Paper detail

Attainability of Two-Point Testing Rates for Finite-Sample Location Estimation

Le Cam's two-point testing method yields perhaps the simplest lower bound for estimating the mean of a distribution: roughly, if it is impossible to well-distinguish a distribution centered at $μ$ from the same distribution centered at $μ+Δ$, then it is impossible to estimate the mean by better than $Δ/2$. It is setting-dependent whether or not a nearly matching upper bound is attainable. We study the conditions under which the two-point testing lower bound can be attained for univariate mean estimation; both in the setting of location estimation (where the distribution is known up to translation) and adaptive location estimation (unknown distribution). Roughly, we will say an estimate nearly attains the two-point testing lower bound if it incurs error that is at most polylogarithmically larger than the Hellinger modulus of continuity for $\tildeΩ(n)$ samples. Adaptive location estimation is particularly interesting as some distributions admit much better guarantees than sub-Gaussian rates (e.g. $\operatorname{Unif}(μ-1,μ+1)$ permits error $Θ(\frac{1}{n})$, while the sub-Gaussian rate is $Θ(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}})$), yet it is not obvious whether these rates may be adaptively attained by one unified approach. Our main result designs an algorithm that nearly attains the two-point testing rate for mixtures of symmetric, log-concave distributions with a common mean. Moreover, this algorithm runs in near-linear time and is parameter-free. In contrast, we show the two-point testing rate is not nearly attainable even for symmetric, unimodal distributions. We complement this with results for location estimation, showing the two-point testing rate is nearly attainable for unimodal distributions, but unattainable for symmetric distributions.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.