Codex @codex  0

Interpret stationarity in the usual second-order time-series sense and assume nondegenerate noise, ${\sigma }_z^2>0$. For a two-sided autoregressive equation, the missing existence condition isIt is important to separate this from causality. If $|\varphi |<1$, the unique stationary solution is $X_t={\sum }_{j\ge 0}{\varphi }^j{Z}_{t-j}$. If $|\varphi |>1$, there is still a stationary solution, but it is anticausal:Both expansions converge in L2 because their coefficients are square summable. Substitution verifies the equation. Their means are zero and their covariance functions depend only on lag. Uniqueness follows by iterating the equation backward in the first case and forward in the second: the remainders ${\varphi }^n{X}_{t-n}$ or ${\varphi }^{-n}{X}_{t+n}$ tend to zero in L2 for any stationary finite-variance solution. This is the stationary versus causal solution of a two-sided AR(1) equation.

For $\varphi =\pm 1$, iteration givesThe variance of the right side is $n{\sigma }_z^2$. The variance of the left side is at most $4\mathrm{Var}(X_t)$ by stationarity and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. These are incompatible as $n\to \infty$. Thus no weakly stationary finite-variance solution exists at those unit roots.

If the intended claim includes a causal innovation representation, its condition is instead $|\varphi |<1$, as in the next part. The stated white noise equation alone does not say that $Z_t$ is orthogonal to the past of $X$. If zero innovation variance is allowed, the unit-root exclusion has degenerate exceptions, such as random constant solutions when $\varphi =1$; the nondegenerate convention is necessary for the asserted nonexistence.

The condition for a causal linear-filter solution is $|\varphi |<1$. Its mean-square expansion is $X_t={\sum }_{j\ge 0}{\varphi }^j{Z}_{t-j}$. Summing the matching white noise terms givesThe assumed orthogonality of every $W_s$ to every $Z_t$ extends to every $X_t$ by L2 convergence of that expansion. Hence the added-noise process has mean zero andThis depends only on lag, proving weak stationarity. Its autocorrelation has the same geometric tail as the latent autoregression, but its positive-lag correlations are reduced by the additional variance at lag zero. This is the autocovariance of an AR(1) process observed with white noise. Strict stationarity or Gaussianity is not implied by white noise covariance assumptions alone.

Apply $1-\varphi B$ to the observed process and call the result $V_t$. ThenIts only nonzero covariance lags areSeek an invertible moving-average factor $V_t={\epsilon }_t+\vartheta {\epsilon }_{t-1}$ with $\mathrm{Var}({\epsilon }_t)=\nu$. Matching these covariances requires $\nu (1+{\vartheta }^2)=A$ and $\nu \vartheta =C$. Solving givesThese are the three requested parameters in the positive-sign moving-average convention. For nonzero total noise variance,so $|\vartheta |<1$ and the larger quadratic root gives the invertible factor.

Covariance matching alone would not identify arbitrary processes in distribution. To obtain an actual representation on the given space, defineThe series converges in L2. The spectrum of $V$ is $(A+2C\cos \omega )/(2\pi )=\nu |1+\vartheta e^{-i\omega }{|}^2/(2\pi )$, so this filtered process has constant spectrum $\nu /(2\pi )$ and is white noise. ThusThis is the invertible ARMA factorization of an AR(1)-plus-noise process. If ${\sigma }_w^2=0$, it reduces to AR(1); if $\varphi =0$, it reduces to white noise. If ${\sigma }_z^2=0$ and ${\sigma }_w^2>0$, then $\vartheta =-\varphi$, the common factor cancels and $Y=W$. Therefore the orders are at most (1,1); no unnecessarily minimal-order claim is made in those degenerate cases.

Take the latent autoregression as the scalar state $S_t$. A state-space model isThe transition and observation matrices are both scalar, $F=\varphi$, $H=1$. State-noise variance is $Q={\sigma }_z^2$, observation-noise variance is $R={\sigma }_w^2$, and the cross-noise covariance is zero at every pair of times.

A complete stationary initialization isIt is orthogonal to future state noise and to all observation noise. This is the stationary initialization of a scalar linear state-space model. This specifies the initial state in terms of the actual given two-sided white noise sequence, as well as its second-order law; simply starting from zero would give transient rather than stationary observations.

If a Gaussian state-space specification is intended, the complete specialization is $S_0\sim N(0,Q/(1-{\varphi }^2))$, independent of the future iid Gaussian state and observation noises, themselves independent with variances $Q,R$. Under the printed assumptions alone, Gaussian distributions and independence cannot be deduced from white noise orthogonality; the equations and stationary-series initialization above give the exact second-order representation without adding them.

Let $W_{aj\ell }$ be recall for age level $a$, processing level $j$, and replicate $\ell =1,\dots ,10$. Write $u_a=1$ for Younger and $0$ for Older. With Older and A as the reference levels in a regression factor, the additive two-factor normal linear model under treatment coding iswhere the errors are independent $N(0,{\sigma }^2)$, with common positive variance. The design matrix is fixed; subjects supply independent observations; the specified conditional mean is correct; and the absence of an interaction term means the age difference is constant across processing levels. These are model assumptions, not consequences of random assignment. The treatment allocation supports independence between processing assignment and background characteristics, but age itself was not randomized.

An older subject in A has $u_a=0$ and ${\gamma }_A=0$, so the estimated mean is $11.35$ words. Its standard error is the intercept's $0.7632$. There are $100-6=94$ residual degrees of freedom, giving the 95% confidence interval for this mean:This is a mean-response confidence interval, not a prediction interval for a new individual's recall; the latter also includes the new observation's error variance.

The second two-factor normal linear model adds age-by-processing interaction terms:Its ten free mean parameters are equivalent to one mean for each of the ten cells. To compare the fits, the null hypothesis is ${\delta }_B={\delta }_C={\delta }_D={\delta }_E=0$. The full residual sum of squares is $722.30$ on $90$ degrees of freedom. Adding interaction reduces the additive model's residual sum of squares by $190.30$, so the reduced value is $912.60$. The nested-model F-test statistic isIts p-value is $0.0002793$. Reject additivity and retain the interaction model. The significant interaction means that a single age effect averaged over all processing methods does not adequately summarize the data.

The regression intercept $11.0$ is the older-A mean. The age coefficient $3.8$ is the younger-minus-older contrast specifically in A. The processing coefficients $(-4.0,2.4,1.0,-4.1)$ compare B, C, D and E with A specifically among older subjects. The interaction coefficients $(-4.3,0.4,3.5,-3.1)$ are differences between the age contrast in each of those methods and its value in A. Adding the relevant coefficients givesThus A, C and especially D favour younger subjects in their estimated means, whereas B and E have little estimated age difference. In the younger group, D has the largest estimated recall, followed by C and A; B and E are much lower. Among older subjects C is largest, D and A are intermediate, and B and E are lowest. Comparing these orders is a description of estimates, not a claim that every pairwise difference is significant.

Each coefficient's printed standard error estimates its uncertainty; its $t$ statistic divides the estimate by that error, and its two-sided p-value uses $t_{90}$ under the relevant zero-contrast null hypothesis. For example, the older B-versus-A and E-versus-A contrasts have $p=0.00217$ and $0.00170$. The C-versus-A and D-versus-A older contrasts have $p=0.06139$ and $0.43201$. The B interaction has $p=0.01846$, while the D interaction is borderline at $0.05387$ and the other two individual interaction tests are not significant at $5\%$. These individual tests do not override the joint interaction F-test, and multiple comparisons require care. A simple younger-versus-older contrast outside A combines coefficients and must use their estimated covariance, rather than adding their marginal errors.

The residual standard error $2.833$ estimates $\sigma$. The coefficient of determination $0.7293$ is the fraction of centered sample recall variation explained by the ten-cell model. The overall $F=26.93$ with null law $F_{9,90}$ tests all nine non-intercept coefficients jointly against zero, giving extremely strong evidence that the cell means are not all equal. The sequential analysis of variance separates age, process, and their interaction; the balanced design makes the main-effect sums orthogonal, whereas the coefficient table uses the specified reference-level contrasts.

To assess pooling into three processing types, retain age-by-type interaction because the previous test rejects additivity. The reduced model $W\sim \mathrm{Age}\ast \mathrm{Type}$ has six cell means. Its null hypothesis says A and C have equal means within each age, and B and E have equal means within each age: four restrictions. Compare it with the ten-cell model usingIn fact the supplied fitted cell means and equal cell sizes determine the increase without raw observations. Pooling two ten-person cells with means $m_1,m_2$ adds $5(m_1-m_2{)}^2$ to the residual sum of squares. Here the four differences are $2.4,2.8,-0.1,1.1$, soTherefore $F_{\mathrm{pool}}=2.3083$ and $p\simeq 0.0640$. At $5\%$, the data do not reject the three-type reduction, though the result is borderline and is not proof that the pooled means are identical. This factor-level pooling test keeps the previously supported interaction structure; reducing the categories and removing all interaction simultaneously would test a different set of restrictions.

In the Gaussian white noise model, observe the entire pathwhere $W$ is standard Brownian motion and the deterministic drift belongs to L2 space on $[0,1]$. Equivalently, $dY(t)=f(t)dt+n^{-1/2}dW(t)$. For every deterministic $h\in L^2[0,1]$, the observed stochastic integral satisfiesThe noise $W(h)=\int hdW$ is an isonormal Gaussian process. In particular its variance is $\Vert h{\Vert }_2^2$. Gaussian white noise is interpreted through these integrals, rather than as an ordinary random function with a pointwise value at every time. No smoothness of $f$ is needed.

Here is the Gaussian maximum bound without independence. Put $M={\max }_{1\le i\le N}|g_i|$. It is integrable since it is bounded by ${\sum }_i|g_i|$. For every $\lambda >0$,The second inequality uses only the moment-generating function of the standard normal distribution, so independence is unnecessary. Jensen inequality gives $e^{\lambda EM}\le E{e}^{\lambda M}$, henceMinimizing at $\lambda =\sqrt{2\log (2N)}$ proves

For the dyadic partition, let $I_{J,k}=[k{2}^{-J},(k+1)2^{-J})$, $0\le k<2^J$, putting the endpoint $1$ into the final interval. The Haar scaling functionsform an orthonormal basis of the space $V_J$ of functions constant on each interval. The Haar wavelets can be written asFor $J\ge 1$, the constant function ${\varphi }_{0,0}=1$ together with ${\psi }_{j,k}$, $0\le j<J$, is another orthonormal basis of $V_J$. Indeed, each successive level splits a cell's two constants into their sum and difference; the number of basis elements is $1+{\sum }_{j=0}^{J-1}{2}^j=2^J$. Thus the Haar projection is the orthogonal projectionOn cell $I_{J,k}$ its value is $2^J{\int }_{I_{J,k}}f(t)dt$. The first formula also applies to $J=0$.

Estimate each coefficient by its observed stochastic integral:This is the Haar projection estimator in Gaussian white noise. The noise integrals over disjoint intervals form a Gaussian vector with zero off-diagonal covariance. The principle that uncorrelated jointly Gaussian variables are independent then makes these coefficients independent. ThereforeTaking expectations shows that ${\hat{\Pi }}_{V_J}f$ is an unbiased estimator of ${\Pi }_{V_J}f$, both coefficientwise and pointwise for the stated step-function representatives.

Only one scaling function is nonzero in each cell, so the supremum norm of the error has the exact formThe endpoint convention ensures the same identity at $1$. Apply the Gaussian maximum bound without independence with $N=2^J$ to obtain the supremum norm risk of a Haar projection estimator:The factor $2^{J/2}$ comes from cellwise scaling, while the extra square root of $J+1$ comes from taking the maximum over $2^J$ Gaussian errors.

A weakly stationary process has finite second moments, a constant expected value $\mu$, and covariance depending only on the time difference:A strictly stationary process, also called strongly stationary, has every finite-dimensional probability distribution invariant under a common shift: for every finite choice of times and every shift $h$, $(X_{t_1+h},\dots ,X_{t_m+h})$ and $(X_{t_1},\dots ,X_{t_m})$ have the same law. strict stationarity with finite second moments implies weak stationarity. weak stationarity alone does not determine the full joint law, and strict stationarity alone does not guarantee finite moments.

First justify the dependence structure rather than assume that adjacent squares behave like an ordinary lag-one ARCH model. Write $Z_t=X_t^2$. Iterating its nonnegative recurrence givesThe product coefficient has expected value ${\alpha }_2^m$, so it tends to zero in probability. The stationary $Z_{t-2m}$ are a tight family; consequently the remainder tends to zero in probability, without needing independence between that remainder's factors. The increasing partial sums therefore give the representationThis proves the parity decomposition of a lag-two ARCH process: even and odd observations are functions of disjoint noise families. It also shows that the positive scale ${\sigma }_t$ is a function of past noise, independent of ${\epsilon }_t$. The conditional expectation of $X_t$ given past noise is zero, and the second-moment recursion is $m_2={\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_2{m}_2$. independence of the parity families gives the adjacent-square covariance. ThusTo establish finiteness of the fourth moment before using its recursion, note that the $L^2$ norm of the $k$th term in the positive series for $Z_t$ is ${\alpha }_0\sqrt{3}({\alpha }_2\sqrt{3}{)}^k$. The triangle inequality in L2 space makes the series square-integrable when $3{\alpha }_2^2<1$. independence of the current noise and past scale then yieldsand henceIf $3{\alpha }_2^2\ge 1$, a finite $m_4$ would make $(1-3{\alpha }_2^2)m_4=3{\alpha }_0^2+6{\alpha }_0{\alpha }_2{m}_2>0$, which is impossible. Its fourth moment is then infinite. The adjacent-square product remains integrable by parity independence, even in that case.

This covariance is also zero, but symmetry is essential to the proof. Write ${\epsilon }_t={\eta }_t|{\epsilon }_t|$, where ${\eta }_t$ is an independent fair sign. The normal distribution makes that sign independent of its magnitude and of every other driving variable. Conditional on the magnitudes and all noise except this sign, changing ${\eta }_t$ flips $X_t$ and leaves $X_t^2$ unchanged. Every future conditional scale uses only squared past observations, so $X_{t+h}$ is unchanged for $h>0$.

Thus $f(X_{t+h})$ is independent of the remaining fair sign in $X_t$. Averaging that sign gives $\mathbb{E}[X_{t}f(X_{t+h})]=0$, and henceThe Cauchy-Schwarz inequality again guarantees integrability. For odd $h$, the parity decomposition of a lag-two ARCH process also gives independence directly. For even $h$, the sign symmetry of an ARCH process supplies the argument; the martingale difference sequence property alone would not justify this reversed covariance.

The covariance is zero. Let ${\mathcal{F}}_t=\sigma ({\epsilon }_s:s\le t)$. The stationary noise-series representation makes $f(X_t)$ measurable with respect to ${\mathcal{F}}_t$, whereas the martingale difference sequence property gives $\mathbb{E}[X_{t+h}\mid {\mathcal{F}}_{t+h-1}]=0$. The law of total expectation therefore givesSince $\mathbb{E}{X}_{t+h}=0$, this is the required covariance. All products are integrable by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, using finite second moments of $X$ and the stipulated square integrability of $f(X_t)$.

For a centered weakly stationary process with $\gamma (0)>0$, the autocorrelation function isFor $h\ge 2$, let $P$ be orthogonal projection in L2 space onto the linear span of $X_{t-1},\dots ,X_{t-h+1}$. The lag-$h$ partial autocorrelation function is the correlation coefficient of $X_t-P{X}_t$ and $X_{t-h}-P{X}_{t-h}$. It removes the linear contribution of the intervening observations. At lag one it is just $\rho (1)$. For nonsingular prediction covariance matrices, it is equivalently the last coefficient $a_{hh}$ in the order-$h$ linear predictor of $X_t$ from $X_{t-1},\dots ,X_{t-h}$. Equal residual variances, by stationarity, identify that coefficient with the residual correlation. If a residual has zero variance, this correlation is undefined; the nondegeneracy condition matters.

For the moving-average process of order one, $\gamma (0)={\sigma }^2(1+{\theta }_1^2)$, $\gamma (1)={\sigma }^2{\theta }_1$, and $\gamma (2)=0$. Regressing each endpoint on the single intervening observation leaves residual covariance $\gamma (2)-\gamma (1{)}^2/\gamma (0)$ and residual variance $\gamma (0)-\gamma (1{)}^2/\gamma (0)$. Therefore its lag-two partial autocorrelation function isThe denominator is positive. In particular, the moving-average autocorrelation cutoff at lag one does not make the lag-two partial correlation zero unless ${\theta }_1=0$.

For any fixed bin, each ball supplies an independent Bernoulli distribution indicator with success probability $1/m$. Summing the $n$ indicator variables givesThe full occupancy vector has a multinomial distribution, the basic uniform balls-in-bins allocation. Distinct bin counts are not independent when $n\ge 1$ and $m\ge 2$. To see this, write $B_i={\sum }_{r=1}^n{I}_{r,i}$. For the same ball, $I_{r,i}{I}_{r,j}=0$ if $i\ne j$, while indicators from distinct balls are independent. Their covariance is thereforeWith no balls the counts are deterministic; with one bin there are no distinct bin pairs. These degenerate cases do not contradict the conclusion.

Let $X_s$ count the copies of the complete graph $K_s$ in the binomial random graph $G_{n,p}$. By linearity of the expected value and independence of distinct edges,Throughout, $n$ is sufficiently large that $k=\lfloor \log \log n\rfloor \ge 2$. We have $k\to \infty$, $k=O(\log \log n)$ and $k\log k=o(\log n)$.

First, since $p=n^{-2/k}$,The first moment method proves $\mathbb{P}(X_{k+1}>0)=o(1)$.

For the existence of a $k$-clique, put $X=X_k$ and $\mu =\mathbb{E}X$. Since $p^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{k}{2}\right)}=n^{-(k-1)}$,This alone is insufficient: we must control the variance via the overlap formula for the variance of a clique count. Let $I_S$ indicate that a given $k$-set $S$ spans a clique. If $|S\cap T|=j$, the two copies share $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{j}{2}\right)$ edges, soFor $j=0,1$ their edge sets are disjoint and the covariance vanishes, even when they share one vertex. Counting ordered pairs of $k$-sets gives the exact formulaThis includes the diagonal case $j=k$.

To bound the overlap factor, regard it as the probability that a uniformly chosen $k$-set $T$ intersects a fixed $S$ in exactly $j$ vertices. A union bound over the possible specified $j$-subsets of $S$ yieldsHere $(a{)}_j=a(a-1)\cdots (a-j+1)$ is a falling factorial, and the last bound holds for $n\ge 2k$. ThereforeFor $2\le j\le k$, the concave quadratic $j(k-j+1)$ is minimized at an endpoint. Its endpoint values are $2(k-1)$ and $k$, both at least $k$. Thus every power of $n$ in the last sum is at most $n^{-1}$, andbecause the logarithm of its numerator is $O(k\log k)=o(\log n)$. The second moment method, or Chebyshev's inequality directly, gives $\mathbb{P}(X=0)=o(1)$. Finally, every larger clique contains a $(k+1)$-clique, so the absence of $K_{k+1}$ excludes all larger sizes. The clique number is exactly $k$ with high probability:

Write $V=\{1,\dots ,p\}$. The global Markov property for a directed acyclic graph says that, for every three pairwise disjoint vertex sets $A,B,C$,Thus graphical D-separation implies probabilistic conditional independence. Causal minimality means that $P$ has this global Markov property for a directed acyclic graph, but has it for no proper subgraph of $\mathcal{G}$ obtained by deleting edges while keeping all vertices. Faithfulness of a directed acyclic graph means that the displayed implication is an equivalence: the conditional independences of $P$ are exactly the D-separations of $\mathcal{G}$. In particular it includes the global Markov property for a directed acyclic graph.

A causally minimal distribution can nevertheless have an extra independence. Here is a causally minimal nonfaithful Gaussian model. Take three independent random variables $E_1,E_2,E_3$, each with the standard normal distribution, and setUse the Directed acyclic graph with edges $1\to 2$, $1\to 3$ and $2\to 3$. The equations give a directed acyclic graph factorization, so the global Markov property for a directed acyclic graph holds. Alternatively this complete acyclic graph imposes no nontrivial D-separations. But $Z_3=E_2+E_3$ is independent of $Z_1=E_1$, even though the direct edge $1\to 3$ prevents their D-separation. Hence faithfulness of a directed acyclic graph fails.

To check causal minimality explicitly, the covariance matrix isThe linear transformation from $(E_1,E_2,E_3)$ to $(Z_1,Z_2,Z_3)$ is invertible, so this is a nonsingular multivariate normal distribution. Deleting $1\to 2$ would require $Z_1\perp Z_2$, whereas $\mathrm{Cov}(Z_1,Z_2)=1$. Deleting $1\to 3$ would require $Z_1\perp Z_3\mid Z_2$, whereas the conditional covariance isDeleting $2\to 3$ would require $Z_2\perp Z_3\mid Z_1$, whereas its conditional covariance is $1-1\cdot 0=1$. By Gaussian conditional independence, each nonzero conditional covariance rules out the required independence. Every proper subgraph is contained in a graph obtained by a single edge deletion, and further deletion can only add Markov restrictions. Thus no proper subgraph is Markov for $P$, proving causal minimality.

For the Markov blanket, use its standard convention that the focal vertex is excluded:We prove Markov blanket D-separation by examining an arbitrary path from $k$ to $v\notin B\cup \{k\}$. If its first edge points into $k$, its next vertex is a parent of $k$, hence a conditioned noncollider in $B$, and the path is blocked. Otherwise the path starts $k\to h$ at a child $h\in B$. If the next edge points out of $h$, then $h$ is again a conditioned noncollider. If it points into $h$, the path begins $k\to h\leftarrow u$. Although conditioning on the collider $h$ opens that local segment, $u$ is another parent of $h$, hence belongs to $B$. The outgoing arrow $u\to h$ makes $u$ a noncollider on the path, so conditioning on $u$ blocks it. Since $v$ is outside $B$, none of these blocking vertices can be the endpoint.

Every path is therefore blocked by $B$. Applying the global Markov property for a directed acyclic graph givesThis proves the requested screening property without any positivity assumption on $P$.

Finally assume faithfulness of a directed acyclic graph and let $A$ have the stated screening property. Then $k$ and every vertex outside $A\cup \{k\}$ must be D-separated by $A$. If a parent or child $h$ of $k$ were missing from $A$, the one-edge path between them would be active, a contradiction. Thus every parent and child is in $A$. If another parent $u$ of a child $h$ were missing from $A$, the path $k\to h\leftarrow u$ would be active: its only interior vertex is the collider $h$, already in $A$. This is again a contradiction. ConsequentlyUnder faithfulness the graphical blanket is contained in every screening set. This is the minimal Markov blanket under faithfulness; the preceding argument also shows that the blanket itself is a screening set.