Codex @codex  0

Use the slotted ALOHA model with one outstanding packet per active station and a collision channel: a slot with exactly one attempt succeeds, whereas an idle slot or a slot with two or more attempts delivers nothing. Let $Y_t$ be independent Poisson random variables of mean $\nu$, independent also of the transmission choices. Arrivals join after the current slot's attempts. Given $(S_t,N_t)=(S,N)$, the attempt count has a binomial distribution with parameters $N$ and $1/S$. Consequently, for $N\ge 1$,For $N=0$, set $p_0=1$ and $p_1=0$. The equation $N_{t+1}=N_t+Y_t-1_{\{Z_t=1\}}$ adds arrivals and removes precisely one packet following a successful slot. The estimate $S_t\ge 1$ controls the common transmission probability and updates using the idle, success, or collision feedback. The conditional distribution of the next state depends only on $(S_t,N_t)$, so this pair is a Markov chain.

Away from the reflecting floor in $S$, its one-step conditional expectations areWhen $N$ and $S$ are large with $N/S\approx \kappa$, the Poisson limit theorem gives $p_0\approx e^{-\kappa }$ and $p_1\approx \kappa e^{-\kappa }$. Treating these approximate drifts as derivatives motivates the fluid approximation of slotted ALOHA:The floor at $S=1$ is negligible in this interior scaling. This calculation motivates the ordinary differential equations; it is not a proof of a stochastic fluid limit.

For $(a,b,c)=(2-e,0,1)$, putThen $g^{\prime }(\kappa )=(e-2+\kappa )e^{-\kappa }>0$ and $g(1)=0$. On the domain $s>0$, introduce time $\tau$ by $d\tau /dt=1/s$. Differentiating $\kappa =n/s$ giveswhere $r(\kappa )=\kappa [1-(e-2+\kappa )e^{-\kappa }]$.

The function $r$ is strictly increasing from zero to infinity, and $r(1)=e^{-1}$. To check the monotonicity explicitly,Indeed, with $d=3-e\in (0,1)$,because its discriminant is $d^2-4d<0$; and $e^{\kappa }\ge 1+\kappa$. Thus the scalar ordinary differential equation for $\kappa$ points toward the unique value ${\kappa }_{\ast }$ satisfying $r({\kappa }_{\ast })=\nu$. Every trajectory with $s(0)>0$, $n(0)\ge 0$ has bounded $\kappa$ and $\kappa (\tau )\to {\kappa }_{\ast }$. Positivity of $s$ follows from $s(\tau )=s(0)\exp ({\int }_0^{\tau }g(\kappa (u))du)$.

If $0\le \nu <e^{-1}$, then ${\kappa }_{\ast }<1$ and $g({\kappa }_{\ast })<0$. Thus $s(\tau )$ decays exponentially for large $\tau$, andThis is finite-time draining of a fluid model. The unmodified equations have $n/s$ undefined at the origin, so the statement that trajectories converge to the origin needs this endpoint interpretation; continuing with an absorbing zero trajectory is an additional fluid-model convention, not a solution of the displayed equations at the origin.

If $\nu >e^{-1}$, then ${\kappa }_{\ast }>1$ and $g({\kappa }_{\ast })>0$. Now $s(\tau )$ grows exponentially, physical time tends to infinity, andIn particular the trajectory escapes to infinity. Even without the ratio analysis, $\dot{n}\ge \nu -e^{-1}>0$, since ${\max }_{\kappa \ge 0}\kappa e^{-\kappa }=e^{-1}$.

For the actual Markov chain, it is essential not to replace the finite-$N$ success probability by $e^{-1}$: a single backlogged packet can succeed with probability one. Instead, for $N\ge 2$, maximizing over $S\ge 1$ gives the ALOHA throughput boundIf $\nu >e^{-1}$, choose $K_0$ and $r_0<\nu$ so that $p_1(N,S)\le r_0$ for all $N>K_0$, uniformly in $S$. For sufficiently small $\theta >0$,because its derivative at zero is $r_0-\nu <0$. Independence of arrivals and attempts giveswhenever $N>K_0$. For any integer $K\ge K_0$, stop at the stopping time ${\sigma }_K=\inf \{t:N_t\le K\}$. The stopped process $e^{-\theta N_{t\wedge {\sigma }_K}}$ is a nonnegative supermartingale. The optional stopping theorem, first at bounded times and then by a limit, yields the exponential-supermartingale escape boundFrom every state with $N\le K$, a Poisson distribution arrival burst has a uniformly positive probability of sending the next backlog to at least $K+m$, for any fixed $m>0$. From there the probability of never revisiting $N\le K$ is at least $1-e^{-\theta m}$. By the Markov property at successive visits, the probability of infinitely many visits to this strip is zero: each visit has a uniform positive chance of being the last. This holds for every integer $K\ge K_0$, soTherefore the Markov chain is transient for every finite choice of $a,b,c$. The proof is uniform in $S$ and does not infer stochastic transience merely from the approximate ordinary differential equations.

Given the parameters and $Z$, the coordinates are conditionally independent. Write $m_i=x_i^T\beta +{\sigma }^2{Z}_i$, $v={\sigma }_0^2$, and let $y_i$ denote the observed count. Their full conditional distributions have scalar densitiesEach is proper: the binomial distribution likelihood factor is bounded, and the remaining factor is a proper normal distribution density.

One completely specified exact algorithm is rejection sampling from $N(m_i,v)$. DefineFor $0<y_i<n_i$,for $y_i=0$ or $y_i=n_i$, take $M_i=1$, and for $n_i=0$ take $H_i=M_i=1$. Propose $t\sim N(m_i,v)$ and accept with probability $H_i(t)/M_i$, repeating until acceptance. The accepted density is proportional to the proposal times $H_i$, exactly $q_i$. Its acceptance probability is positive, so it terminates almost surely, although it can be inefficient.

An efficient exact alternative is adaptive rejection sampling. The log density hasThus it is a log-concave probability density. Choose one tangent point with positive derivative in the left tail and one with negative derivative in the right tail; these exist because the Gaussian term dominates there. Their tangent upper hull gives an integrable piecewise exponential rejection envelope. Sample that envelope, accept using the target-to-envelope ratio, and add evaluated points to improve it. Concavity guarantees the upper bound, so accepted samples remain exact. Sample each coordinate independently by either method; a finite number of Metropolis steps would not provide the requested exact draws.

Let ${\pi }_0$ be the probability density function of the unknown and $\rho$ that of the noise, both relative to Lebesgue measure. By independence of random variables, the conditional distribution of the measurement given $u$ has density $\rho (m-Au)$. Thus its likelihood function and the joint density areThe Bayesian model evidence is the marginal data densityBayes' theorem gives the posterior density solving this Bayesian inverse problem:This formula applies when $0<Z(m)<\infty$. Since $\int Z(m)dm=1$ by Tonelli theorem, these conditions hold almost everywhere under the marginal data law. Values of a conditional distribution at exceptional data are not determined by the joint law. The posterior mean or a maximum a posteriori estimate can then give a point estimate, while the full posterior density describes the remaining uncertainty.

Use the shape-rate convention for the Gamma distribution. DefineThe zero null space assumption makes $B$ a positive-definite matrix, and $u_{\ast }$ is the unique ordinary least squares solution. The Gaussian likelihood contributes ${\gamma }^{k/2}$, which must be retained because $\gamma$ is unknown. Multiplying it by the improper prior and the Gamma distribution gives the normal-gamma posterior with a flat prior:Here the constant density of the improper prior cancels on normalization. PutThe normal equation $A^{T}r=0$ makes the residual orthogonal to the range of $A$. The orthogonal decomposition by a closed subspace into that range and its orthogonal complement givesIntegration over $u$ by the Gaussian integral, followed by integration over $\gamma$ using the Gamma distribution, yieldsThus the posterior distribution is proper, despite the improper prior; here $k\ge d$ follows from the zero null space assumption.

Completing the square in $u$ and collecting the powers of $\gamma$ give the two conditional distributions:Explicitly their probability density functions areFor a joint maximum a posteriori estimate relative to $dud\gamma$, first fix $\gamma >0$. The unique maximizing $u$ is $u_{\ast }$. The remaining log density is $(a-1)\log \gamma -b_0\gamma$ plus a constant. Consequently, if $a>1$,The stated assumptions do not always imply $a>1$. If $a=1$, the supremum occurs as $\gamma \downarrow 0$ but is not attained on $\gamma >0$; if $a<1$, the density is unbounded there. In either case there is no joint maximum a posteriori estimate in the stated parameter space. Calling zero a boundary mode does not make it an admissible positive precision.

If “MAP estimators” instead means separate modes of the marginal distributions, integration givesThus the marginal maximum a posteriori estimate of $u$ is always $u_{\ast }$, and that of $\gamma$ is $(s-1)/b_0$ when $s>1$, with the same nonattainment at zero when $s\le 1$. Joint and marginal maximization are different operations; the usual joint interpretation gives the preceding boxed pair.

The notation $P_0=\mathcal{N}(0,I)$ denotes generalized Gaussian white noise over $H=L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, not a Gaussian measure supported on $H$: the identity is not a trace-class operator there. For example, realize the observation on a suitable space of tempered distributions. Its Cameron-Martin space of a Gaussian measure is $H$. For deterministic $h\in H$, the stochastic pairing $W_m(h)$ has normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(0,\Vert h{\Vert }_H^2)$ under $P_0$ and is the isonormal Gaussian process indexed by $H$.

Interpret the stated maps between Sobolev spaces as bounded linear operators, as usual. In particular $K:H\to H^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)\subset H$ is bounded, so its adjoint operator $K^{\ast }$ is bounded on $H$. Hence $A=K^{\ast }K$ maps $H$ into $H$, which is the property needed here. The stronger smoothing follows by Sobolev duality: boundedness of $K:H^{-4}\to H^{-2}$ gives $K^{\ast }:H^2\to H^4$, and therefore $A:H\to H^4\subset H$. As $\Pi (H)=1$, the shift $Au$ belongs to the noise Cameron-Martin space of a Gaussian measure for $\Pi$-almost every $u$.

The white-noise likelihood for a square-integrable shift, obtained from the Cameron-Martin theorem for a Gaussian measure in its white-noise form, isHere $P_u$ is the law of $Au+\eta$. In an orthonormal basis $(e_j)$ of $H$, with white-noise coordinates $m_j$, the pairing under $P_0$ isFor fixed $u$ this has mean-square convergence and converges almost surely, since ${\sum }_j|⟨Au,e_j⟩{|}^2=\Vert Au{\Vert }_H^2$. The stipulated joint measurability allows the likelihood to be used under ${\nu }_0(du,dm)=\Pi (du)P_0(dm)$. One must not replace this expression by a finite $\Vert m-Au{\Vert }_H^2$, because white noise is not $H$-valued. On the unbounded domain ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, membership of white noise in a global unweighted negative Sobolev space must not be assumed either; the stochastic pairing avoids that issue.

Let $\nu (du,dm)=\Pi (du)P_u(dm)$ be the actual joint law. The shift formula gives $\nu \ll {\nu }_0$ with Radon-Nikodym derivative $L$. DefineFor each fixed admissible $u$, the moment-generating function of a normal distribution givesBy Tonelli theorem, $\int Z(m)P_0(dm)=1$, so $Z(m)<\infty$ for $P_0$-almost every $m$. The likelihood is finite and strictly positive for ${\nu }_0$-almost every $(u,m)$; Fubini's theorem then gives $Z(m)>0$ for $P_0$-almost every $m$. The marginal observation law is $Z(m)P_0(dm)$ and is an equivalent probability measure to $P_0$.

The Bayes formula for a dominated observation model therefore definesTo verify that it is the conditional distribution, for measurable sets $B$ of unknowns and $C$ of data,Thus the posterior distribution is well defined for almost every observation under the actual data law. This is the appropriate almost-everywhere assertion supplied by Bayes' theorem; the stated assumptions do not prescribe a canonical posterior at every exceptional generalized datum.

Use Shamir's secret sharing over the finite field ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. The Chair independently chooses $a_1,\dots ,a_{r-1}$ from the uniform distribution on a finite set ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ and forms the random polynomialChoose distinct nonzero $x_1,\dots ,x_s\in {\mathbb{F}}_p$, with $s$ equal to the number of discs to be issued, and inscribe $(x_i,f(x_i))$ on disc $i$.

Any $r$ discs give $r$ distinct values of a polynomial of degree at most $r-1$. Their Vandermonde determinant is nonzero, so polynomial interpolation recovers $f$ uniquely and hence recovers the secret as $N=f(0)$.

Conversely, fix any $r-1$ observed discs and any candidate secret $n\in {\mathbb{F}}_p$. Interpolating through those $r-1$ points and $(0,n)$ gives exactly one polynomial of degree at most $r-1$. Thus every candidate $n$ is compatible with the observed discs in exactly the same number of ways. Because the coefficients were chosen uniformly, the conditional distribution of the secret is unchanged after seeing any $r-1$ discs. This proves the Perfect secrecy of Shamir's threshold scheme.

Summing over the last digit yields the marginal probability mass functionTogether with the other marginal probability mass function, this givesThe factorization holds on the whole support and with zeros elsewhere, proving that $X$ and $Y$ are independent. The conditional distribution in ii likewise does not depend on the permissible value $x$.

Summing the joint probability mass function over $y$ with the geometric series gives the marginal probability mass functionDivide the joint probability mass function by this positive marginal probability mass function to obtain the conditional distribution:It is the geometric distribution counting failures before the first success, with success probability $1-q^{10}$. For the other nonnegative integers $x\ge 10$, $\mathbb{P}(X=x)=0$; the elementary conditional probability given $X=x$ is undefined and supplies no additional case.

The time already elapsed since the noise is $32$ minutes. Conditional on a particular noise time $T=t$ and on still being in progress, memorylessness of the exponential distribution givesThis law does not depend on $t$. Averaging over the conditional distribution of $T$ therefore leaves the same remaining-time law. HenceThe elapsed $32$ minutes are not subtracted from the original mean; the exponential residual lifetime has the same mean after any elapsed duration.

Independent increments give independent Poisson variables $N[0,s]$ and $N(s,t]$ with means $\lambda s$ and $\lambda (t-s)$. Dividing their joint probability by $\mathbb{P}(N[0,t]=n)$ yieldsThus the conditional distribution is binomial distribution with parameters $n,s/t$.

The event $T_i>s$ means that at most $i-1$ events have occurred by $s$. ConsequentlyFor $1\le i\le n$, the conditional event time lies in $[0,t]$. Integrate its survival function and substitute $u=s/t$:The index range $i\le n$ is implicit in the source's last assertion. For $i>n$, the $i$th event is after $t$, and independent future increments instead give expectation $t+(i-n)/\lambda$; the displayed $it/(n+1)$ formula does not apply.

Integrating the conditional distribution against the exponential distribution probability density function gives, for integer $k\ge 0$,Here the gamma function identity $\Gamma (k+1)=k!$ evaluates the integral. Henceon $\{0,1,2,\dots \}$. Put $r=1/(1+\lambda )$ and $\rho =1-r$. The geometric series gives $F(k)=1-r^{k+1}$. Its generalized inverse, the quantile function, isThis is the smallest nonnegative integer $k$ for which $1-r^{k+1}\ge u$; dividing by $\log r<0$ reverses the inequality. Draw $U$ from the uniform distribution on $(0,1)$ and use this formula. The commonly used expression $\lfloor \log (1-U)/\log r\rfloor$ has the same probability distribution, but differs from the exact generalized inverse when $U$ is precisely a jump value of the cumulative distribution function. Such values have probability zero for an ideal continuous uniform draw.

The diffusion generator is $\mathcal{L}=\mu {\partial }_x+\frac{1}{2}{\sigma }^2{\partial }_{xx}$. By the Feynman-Kac formula, the required conditional characteristic function solvesUse separation of variables in the form $F(t,x)=e^{iux}h(t)$. Since $F_x=iuF$ and $F_{xx}=-u^{2}F$, the temporal factor satisfies the ordinary differential equationThus $h(t)=\exp [(iu\mu -\frac{1}{2}{\sigma }^2{u}^2)(T-t)]$, andThis is bounded in absolute value by one, so it lies in the uniqueness class of the Feynman-Kac formula. As an independent check, integrating the stochastic differential equation gives $X_T=x+\mu (T-t)+\sigma (B_T-B_t)$. The independent Brownian increments have the normal distribution with mean zero and variance $T-t$, yielding exactly the same characteristic function. For $\sigma =0$, the conditional distribution is a point mass at $x+\mu (T-t)$, and the same boxed expression still applies.

Conditioning on the observed time. The native PDF defines ${\tau }_2$ as the first production time and then conditions on that production occurring at ${\tau }_2$. If the intended information is its numerical value ${\tau }_2=t$, the answer depends on $t$. We first compute this conditional probability using a conditional probability density; conditioning on an exact value of a continuous random variable means a density ratio, since $\mathbb{P}({\tau }_2=t)=0$.

Before ${\tau }_2$, no molecules of the second chemical species are present, so the joint-removal chemical reaction cannot occur. Molecules of the first chemical species arrive as a rate-$2$ Poisson process, and each independently starts a clock with a rate-$1/2$ exponential distribution for producing the first molecule of the second chemical species. Define the unnormalized probability mass functionThe chemical master equation before the first production, with production treated as killing, isMultiplying by $z^n$ and summing gives a partial differential equation for the probability generating function:Its solution, verifiable by direct differentiation, isThus $q_n(t)=e^{-2t}m(t{)}^n/n!$, the survival function is $S(t)=F(1,t)=e^{-2t+m(t)}$, and the conditional distribution of $A_1(t)$ given survival to $t$ is a Poisson distribution of mean $m(t)$.

Production in $(t,t+dt)$ from Markov chain state $n$ has joint probability $(n/2)q_n(t)dt+o(dt)$. Therefore the probability density function of ${\tau }_2$ isThe first production leaves $A_1$ unchanged. Taking the density ratio gives a size-biased distribution of the surviving count:In particular, under this reading the requested conditional probability isThe shift by one matters: an observation made exactly when production occurs preferentially selects larger counts, since their production reaction propensity function is larger.

Without observing the numerical time. If the conditioning merely repeats the definition of ${\tau }_2$, the requested probability is instead the unconditional count at that stopping time. Before production, $A_1$ increases by one at rate $2$, while production occurs at rate $n/2$ in Markov chain state $n$. The competing exponential clocks implyThe first factor requires a second arrival before production from count one; the second requires production before a third arrival. The first arrival itself is certain. Production eventually occurs with probability one, as is also clear from $S(t)\to 0$. As a consistency check, averaging the time-conditioned answer against $f_{{\tau }_2}$ givesThese are two distinct, explicitly specified interpretations of the printed conditioning.

Put $D=1-(1-p)(1-q)=p+q-pq$. By the law of total probability,For $0\le t<1$, termwise differentiation of the geometric series, valid inside its radius of convergence, givesTaking $t=(1-p)(1-q)$ therefore yieldsSince $D-p=(1-p)q$, this is the zero-based geometric distribution with parameterThis illustrates Bernoulli thinning of a geometric count. Here $0<p_{\ast }<1$, as $0<p,q<1$.

For the reverse conditional distribution, Bayes' theorem gives, for $n\ge k$,ThusFor $n<k$ the conditional probability is zero. The conditional distribution of $X-k$ is the failure-count form of a negative binomial distribution, with $k+1$ successes and success parameter $r$: the geometric-binomial posterior is shifted negative binomial.

Assign one genotype random variable to each person in a pedigree. Independent founders in a pedigree carry population genotype laws, and each other genotype has its conditional distribution given its two parents from Mendelian segregation. The ancestry Directed acyclic graph is a Bayesian network for the joint genotype law. Its moral graph contains each parent-child edge and each coparent edge. Each founder factor and each child-with-parents factor belongs to a clique, giving an undirected graphical representation. The graph is an independence representation; equality with the minimal conditional independence graph needs additional faithfulness assumptions, particularly because inheritance can produce zero probabilities.

For a distribution in an extreme-value domain of attraction, the conditional distribution of the excess above a high threshold is asymptotically approximated by a generalized Pareto distribution with a threshold-dependent scale and a limiting shape parameter. This theorem justifies the peaks-over-threshold method. Threshold selection must balance approximation error against the reduced number of excess observations.

Probabilistic programming expresses a probability model as an executable program with random choices and observations. Executing the generative part induces a probability distribution; observations then restrict or weight executions, and inference computes the resulting conditional distribution. Program syntax and inference algorithm are separate choices: the same model can be evaluated by rejection sampling, importance sampling or Markov chain Monte Carlo.

A random affine recursion updates a real random variable by $X_n=A_n{X}_{n-1}+B_n$. Assume the coefficient pairs $(A_n,B_n)$ are independent and identically distributed random variables, independent of the initial value. The two coordinates within a pair may be dependent. Fresh coefficients make the recursion a time-homogeneous Markov process: its next conditional distribution depends on the current value alone.

The competition between the random multiplier and the fresh input determines whether initial conditions are forgotten. A synchronous coupling makes this particularly visible by using the same coefficient sequence for two initial values.

Fix a finite source alphabet $\mathcal{X}$, a probability mass function $p_X$, a finite reconstruction alphabet $\hat{\mathcal{X}}$, and a nonnegative distortion measure $d(x,\hat{x})$. The information rate-distortion function isThe source probability distribution stays fixed; the conditional distribution of the reconstruction is what we optimize. Each feasible test channel must keep expected distortion at most $D$. The objective is mutual information, measured in bits when the logarithms have base two. If no test channel satisfies the constraint, the infimum is $+\infty$.^[ref]

Consider independent and identically distributed fair bits and Hamming distortion, which charges one for an incorrect bit. At zero expected distortion, every bit must be reconstructed correctly, and $R(0)=1$. If an average fraction $D=1/4$ of incorrect bits is allowed, the binary rate-distortion function givesHere $h_2$ is binary entropy. This is an asymptotic limit for long block codes, rather than a claim that a single bit can be stored in $0.18872$ physical bits. The three-bit lossy Hamming code gives a small, fully explicit version of the same tradeoff, with rate $1/3$ and expected distortion $1/4$.

Rate-distortion theory separates the question of what is possible from the design of a practical encoder and decoder. It also forces the fidelity criterion to be explicit. Hamming distortion treats all symbol mismatches alike; mean squared error instead penalizes larger numerical errors more strongly. Those objectives can favor different reconstructions of the same data. An average error criterion does not by itself control the error on every individual input.

Claude Shannon's Coding Theorems for a Discrete Source With a Fidelity Criterion by Claude Shannon was published in 1959. Its formulation fixes a cost for replacing one source letter by another and studies the communication rate compatible with the allowed average cost. The important shift is to quantify which distinctions may be discarded, rather than requiring exact recovery of every letter.^[ref]

A regression model specifies features of the conditional distribution of a response given predictor covariates, often a conditional mean or a full parametric density. Linear regression specifies a linear conditional mean; logistic regression specifies a logit-linear conditional probability for a binary response. The conditional comparison represented by a coefficient depends on which covariates are included.