Theorem. Covariance is inverse precision [fdip-000B]
Theorem. Covariance is inverse precision [fdip-000B]
Let \(Q\) be a positive self-adjoint precision on a finite real inner-product space \((E,h)\), with its Gaussian law. For \(j,k\in E\), put \(\ell _j(x)=h(j,x)\). Then \[\begin {aligned} \omega _Q(\ell _j)&=0,\\ \operatorname {Cov}_{\mu _Q}(\ell _j,\ell _k) &=h(j,Q^{-1}k). \end {aligned}\] Thus its covariance operator, relative to the specified pairing, is \(C_Q=Q^{-1}\). On the counting vertex space, \(\ell _{\delta _v}(\phi )=\phi (v)\), so \[\omega _Q(\phi (v)\phi (w)) =h_V(\delta _v,Q^{-1}\delta _w).\] For \(Q=L+m^2I\), this is the Green kernel, with no vertex-volume factor. The density convention agrees with [friedli2017statistical, Proposition B.55, p. 505, and Theorem 8.4, p. 385] after substituting covariance \(Q^{-1}\) for precision \(Q\).
For a nonorthonormal basis \(b_i\), the coordinate functional is \(h(b^i,\cdot )\). The dual basis satisfies \(h(b^i,b_j)=\delta _{ij}\). Its covariance array therefore has entries \(h(b^i,Q^{-1}b^j)\); it is not the unqualified array of the inverse operator in that basis. The counting basis is orthonormal, giving the coordinate formula above. The alternating-cycle example evaluates it explicitly.
To compare with formal Gaussian providers, put \(n=\dim E\), choose an orthonormal
chart and let \(S\) represent \(Q^{-1}\) there. The positive inverse
is positive definite, \(S^{-1}\) represents \(Q\), and
\(\det S=(\det Q)^{-1}\). Consequently the provider density is
\[\begin {aligned}
&(2\pi )^{-n/2}(\det S)^{-1/2}
e^{-y^TS^{-1}y/2}\\
&\qquad =Z_Q^{-1}e^{-h(x,Qx)/2}.
\end {aligned}\]
The orthonormal chart and the Euclidean-space coordinate
wrapper preserve canonical volume. Thus the chart pushforward of
\(\mu _Q\) is \(\mathrm {multivariateGaussian}(0,S)\) by
TauCeti.Probability.multivariateGaussian_eq_withDensity.
Mathlib's
ProbabilityTheory.covariance_eval_multivariateGaussian
then identifies its coordinate covariance with \(S\); its positive
semidefinite hypothesis follows from positive definiteness. The
parameter is covariance \(S=Q^{-1}\), not precision \(Q\). This density,
determinant and volume identification is needed in addition to the
covariance declaration; the integral proof above is independent of it.