LeanMachineLearning

ProbabilityTheory.Kernel.HasSubexponentialMGF.add_compProd🔗

Lemma

From the authors

For ν : Measure Ω', κ : Kernel Ω' Ω and η : (Ω' × Ω) Ω'', if a random variable X : Ω → ℝ has a sub-exponential mgf with respect to κ and ν and another random variable Y : Ω'' → ℝ has a sub-exponential mgf with respect to η and ν ⊗ₘ κ : Measure (Ω' × Ω), with the same parameter b, then X + Y (random variable on the measurable space Ω × Ω'') has a sub-exponential mgf with respect to κ ⊗ₖ η : Kernel Ω' (Ω × Ω'') and ν.

Types
  • Ω : Type u_1mΩ : MeasurableSpace ΩA measurable space is a space equipped with a σ-algebra.
  • Ω' : Type u_2mΩ' : MeasurableSpace Ω'
  • Ω'' : Type u_3mΩ'' : MeasurableSpace Ω''
Given
  • ν : MeasureTheory.Measure Ω'A measure is defined to be an outer measure that is countably additive on measurable sets, with the additional assumption that the outer measure is the canonical extension of the restricted measure.MeasureTheory.SFinite νA measure is called s-finite if it is a countable sum of finite measures.
  • κ : Kernel Ω' ΩA kernel from a measurable space α to another measurable space β is a measurable function κ : α → Measure β.
  • X : Ω →
  • V :
  • b :
  • Y : Ω'' →
  • VY :
  • η : Kernel (Ω' × Ω) Ω''IsZeroOrMarkovKernel ηA class for kernels which are zero or a Markov kernel.
Then
HasSubexponentialMGF (fun p => X p.1 + Y p.2) (V + VY) b (κ.compProd η) ν
Code
lemma add_compProd {η : Kernel (Ω' × Ω) Ω''} [IsZeroOrMarkovKernel η]
    (hX : HasSubexponentialMGF X V b κ ν) (hY : HasSubexponentialMGF Y VY b η (ν ⊗ₘ κ)) :
    HasSubexponentialMGF (fun p ↦ X p.1 + Y p.2) (V + VY) b (κ ⊗ₖ η) ν
Proof
by
  by_cases hκ : IsSFiniteKernel κ
  swap; · simp [hκ]
  refine .of_ae_mgf_le (fun t ht ↦ integrable_exp_add_compProd hX hY ht) fun t ht ↦ ?_
  filter_upwards [hX.mgf_le, hX.ae_integrable_exp_mul ht, Measure.ae_ae_of_ae_compProd hY.mgf_le,
    Measure.ae_integrable_of_integrable_comp <| integrable_exp_add_compProd hX hY ht]
    with ω' hX_mgf hX_int hY_mgf h_int_mul
  calc mgf (fun p ↦ X p.1 + Y p.2) ((κ ⊗ₖ η) ω') t
  _ = ∫ x, exp (t * X x) * ∫ y, exp (t * Y y) ∂(η (ω', x)) ∂(κ ω') := by
    simp_rw [mgf, mul_add, exp_add] at h_int_mul ⊢
    simp_rw [integral_compProd h_int_mul, integral_const_mul]
  _ ≤ ∫ x, exp (t * X x) * exp (VY * t ^ 2 / 2) ∂(κ ω') := by
    refine integral_mono_of_nonneg ?_ (hX_int.mul_const _) ?_
    · exact ae_of_all _ fun ω ↦ mul_nonneg (by positivity)
        (integral_nonneg (fun _ ↦ by positivity))
    · filter_upwards [hY_mgf] with ω hY_mgf
      gcongr
      exact hY_mgf t ht
  _ ≤ exp ((V + VY) * t ^ 2 / 2) := by
    rw [integral_mul_const, add_mul, add_div, exp_add]
    gcongr
    exact hX_mgf t ht

Meaning last changed in v4.34.0-rc2-76-g565f652 (2026-09-10).

Self-contained, with its dependencies inlined and proofs replaced by sorry: download the raw file · open it in the Lean web editor.

Dependency graph

Audit surface: 1 project declarations, 71 external constants

✓ Proved: no sorry anywhere in its closure

This is the tool's own reading of one build's recorded axioms, and it is not robust against an author who wants it to pass. Checking meant to be relied on should go through Comparator, which replays the proof through the kernel from an export against an explicit list of permitted axioms.