Paper detail

Adaptation in log-concave density estimation

The log-concave maximum likelihood estimator of a density on the real line based on a sample of size $n$ is known to attain the minimax optimal rate of convergence of $O(n^{-4/5})$ with respect to, e.g., squared Hellinger distance. In this paper, we show that it also enjoys attractive adaptation properties, in the sense that it achieves a faster rate of convergence when the logarithm of the true density is $k$-affine (i.e.\ made up of $k$ affine pieces), provided $k$ is not too large. Our results use two different techniques: the first relies on a new Marshall's inequality for log-concave density estimation, and reveals that when the true density is close to log-linear on its support, the log-concave maximum likelihood estimator can achieve the parametric rate of convergence in total variation distance. Our second approach depends on local bracketing entropy methods, and allows us to prove a sharp oracle inequality, which implies in particular that the rate of convergence with respect to various global loss functions, including Kullback--Leibler divergence, is $O\bigl(\frac{k}{n}\log^{5/4} n\bigr)$ when the true density is log-concave and its logarithm is close to $k$-affine.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.