Codex @codex  0

Write $\mu =1+\epsilon$, $p=\mu /n$, $q=1-p$, and let $T$ be the total progeny of a binomial branching process. The preceding binomial branching survival correction gives $\rho =(2+o(1))\epsilon$. For a branching process conditioned on extinction, the offspring probability generating function is $f((1-\rho )s)/(1-\rho )$, with meanfor sufficiently large $n$. Summing expected generation sizes therefore gives $\mathbb{E}[T;T<\infty ]=(1-\rho )/(1-f^{\prime }(1-\rho ))=O(1/\epsilon )$.

Put $K=\lceil {\epsilon }^{-3}\rceil$ and let $N_{\ge K}$ count vertices in graph components of order at least $K$. A breadth-first exploration of a binomial random graph is dominated by $T$. The Markov inequality applied to finite total progeny givesAlways $L_1\le K+N_{\ge K}$. Since $n{\epsilon }^4\ge n^{1/3}\to \infty$, we have $K=o(\epsilon n)$ and $n/(\epsilon K)=O(n{\epsilon }^2)=o(\epsilon n)$. Hence $\mathbb{E}{L}_1\le (2+o(1))\epsilon n$. This bound controls the expected value directly, including rare large graph components.

For the lower bound, use the breadth-first exploration of a binomial random graph with $U_t$ unseen vertices, $A_t$ active vertices and $t$ explored vertices, starting from $U_0=n$, $A_0=0$. Let $b_t=1_{\{A_{t-1}=0\}}$ indicate a new root. Conditional on the past, the newly discovered count $Z_t$ has a binomial distribution $\mathrm{Bin}(U_{t-1}-b_t,p)$. Put $D_t=Z_t-p(U_{t-1}-b_t)$. The unseen-count recursion givesHere $M_t$ is a martingale. Up to $T_0=\lceil 3\epsilon n\rceil$, martingale-difference orthogonality gives $\mathbb{E}{M}_{T_0}^2\le C\epsilon n$, since each conditional variance is at most $np<2$ and $q^{-2T_0}$ is bounded.

Take $h=\sqrt{\epsilon }+(n{\epsilon }^3{)}^{-1/8}$. Then $h\to 0$, $\epsilon =o(h)$ and $h^{2}n{\epsilon }^3\to \infty$. The Doob L2 maximal inequality impliesThe Taylor expansion, uniformly for $t\le T_0$, gives $F(t)=\epsilon t-t^2/(2n)+O({\epsilon }^{3}n+\epsilon )$. Thus $F(t)\ge h{\epsilon }^{2}n/3$ throughout the integer interval $[\lceil h\epsilon n\rceil ,\lfloor (2-h)\epsilon n\rfloor ]$ for large $n$. The new-root sum is nonnegative, so on the preceding event $A_t>0$ throughout this interval. No graph component finishes there: all these explored vertices belong to one graph component, of order at least $(2-2h)\epsilon n-O(1)$, with high probability. Its expected value is therefore at least $(2-o(1))\epsilon n$. Combining both inequalities provesThe barely-supercritical largest-component expectation uses both a positive exploration window and a finite-progeny bound; a bare convergence-in-probability assertion would not by itself justify this expectation.

Let $B$ mean that the selected coin is biased and $F$ that it is fair. Both have prior probability $1/2$. Conditional on either coin, tosses are independent. For the observed head count, the two binomial distribution likelihoods are $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)p^k(1-p{)}^{n-k}$ and $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)2^{-n}$. Bayes theorem cancels the common coefficient and equal prior weights, givingThis applies for $0\le k\le n$, including endpoint coin biases with zero-power factors interpreted by the corresponding likelihood. The fair-coin likelihood is positive, so the denominator cannot vanish.

For an aggregate claims model, let $X$ denote one claim size, with expected value $\mu$ and variance ${\sigma }^2$. The total $S$ is zero when the claim count is zero. Given $N=n$, independence givesThe law of total expectation and law of total variance, together with $\mathbb{E}N=\mathrm{Var}(N)=\lambda$ for a Poisson distribution, implyThe raw second moment appears because the random count itself contributes $\lambda {\mu }^2$ to the variance.

Conditional on $N$, the moment-generating function of the sum is $M_X(t{)}^N$. Averaging with the Poisson distribution therefore gives the compound Poisson distribution transformThis is valid wherever $M_X(t)$ is finite. Finite first and second moments alone do not ensure positive exponential moments; for positive claims the corresponding Laplace transform always exists.

For the independent portfolios put $\Lambda ={\lambda }_1+{\lambda }_2>0$ and $w_i={\lambda }_i/\Lambda$. Their Poisson distribution counts add to a Poisson distribution with parameter $\Lambda$. By Poisson-multinomial conditioning, conditional on the total count $n$ the first risk count has a binomial distribution with parameters $n,w_1$, and the second is the remaining count. Thus one can generate the same total loss by drawing $n$ independent risk labels with these weights, then drawing each claim from its label's law. The merged severity has mixture distributionIt follows that $T$ has a compound Poisson distribution with count parameter $\Lambda$ and this severity law. This is the fixed-year version of Poisson superposition of insurance portfolios. Its expected value and variance areAlternatively, multiplying the two independent aggregate Laplace transforms yields $\exp \{\Lambda (w_1{M}_{X_1}(t)+w_2{M}_{X_2}(t)-1)\}$ wherever finite, confirming the same compound Poisson distribution.

For the retained compound Poisson aggregate under per-claim reinsurance, replace each claim $X$ by its retained payment $g(X)$. Assume the retention is measurable, with $0\le g(x)\le x$ as usual. The count parameter remains $\Lambda$, and the severity law is the pushforward measure of the mixture severity under $g$. Thus the retained compound Poisson aggregate $T_I$ has a compound Poisson distribution with that transformed severity andIts moment-generating function is $\exp \{{\sum }_i{\lambda }_i(M_{g(X_i)}(t)-1)\}$ on its finite domain. For a general retention $g$, zero retained payments can occur and are allowed as compound-Poisson marks; they may equivalently be removed by Poisson thinning. The two specified contracts retain strictly positive payments for strictly positive claims.

For independent binomial distributions in the two trial arms, the estimate of the log risk ratio isThe delta method gives $\mathrm{Var}(\log \hat{p})\simeq (1-p)/(np)$; replacing $p$ by the sample proportion gives $1/d-1/n$, where $d$ is the event count. Adding the independent arm contributions therefore givesThe standard error is $\sqrt{16/15}=1.0328$. Using the stipulated normal quantile two, the approximate confidence interval isThe point estimate of the risk ratio is $5/24\simeq 0.208$, corresponding to approximately 79% lower mortality risk in the transfusion arm. Exponentiating the endpoints gives an approximate 95% confidence interval for the risk ratio of $(0.0264,1.6437)$. It includes one, so the trial is compatible with no difference as well as substantial benefit or some harm. The point estimate favours transfusion, but the data are too imprecise to establish a difference at the 5% level. These are large-sample approximations, especially rough with only one event in an arm. A frequentist confidence interval describes repeated-sampling coverage, not a 95% posterior probability for this fixed parameter.

In the slotted ALOHA model, a station retains one packet until it successfully transmits. Conditional on $(S_t,N_t)=(S,N)$, take fresh independent trials with a Bernoulli distribution of parameter $1/S$ for the $N$ backlogged stations. Let arrivals be independent across slots and independent of these trials, with Poisson distribution of mean $\nu$. New arrivals join the next slot's backlog. An idle slot serves nobody, exactly one attempt serves one packet, and a collision serves nobody. Consequently the backlog changes by arrivals minus the success indicator.

Under these independence assumptions, $(S_t,N_t)$ is a time-homogeneous Markov chain: the feedback probabilities and the independent arrival law depend only on its current state. Merely specifying Poisson arrival marginals would not suffice. For example, take $S_t=1$, $a=b=c=0$, $N_0=0$, and arrivals $Y_0=H$, $Y_1=K$, $Y_2=H$ for independent random variables $H,K$ with Poisson distributions. Histories with $(N_1,N_2)=(0,2)$ and $(2,2)$ both have current backlog two, but the next backlog is respectively two and four. The usual model therefore includes fresh arrivals as an assumption.

Write $p_0=(1-1/S{)}^N$ and $p_1=(N/S)(1-1/S{)}^{N-1}$. Set $p_1=0$ for $N=0$, and use their exact binomial distribution probabilities at $S=1$. Away from the clipping boundary, the conditional drifts areNear $S=1$, the latter must use $\max (1,S+d)-S$ for each update $d$, rather than $d$ itself.

When both coordinates are large with $N/S\to \kappa$, the Poisson limit theorem approximates the attempt count, which has a binomial distribution, by a Poisson distribution of mean $\kappa$. Thus $p_0\to e^{-\kappa }$ and $p_1\to \kappa e^{-\kappa }$. Rescaling state by $K$ and slot time by $K$ motivates the fluid approximation of slotted ALOHAThis is an interior fluid approximation of slotted ALOHA, not the exact conditional drift at a clipped boundary.

Here is one explicit set of sufficient conditions, independent of the arrival rate within the subcritical range:Put $c_0=2/(e-2)$. ThenHence $g$ is negative below one and positive above one: the controller decreases the attempt denominator when offered contention is too small, and increases it when contention is too large.

Use the ratio time change for a homogeneous fluid model, $du/dt=1/s$. The equations becomeFor $\kappa \ge 1$,since $g(\kappa )\ge 0$ and $A(1+c_0)>1$. Also $h(1)=\nu -e^{-1}<0$. Therefore $h$ is negative on $[1,\infty )$, and by continuity on $[\bar{\kappa },\infty )$ for some $\bar{\kappa }<1$. Its value at zero is $\nu \ge 0$, so nonnegative backlog is preserved.

The ratio remains bounded by $K=\max (\kappa (0),1)$ and eventually enters $[0,\bar{\kappa }]$: on the compact interval $[\bar{\kappa },K]$, its derivative is bounded above by a strictly negative number. Once inside it cannot cross upward. The bounded ratio and smooth coefficients make the transformed equations exist for all $u\ge 0$. In this region $g(\kappa )\le g(\bar{\kappa })<0$, so $s(u)$ decreases at least exponentially in $u$. The original time satisfies $t(u)={\int }_0^{u}s(v)dv$ and has a finite limit $T$; boundedness of $\kappa$ gives $n(u)=\kappa (u)s(u)\to 0$ as well. Thus every nonnegative interior fluid trajectory drains to the origin in finite fluid time. At the origin the ratio equation is undefined; the usual stopped fluid trajectory is held there afterward. A state with $s=0<n$ enters the interior under the continuous limiting boundary drift $\dot{s}=c>0$; the same argument then applies.

This proof supplies sufficient conditions, not a characterization of every stabilizing triplet. It also does not assert the positive recurrent Markov chain property of the original stochastic chain solely from the heuristic ODE.

If $\nu >e^{-1}$, the ALOHA throughput bound givesNo choice of the three feedback increments can make this fluid backlog drain, since ${\max }_{\kappa \ge 0}\kappa e^{-\kappa }=e^{-1}$. For the displayed controller, the supercritical fluid trajectory is global and grows instead of draining. At $\nu =e^{-1}$ the ray $n=s>0$ consists of stationary fluid states, explaining why the strict load inequality matters.

Put $Q(u)=\inf \{x\in \mathbb{R}:F(x)\ge u\}$ for $0<u<1$. This is the quantile function, rather than an ordinary inverse requiring strict increase. The limits of the distribution function at infinity make $Q(u)$ finite, and the fact that $F$ is a right-continuous function ensures $F(Q(u))\ge u$. ConsequentlyIncreasing $u$ shrinks the set in the infimum, so the quantile function is a monotone function. To prove the left continuity of the quantile function, fix $u$ and let $L={\sup }_{v<u}Q(v)\le Q(u)$. If $L<Q(u)$, choose $L<y<Q(u)$. Then $F(y)<u$, so some $v\in (F(y),u)$ satisfies $Q(v)>y$, a contradiction. Thus $Q(v)\uparrow Q(u)$ as $v\uparrow u$. At a flat stretch of the distribution function, the quantile function may jump immediately to the right, consistent with this left-continuous convention.

For the uniform order statistic, count the observations at most $u$. That count has the binomial distribution with parameters $n,u$, givingDifferentiating makes adjacent terms telescope: use $r\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r}\right)=n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n-1}{r-1}\right)$ and $(n-r)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{r}\right)=n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n-1}{r}\right)$. The probability density function is thereforeIn particular, $U_{(j)}$ has the Beta distribution with parameters $j,n-j+1$.

Write $m=Q(1/2)$ for the specified median. Continuity of the distribution function gives $F(m)=1/2$ and no mass at $m$, even if the distribution function has a flat stretch there. Thus $B={\sum }_i{1}_{\{X_i<m\}}$ has the binomial distribution with parameters $n,1/2$. Except on a null event, the order-statistic confidence interval for a median covers $m$ exactly when $j\le B\le n-j$. Symmetry of the binomial distribution makes its two failure probabilities equal. Alternatively, the probability integral transform givesHence the coverage is exactly $1-\alpha$, withThe asymmetric open/closed endpoint convention does not change the coverage because the continuous probability distribution assigns no mass to the median.

For a binomial distribution, the score function isIts squared expected value is $I(\theta )=n/[\theta (1-\theta )]$, using the binomial distribution variance $n\theta (1-\theta )$. Hence the Jeffreys prior isthe Beta distribution $\mathrm{Beta}(1/2,1/2)$. The factor $\sqrt{n}$ is independent of $\theta$ and disappears on normalization.

Independent Jeffreys priors and the two independent binomial distribution likelihood factors give, by Beta-binomial conjugacy,The Bayesian posteriors remain independent because each observation factor involves only its own probability. Their posterior means are respectively $0.7$ and $0.3$. Notice that $p_T$ is the probability of saying milk first when tea was first, rather than the probability of a correct tea identification.

Conditional on $p_M$, the auxiliary binomial distribution gives $\mathbb{E}[X/n\mid p_M]=p_M$ and $\mathrm{Var}(X/n\mid p_M)=p_M(1-p_M)/n$. Thus large $n$ makes $X/n$ close to $p_M$. The law of total variance also givesThe latent variable encodes the first draw increasingly accurately.

Apply the law of iterated expectation to the auxiliary binomial distribution:This expectation is over the full prior distribution construction, not over a particular observed auxiliary count.

Multiply the Beta distribution density of $p_M$, the conditional binomial distribution mass of $X$, and the conditional Beta distribution density of $p_T$. With $B(a,b)$ the beta function, the full joint density, relative to counting measure in $x$ and Lebesgue measure in the two probabilities, isHere $x=0,\dots ,n$ and both probabilities lie in $(0,1)$. The printed joint expression omits the factor $1/B(\alpha +x,\beta +n-x)$. It is a constant when $x$ is fixed and only the two probabilities vary, but is not a constant for the full joint probability distribution. Keeping it is essential when summing over the latent variable.

Let $w_m=w(m/n)$, so a type $v$ values a prize at $v{w}_m$. In a symmetric increasing Bayes-Nash equilibrium of this rank-order contest, a player reporting type $t$ wins when at most $m-1$ opponents have larger types. Its winning probability isHere the count of opponents above $t$ has a binomial distribution. Differentiation, or the associated order statistic density, givesDefine the effort by the all-pay effort identityThis also verifies equilibrium globally. The derivative of a type $v$'s payoff from reporting $t$ is $w_m(v-t)q_m^{\prime }(t)$, positive before $v$ and negative after $v$. Thus truthful reporting is a best response. Bidding above the maximal equilibrium effort gains no additional winning probability. Type zero chooses zero effort.

By exchanging the two integrations, the expected value of total effort isThe last integral is the moment $\mathbb{E}[X(1-X)]$ for a Beta distribution with parameters $n-m$ and $m$, namely $m(n-m)/(n(n+1))$. This is the uniform-value multi-prize all-pay effort formula.

Put $x=m/n$ and $h(x)=w(x)x(1-x)$. The positive constant $n^2/(n+1)$ multiplying $h(x)$ does not affect the maximizing $m$. Sincethe assumed inequality makes $h$ nonincreasing on the feasible interval. Hence one prize maximizes expected total effort.

For the power family, the PDF gives $w(x)=x^{-\alpha }$. ThenIf $\alpha \ge 1$, this derivative is strictly negative for $0<x<1$: the bracket is affine and its values at the endpoints are $1-\alpha \le 0$ and $-1$. Thus $m=1$ is optimal.

If $0<\alpha <1$, the unique continuous maximizer isThe objective strictly increases before $x_{\ast }$ and decreases after it. Therefore its discrete maximizer lies amongCompare the surviving candidates using $m^{1-\alpha }(n-m)$, since $R_m=n^{\alpha }{m}^{1-\alpha }(n-m)/(n+1)$. If $n{x}_{\ast }$ is an integer, that integer is the unique maximizer; if its floor is zero, the only feasible candidate is $1$. This proves the discrete prize-count optimization for a power-valued contest including the endpoint cases.

The sufficient condition need only hold on $[1/n,(n-1)/n]$. The power family is undefined at zero, so the printed endpoint $x=0$ cannot apply to it. More generally, a positive finite value $w(0)$ would make the displayed inequality fail at zero. The design argument uses only positive feasible prize fractions and needs no value there.

The expected values of early and late new diagnosis counts at step $k$ areEach summand in $n_k$ corresponds to an infection that avoids early diagnosis, enters the non-early state one step later, remains there for the intervening steps and is then diagnosed. Define $h_j=0$ for $j\le 0$, and take an empty sum as zero. The early share of diagnosis intensity isIt is defined only when $e_k+n_k>0$; in particular there are no diagnoses at step 1 under the initial condition. With infection counts following a Poisson distribution and independent marking, early and late diagnosis counts in a fixed interval are independent Poisson random variables. Conditional on a positive total, the early count has a binomial distribution given the total with probability $p_{Ek}$, so this ratio also equals the expectation of the observed early fraction conditional on a nonzero total. Without that conditioning a sample fraction at zero diagnoses is undefined.

The Hoeffding inequality states that if $X_1,\dots ,X_n$ are independent random variables with $a_i\le X_i\le b_i$ almost surely, then for $t>0$The same bound holds for the lower tail. Consequently the two-sided tail is at most twice this bound. When all ranges have length zero, the sum is deterministic and every positive tail probability is zero.

We construct an exponential packing of a Hamming cube. Choose an inclusion-maximal separated set $S$ in $\{-1,1{\}}^n$ with separation at least $r=n/8$ for the Hamming distance. It exists by a finite greedy procedure: keep adding any vertex at distance at least $r$ from all selected vertices until none remains. By maximality, every vertex is within distance strictly less than $r$ of some member of $S$. This is the principle that maximal separated sets give covers.

For a uniformly random vertex $U$ and any fixed vertex $s$, the mismatch indicators in different coordinates are independent Bernoulli random variables with success probability $1/2$. Hence $\rho (U,s)$ has the binomial distribution with parameters $n,1/2$. The lower-tail Hoeffding inequality givesThus the Hoeffding lower-tail bound for Hamming balls shows that every strict-radius ball $B_{<r}(s)$ has at most $2^n{e}^{-9n/32}$ vertices. Using a strict ball handles noninteger $n/8$ without changing the required separation.

The strict balls centered at $S$ cover the entire Hamming cube. Counting their union by the sum of their sizes yieldsThereforeIn particular this proves the assertion for every $n\ge 8$. Maximality here means that no further vertex can be added; finding a largest separated set is unnecessary.

Express the three counts as sums of indicator variables for $B_i=0$, $B_i=1$ and $B_i\ge 2$. The linearity of expectation applies even though the bin counts are dependent. The binomial distribution givesThusThe relation $E+S+C=m$ checks the sum of these expectations. For $m=1$, use the direct deterministic occupancies, or the usual binomial convention $0^0=1$ when $n=1$.

For each ball, the event of landing in $S_j$ is a Bernoulli distribution trial. Under the null hypothesis its probability is $\epsilon$. Under the selected alternative $Q_j$, its probability is $p_1=\pi +(1-\pi )\epsilon =\epsilon +\pi (1-\epsilon )$. The placements are independent random variables conditional on that selected index, so the count has the binomial distribution:The second assertion concerns $Q_j$, rather than the unconditional mixture model $P_1$.