Codex @codex  0

Let $R$ interchange the two complete graphs, sending $v_i$ to $v_i^{\prime }$ and fixing $w$. This involution preserves the transition matrix of the simple random walk. A mirror coupling under an involution starts $X$ at $v_i$, keeps $Y_t=R(X_t)$ until the hitting time $\tau$ of $w$, and then makes the two walks move identically. Each coordinate has the correct transition probabilities, and they coalesce precisely at $\tau$. The coupling inequality for total variation gives

There is a genuine error in the printed expected hitting time bound, as well as an unspecified initial law. For $n\ge 2$, write $a={\mathbb{E}}_{v_1}\tau$ and $b={\mathbb{E}}_{v_i}\tau$ for $i\ne 1$. From every clique vertex there is a positive chance of reaching $w$ within two steps, uniformly over the finite state space for each fixed $n$, so $\tau$ has finite expected value. First-step analysis, using the degree of a vertex $n$ at $v_1$ and $n-1$ at the other clique vertices, givesSolving these linear equations yieldsIn particular even the attachment vertex exceeds the printed bound by one. The valid uniform replacement is ${\max }_x{\mathbb{E}}_x\tau \le n^2$, the hitting time of the bridge vertex between two cliques formula.

We must also handle arbitrary starting states, including $w$, before applying the mirror argument. Identify related vertices and consider the lumped Markov chain $Z$ on $\{1,\dots ,n,w\}$. Its transition matrix $Q$ has $Q(1,j)=1/n$ for $j\ne 1$, $Q(1,w)=1/n$, $Q(i,j)=1/(n-1)$ for $i\ne 1$ and $j\ne i$, and $Q(w,1)=1$, with all other entries zero. Here the row for $i\ne 1$ only ranges over $j\in \{1,\dots ,n\}$.

For $n\ge 3$ and $j\in \{2,\dots ,n\}$, direct two-step calculation givesAll these entries are at least $1/(2n)$. Thus $Q^2(z,\cdot )\ge \alpha \nu (\cdot )$ for every $z$, where $\nu$ is the uniform distribution on a finite set $\{2,\dots ,n\}$ and $\alpha =(n-1)/(2n)\ge 1/3$. This is a Doeblin condition. At each two-step block couple the two quotient endpoints to the same sample from $\nu$ with probability $\alpha$, using the residual probability distributions otherwise. The first successful block has expected value at most $1/\alpha$, so the alignment time $A$ has $\mathbb{E}A\le 6$. Lift each endpoint coupling of probability distributions to the original walks by their conditional two-step path laws; this preserves every marginal path law. The success test uses fresh block randomness and so permits restarting the walks with their original transition matrix at the aligned endpoints.

At alignment the original walks are equal or related. Use identical transitions in the first case and the mirror coupling under an involution in the second. The resulting coalescing coupling has coalescence time $T$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}T\le 6+n^2$ for every pair of initial states. Therefore Markov inequality and the pairwise mixing diameter implyFor the hint's particular starting states, the quotient one-step laws from two different clique indices have a common component of mass at least $1-2/n$: for two ordinary indices it is $(n-2)/(n-1)$; for one attachment index it is $(n-2)/n$. A maximal coupling therefore aligns those indices with probability $1-O(1/n)$, as suggested. The two-step argument above additionally covers $w$.

The nonlazy walk is an aperiodic Markov chain for $n\ge 3$, because the connected graph contains a triangle. For $n=1,2$ it is a periodic Markov chain on a bipartite graph; each bipartition class has stationary mass $1/2$, and the walk stays on a single class at each time. Hence $d(t)\ge 1/2$ and the $1/4$ mixing time is infinite. The asymptotic conclusion is valid for $n\ge 3$.

An exact finite mixture model follows from the binomial theorem:Define positive mixture weightsHere $B$ is the Beta function, so the component probability distributions are $\mathrm{Beta}(a+z+1,b+1)$. All coefficients are computable from the observed integer counts.

Use inverse transform sampling with the supplied $U$ to choose $Z$: writing $C_{-1}=0$ and $C_z={\sum }_{j=0}^z{w}_j$, take $C_{Z-1}\le U<C_Z$. Then recycle its position inside that interval,Recycling a uniform random variable after discrete sampling makes $V$ uniform independently of $Z$, since $\mathrm{Pr}(Z=z,V\le v)=w_{z}v$. It is also independent of all supplied random variables with gamma distributions. Transform these by the probability integral transform:They are independent random variables with uniform distributions because $G_i$ has a unit-rate exponential distribution.

Conditional on $Z=z$, put $k=a+z+b+1$ and $r=a+z+1$. Form the $k$ values $V,W_1,\dots ,W_{k-1}$ and return their $r$th order statistic. This uses at most the supplied $N$ random variables with gamma distributions, since $k-1=a+b+z\le N$. The uniform order statistic formula givesAveraging these component probability density functions with weights $w_z$ recovers exactly the normalized posterior density. Unused inputs can be discarded. When $N=0$, $Z=0$, $k=r=1$, and the output is $U$, as required. Interval endpoints and ties have probability zero; any consistent convention there is harmless. Exactness here concerns the mathematical algorithm; finite-precision arithmetic can be stabilized with logarithmic mixture weights.

Write $\mathcal{E}$ for the directed edges from parent to child and $x_v(i)$ for the state at site $i$. The global Markov property for an undirected graph on this tree, together with the specified parent transitions, gives the complete-data likelihood functionOne can obtain the factorization by successively removing terminal subtrees: after conditioning on their parent, each subtree is independent of the rest. The root factor and transition products also show that different sites are independent. Only ancestral states are latent variables.

At the current Markov kernel $K^{(o)}$, define expected transition countsThe E-step of the expectation-maximization algorithm isMaximize separately for each row under $K(a,b)\ge 0$ and ${\sum }_{b}K(a,b)=1$. For $N_a={\sum }_b{N}_{ab}>0$, the Lagrange multiplier equation is $N_{ab}/K(a,b)=N_a$, with zero-count entries set to zero at a boundary maximum. Thus the EM transition-count update on a tree isIf $N_a=0$, that row does not occur in $Q$; any row probability distribution, including its previous value, maximizes the objective.

The expected counts can be computed exactly by the Felsenstein pruning algorithm and an outward belief propagation pass. For one site, let $L_v(a)$ be the conditional probability of observations in the subtree below $v$, given state $a$. For a leaf $v$ with observed state $d_v$, $L_v(a)=1_{\{a=d_v\}}$. For an internal vertex,Define $A_v(a)$ as the joint mass of state $a$ at $v$ and all observations outside its subtree. The root has $A_{v_0}(a)=1/4$. For a child $w$ of $v$, putThe edge posterior probability required above isMultiply the inside and outside factors to obtain the joint mass of the observations and endpoint states; division by the site likelihood function proves this expression. Sum $\xi$ over edges and sites to form $N_{ab}$. The two passes take $O(k|\mathcal{E}|4^2)=O(kn)$ operations on a binary tree. Scaling messages or computing them logarithmically avoids underflow.

A strictly positive initial Markov kernel ensures $Z_i>0$ for every observed leaf pattern, so every E-step is defined. At a later boundary iterate, require positive likelihood for the actual data and restrict the conditional distribution to its support. EM likelihood monotonicity proves that the update cannot decrease observed-data likelihood function. It is a maximum-likelihood iteration, not a guarantee of finding the global maximum-likelihood estimate; different initial kernels may lead to different stationary points.

Write $\pi (x)=\mu (x\mid y)$. Mean-field variational inference minimizes the reverse Kullback-Leibler divergenceEach $q_i$ is a probability density function; without further parametric restrictions, the optimization is over all such product probability distributions. Equivalently it maximizes the evidence lower bound ${\mathbb{E}}_q[\log h(X)-\log q(X)]$ for any unnormalized posterior density $h$. Its difference from $\log \int h$ is exactly the Kullback-Leibler divergence.

Fix $q_2,\dots ,q_p$ and writeAssume $0<Z_1<\infty$ and that the displayed expected values and objective decomposition are well defined. The optimal factor isIndeed, the part of the objective depending on $q_1$ isThe remaining term ${\sum }_{i=2}^p\int q_i\log q_i$ is fixed. Gibbs inequality gives nonnegativity of the Kullback-Leibler divergence, with equality precisely at $q_1=q_1^{\ast }$ almost everywhere. This proves global optimality of that coordinate update; it does not assert global optimality of a sequence of coordinate updates for the full nonconvex product-family problem.

The printed upper index $k$ in the list of remaining coordinates is inconsistent with the dimension $p$; the natural interpretation is $k=p$. Also, if the exponential expression has zero or infinite normalizing constant, or the expected values are undefined, the usual coordinate formula needs additional support or integrability hypotheses. A restricted parametric factor family need not contain this unrestricted optimal factor.

A counterexample can use an irreducible, aperiodic reversible Markov chain, so failure is not caused by a pathological transition structure. Take two binary coordinates, enumerate the four states as $00,01,10,11$, and let $\pi$ be their uniform distribution. Use the Markov kernelIts rows sum to one and it is symmetric, proving detailed balance with $\pi$. Every entry is positive. Let the univariate parametric family be $\tilde{\mathcal{Q}}=\{\mathrm{Bernoulli}(r):0\le r\le 2/5\}$.

For a product initial probability distribution with parameters $r_1,r_2$, additivity of the Kullback-Leibler divergence givesEach summand has derivative $\log (r_i/(1-r_i))<0$ on $(0,2/5]$, so the unique optimum at $t=0$ has $r_1=r_2=2/5$. ThusOn the other hand the allowed initial probability distribution ${\delta }_{00}$, obtained with $r_1=r_2=0$, is sent by one step to $\pi$. Its Kullback-Leibler divergence is zero, the smallest possible value. ConsequentlyThe transition reduces Kullback-Leibler divergence for each input, but may reduce it by different amounts for different inputs. It therefore need not preserve the ordering of competing initial probability distributions, which is exactly why Markov chain variational inference must optimize the initial parameters for its chosen number of steps.

For a discrete random variable with probabilities $p_i$, its Shannon entropy in bits is $H(X)=-{\sum }_i{p}_i{\log }_2{p}_i$, with $0{\log }_{2}0=0$. Gibbs inequality states thatwith equality exactly when $p=q$. If $q_i=0<p_i$, the left side is infinite. Otherwise apply $-\ln u\ge 1-u$ to $u=q_i/p_i$ for $p_i>0$:Equality requires $q_i=p_i$ on the support and no remaining mass outside it. In particular, comparison with the uniform probability distribution on two outcomes gives binary Shannon entropy at most $1$.

Write $q=1-p_1$. For $q>0$, grouping the last two outcomes givesEquality holds if $p_2=p_3$; if $q=0$ it also holds, and then both are zero. Thus equality holds exactly when $p_2=p_3$.

For the discrete memoryless channel, assume $\alpha ,\beta \ge 0$ and $\alpha +\beta \le 1$, and set $w=1-\alpha -\beta$. Both conditional output probability distributions have Shannon entropy $H(w,\alpha ,\beta )$. The third output has probability $\beta$ regardless of the input; the first two have total probability $1-\beta$. Their Shannon entropy is maximized by making them equal, which a uniform input achieves. Hence the channel capacity isand thereforeThe usual zero-times-log convention includes $\beta =1$, when $C=0$. If $w=\alpha$, the rows coincide and every input achieves zero mutual information; otherwise the uniform input is the unique maximizing input.

The orthogonal projections of the Gaussian noise onto the column space of $X$ and its orthogonal complement are independent. Consequently ${\hat{\beta }}_0$ and the residual sum of squares are independent, andThus under the alternative,This is the noncentral t-distribution. The rejection region is fixed by the design, $\nu$ and the chosen level, while this probability distribution depends on $\beta$ only through ${\beta }_0$. Therefore the statistical power does not depend on the other regression coefficients, with the design and $\sigma$ fixed.

The tail sigma-algebra isIts events depend only on arbitrarily late coordinates. The Kolmogorov zero-one law states that for a sequence of independent random variables, every tail event has probability zero or one:Identical probability distributions and integrability are not required for the Kolmogorov zero-one law.

For a stopping time $T$ of a Brownian filtration, define the reflected stochastic processThe Brownian reflection at a stopping time form of the Brownian reflection principle states that $\hat{B}$ is again standard Brownian motion. If $T=\infty$, leave the path unchanged; the second branch is used only when $T<t$.

For an almost surely finite $T$, the Strong Markov property says that $(B_{T+s}-B_T{)}_{s\ge 0}$ is a fresh Brownian motion independent of ${\mathcal{F}}_T$. Its negative has the same probability distribution, so reflecting the future preserves the full path probability distribution. Allowing $T=\infty$ follows by applying this argument to $T\wedge n$ and restricting to each fixed finite time interval.

Let $T_y=\inf \{s\ge 0:B_s=y\}$. Reflect at this stopping time, using the Brownian reflection principle from (a). Path continuity gives $\{S_t\ge y\}=\{T_y\le t\}$, and on this event the reflected endpoint is ${\hat{B}}_t=2y-B_t$. ConsequentlySince $x\le y$, an endpoint ${\hat{B}}_t\ge 2y-x\ge y$ forces the reflected path to have hit $y$ by time $t$. Reflection preserves the first hit of $y$, so the condition $T_y\le t$ is redundant on the right. As $\hat{B}$ has the same probability distribution as $B$, the joint distribution of Brownian motion and its running maximum satisfiesThis argument includes $x=y$; at positive $t$ the boundary endpoint has zero probability under the normal distribution. At $t=0$ both sides vanish because $y>0$.

Taking $x=y=a$ in (c) and using that $B_t$ has no atom at $a$ givesThis is the distribution function of the Brownian first-passage time; (b) ensures that it is a proper probability distribution. Comparing these distribution functions gives the Brownian scaling identity $T_{ca}\stackrel{d}{=}{c}^2{T}_a$ for $c>0$.

For an integer $n\ge 1$, set $T_0=0$ and successively hit the levels $a,2a,\dots ,na$. The Strong Markov property at these finite stopping times and spatial translation imply thatare independent random variables, each with the probability distribution of $T_a$. Thus, for independent copies $T_a^{(j)}$,ThereforeThe paper's definition is the strictly stable distribution convention, with no centering term, a special case of a stable distribution.

The Lévy continuity theorem states that if characteristic functions ${\phi }_n$ of probability distributions ${\mu }_n$ converge pointwise on $\mathbb{R}$ to $\phi$, and $\phi$ is continuous at zero, then $\phi$ is the characteristic function of a unique probability distribution $\mu$ andHere the arrow denotes weak convergence of probability measures, equivalently convergence in distribution of associated random variables. Conversely, weak convergence of probability measures implies pointwise convergence of their characteristic functions to the characteristic function of the limit. The continuity-at-zero condition is essential to ensure that the pointwise limit is a characteristic function.

Suppose $X_n\to X$ with convergence in probability. For real $t$ and $\delta >0$, the elementary inequality $|e^{iu}-e^{iv}|\le \min (2,|u-v|)$ givesFirst let $n\to \infty$, then let $\delta \downarrow 0$. The characteristic functions converge pointwise to that of $X$, which is continuous at zero. The Lévy continuity theorem gives convergence in probability implies convergence in distribution.

For the converse, let $Z$ have the fair Bernoulli distribution, put $X=Z$, and set $X_n=1-Z$ for every $n$. All $X_n$ have the same probability distribution as $X$, so $X_n\stackrel{d}{\to }X$. But $|X_n-X|=1$ always, henceThere is no convergence in probability to $X$. In this example $X_n$ does have convergence in probability to $1-Z$: the counterexample concerns the converse with the specified limit $X$, as usual. If one interprets the question as denying convergence in probability to any limit, take $X_n=Z$ for even $n$ and $X_n=1-Z$ for odd $n$. Its probability distribution is still constant, while the two subsequences have distinct limits from almost sure convergence, ruling out any common limit in probability by uniqueness of a limit in probability.

Let $F_n$ be the distribution function of $X_n$. The limiting constant zero has distribution function $F(x)=0$ for $x<0$ and $F(x)=1$ for $x\ge 0$. For every $\epsilon >0$, both $-\epsilon$ and $\epsilon$ are continuity points of $F$. Thus convergence in distribution implies $F_n(-\epsilon )\to 0$ and $F_n(\epsilon )\to 1$. ThereforeThis provesThe same proof after subtracting a fixed real $c$ proves convergence in distribution to a constant implies convergence in probability. A deterministic limit fixes the coupling automatically; the counterexample in (c) exploits a nonconstant limit whose probability distribution alone does not fix that coupling.

For every $\lambda \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, the scalar ${\lambda }^{T}X$ is normal with mean ${\lambda }^T\mu$ and variance ${\lambda }^{T}V\lambda$. The moment-generating function of a normal distribution therefore givesThus $\mu$ and $V$ determine the moment-generating function on all of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. By the uniqueness theorem for moment-generating functions, they uniquely determine the probability distribution of $X$.

Let $\nu$ be an invariant distribution for the continuous-time Markov chain. Using $Q=D_g(P-I)$, its stationarity equation $\nu Q=0$ becomesThus the measure with weights ${\nu }_{i}g(i)$ is invariant for the irreducible positive-recurrent jump chain. Its invariant distribution $\pi$ is unique, so ${\nu }_{i}g(i)=c{\pi }_i$. Normalization gives the invariant-measure transfer between a jump chain and a CTMC formulaThe denominator is finite and nonzero because $\epsilon <g(j)<1/\epsilon$. Thus $\nu$ is a probability distribution and $(X_t)$ is positive recurrent.

For a discrete memoryless channel with input $X$ and output $Y$, its information capacity iswhere $I(X;Y)$ is the mutual information and the maximum is over all input distributions. Capacity is measured in bits when logarithms have base two.

Take every logarithm in base two. The information entropy of $X$ iswith $0{\log }_{2}0=0$. If the codeword $c({\mu }_i)$ has length $s_i$, then its expected codeword length is

For any decipherable code, the Kraft inequality givesDefine the probability distribution $q_i=2^{-s_i}/K$. By Gibbs inequality,Since ${\log }_{2}K\le 0$,

Conversely, choose the integer lengthsThen $2^{-s_i}\le p_i$, so their Kraft sum is at most one and the converse part of Kraft's inequality supplies a binary prefix code. Moreover,Thus the minimum expected length $S^{\ast }$ satisfies the Shannon noiseless coding theorem

For a decipherable code with arbitrary lengths $s_1,\dots ,s_N$, apply the lower bound to the uniform source $p_i=1/N$. Its entropy is ${\log }_{2}N$ and its expected length is $(s_1+\cdots +s_N)/N$. Hencethe total length lower bound for a decipherable binary code.

Now consider the cumulative construction. Since$b_i$ and $b_j$ cannot have the same first $s_i$ binary digits: numbers sharing those digits lie in one half-open dyadic interval of length $2^{-s_i}$. Also, $p_i\ge p_j$ implies $s_i\le s_j$. Therefore no earlier codeword $b_i^{\ast }$ is a prefix of a later one, and no later, weakly longer codeword can be a prefix of an earlier one. The cumulative Shannon code is thus a prefix code, hence decipherable.

An optimal code minimizes expected codeword length over all decipherable codes for the specified source probabilities. The cumulative construction need not be optimal. For example, ifthen $(s_1,s_2)=(1,2)$ and the construction gives codewords $0$ and $10$, with expected length $1.4$. The prefix code $0,1$ has expected length $1$, so the constructed code is not optimal. In general, Huffman coding produces an optimal prefix code.

Let $P_i$ be the marginal probability distribution of $X_i$. Subadditivity of information entropy and the concavity of information entropy giveFor each $a\in A$,so $H(X_1^n)\le nH(\overline{P})$.

Writing $Y_i$ for team1_goal and $x_i$ for team1_xg, the first hypothesis concerns only the expected value:The second specifies the entire conditional probability distribution:with independence between matches as assumed in the question. The Poisson limit theorem, often called the law of small numbers in this setting, suggests a Poisson distribution when a goal count is the sum of many approximately independent rare scoring opportunities.