=OS on this probability space. Independence and centering give Cov⁡(S)=Cov⁡(T)=Ip, and covariance under this linear map yields OOT=Ip. Since O is square and invertible, also OTO=Ip; it is orthogonal. This covariance calculation is the relative whitening reduction and requires neither a density nor moments beyond the given second moments.

2.1givenF2step 1.1algebra

By [F2], every non-Gaussian column of O is a signed coordinate vector. Distinct such columns occupy distinct rows, because they are orthogonal. There are at least p−1 such columns. If there are p they occupy all rows and O is already a signed-permutation matrix. Otherwise there are exactly p−1, leaving one row r and the one possible Gaussian column i. Its inner product with each occupied signed coordinate column is zero, so Oji=0 on every occupied row j. Its norm is one, so Ori=1 or −1. Thus O is a signed-permutation matrix also in this case. For p=1 the same argument has zero occupied rows and its single norm-one column is 1 or −1.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1constructalgebra∎

Put Q=OT, again a signed-permutation matrix. From O=A′−1A and O−1=OT we get A′=AOT=AQ. Also S′=dT=OS=QTS. These are exactly the asserted matrix and source-law conclusions.

Remarks

The proof uses the finite-variance orthogonal characterization supplied locally, rather than the general Darmois–Skitovich theorem for arbitrary pairs of linear forms. No extra regularity, higher-moment, density or global characteristic-function nonvanishing assumption is imposed on either source representation. HKO §7.5–7.6, printed p. 163, states the precise at-most-one-Gaussian boundary but omits its proof; it serves as source documentation, not a proof premise.

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

Finite Poisson NMF multiplicative-update sweeps

Definition

Input an admissible count matrix X=(xij)∈N0n×p with no all-zero row or column, an inner dimension r≥1, a finite sweep count T∈N0, and strictly positive initial factors W(0)∈(0,∞)n×r and H(0)∈(0,∞)r×p. For each t=0,…,T−1, perform one complete sweep in the stated order:

  1. Set λij(t)=∑k=1rWik(t)Hkj(t).

  2. For every i,k, set

    Wik(t+1)=Wik(t)∑j=1pHkj(t)xij/λij(t)∑j=1pHkj(t).

  3. Recompute λ~ij(t)=∑k=1rWik(t+1)Hkj(t).

  4. For every k,j, set

    Hkj(t+1)=Hkj(t)∑i=1nWik(t+1)xij/λ~ij(t)∑i=1nWik(t+1).

The first factor block uses the current H(t); the second uses the new W(t+1) and the recomputed intermediate rates.

Return W(T),H(T). The local well-definedness result proves that every denominator and rate in these finite sweeps is positive under the stated assumptions. This algorithm makes no likelihood-monotonicity, convergence, stationary-point, or global-optimality claim.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Strictly positive initialization keeps the Poisson NMF updates well-defined

Statement

Suppose X=(xij)∈N0n×p has at least one positive entry in every row and every column. If W∈(0,∞)n×r and H∈(0,∞)r×p, then one complete Poisson NMF multiplicative-update sweep produces strictly positive updated factors and strictly positive rates at both update stages. Consequently every finite number of sweeps from a strictly positive initialization is well-defined.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An admissible count matrix X, positive factors W,H, and one ordered sweep of the Poisson NMF algorithm.

[F1]

Poisson nonnegative matrix-factorization model: every row and column of X contains a positive count.

[F2]

Finite Poisson NMF multiplicative-update sweeps: each W update multiplies a positive entry by a row numerator divided by a sum of positive H entries; each H update multiplies a positive entry by a column numerator divided by a sum of positive updated W entries.

Proof

1.1F1F2givenchoosealgebra

Since W,H are strictly positive, every current rate λij=∑kWikHkj is positive. For each row i, choose j0 with xij0>0 using [F1]. Then for every k, the numerator ∑jHkjxij/λij has the positive term Hkj0xij0/λij0, while its denominator ∑jHkj is positive. Thus every updated Wik is positive.

2.1F1F2step 1.1choosealgebra∎

The intermediate rates λ~ij=∑kWiknewHkj are positive. For each column j, choose i0 with xi0j>0 using [F1]. For every k, the numerator ∑iWiknewxij/λ~ij has the positive term at i0, and its denominator ∑iWiknew is positive. Thus every updated Hkj is positive. Repeating this argument inductively proves the claim for each finite sweep.

4 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources