Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2611.06778

Regularization vs. Convolution in Kernel-Based Hypothesis Testing

Abstract

The maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) test is a popular nonparametric test on general domains. Two lines of work have studied its optimality through structurally different approaches. The first, a convolution approach on $\mathbb{R}^d$, uses translation-invariant kernels with a shrinking bandwidth and is minimax optimal over Sobolev balls under $L^2$-separation; the second, a regularization approach on general measurable spaces, uses spectral regularization of the kernel covariance operator and is minimax optimal over Hellinger- and $χ^2$-separated alternatives. In this paper, we study the regularization approach over Sobolev balls under $L^2$-separation, which reveals the connection between the two approaches. We show that, with a translation-invariant kernel on $\mathbb{R}^d$, both are ways of meeting a single condition on the kernel's spectral density: the spectral regularized discrepancy captures the $L^2$-separation $Δ$ of a Sobolev alternative of smoothness $s$ as soon as the regularization parameter $λ$ is below the spectral density on frequencies up to $Δ^{-1/(2s)}$. A kernel with a shrinking bandwidth $h$ meets this condition with $λ\asymp h^d$, and under this coupling the constant regularizer, which gives the MMD test itself, attains the Sobolev minimax rate. This explains, from a spectral perspective, the need for a shrinking bandwidth in the convolution approach. With a non-constant spectral regularizer, our analysis requires the bandwidth to shrink only when the spectral density decays faster than any polynomial, as for the Gaussian kernel. Thus, for Matérn and Laplace kernels, a fixed bandwidth with $λ\to 0$ attains the Sobolev minimax rate. Finally, an adaptive test over a grid of bandwidths and regularization parameters is minimax optimal, up to a $\log\log$ factor, over both classes without prior knowledge of the smoothness.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Omar Hagrass, Bharath K. Sriperumbudur. 2026-11-04. Regularization vs. Convolution in Kernel-Based Hypothesis Testing. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.06778

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Second-order PACF asymptotics and discrimination between fractional Gaussian noise and $\FARIMA(0,d,0)$

Fractional Gaussian noise and $\FARIMA(0,d,0)$ have the same long-memory pole $|θ|^{-2d}$ and hence the same leading PACF law $α(n)\sim d/n$. We show that this agreement breaks at the first non-universal order. For $0<d<1/2$, the pure fGn PACF satisfies $$ α_{\fGn}(n)=\frac d n+\frac{C_{\fGn}(d)}{n^2}+o(n^{-2}), \qquad C_{\fGn}(d)<d^2, $$ The proof uses the Bingham--Inoue--Kasahara representation, a phase-coefficient expansion for fGn, and a Hankel-operator perturbation argument. Thus the fGn spectral envelope is invisible at first order but visible in second-order finite prediction, explaining why short-memory order selection can differ when fGn data are fitted by FARIMA-type models.

math.ST↗

U-centering as subset ANOVA: edge regression and higher-order theory

Unbiased squared distance covariance and the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion (HSIC) are fourth-order U-statistics, yet U-centering evaluates them from pairwise arrays in $O(n^2)$ operations. We show that U-centering is exactly least-squares residualization after fitting additive endpoint effects. This analysis of variance (ANOVA) interpretation explains the zero row sums and the normalization through residual degrees of freedom. The same geometry gives regression representations of dependence and two-sample statistics, exact permutation variances, and relations among pooled and regression mean squares. For arrays indexed by $r$-element subsets and $n\ge2r$, higher-order U-centering removes all lower-order subset effects and projects onto a space of dimension $\binom{n}{r}-\binom{n}{r-1}$. For fixed symmetric square-integrable kernels evaluated on independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) paired observations, we derive the residual covariance matrix, exact mean-squared errors for estimating the highest-order Hoeffding components, unbiased positive semidefinite (PSD) covariance estimates, and moment formulas under independence and permutation. The normalized residual inner product equals a direct unbiased estimator involving up to $2r$ observations, but can be evaluated in $O(n^r)$ operations for fixed $r$. For four-argument matching kernels, three matrix products yield exactly unbiased estimators of a fourth spectral moment of kernel cross-covariance in $O(n^3)$ arithmetic and $O(n^2)$ storage. A numerical illustration distinguishes dependence structures with equal HSIC and different spectral concentration.

math.ST↗

A Partial-Matching Proof of the Neyman--Pearson Lemma

Testing seeks to distinguish distributions, whereas matching seeks to identify their common mass. I show that this apparent opposition provides a direct proof of the Neyman--Pearson lemma. Maximal partial matching between the alternative distribution and a scaled null distribution separates them into a common component and two mutually singular residuals. An elementary dual problem then turns this separation into a testing rule: complementary slackness forces rejection on the alternative residual and non-rejection on the scaled-null residual, leaving freedom to randomize at the likelihood-ratio threshold. Thus the optimal test emerges from maximal matching rather than being proposed in advance. The matching profile also determines the optimal power envelope.

math.ST↗