Paper detail

Generalized Error Exponents For Small Sample Universal Hypothesis Testing

The small sample universal hypothesis testing problem is investigated in this paper, in which the number of samples $n$ is smaller than the number of possible outcomes $m$. The goal of this work is to find an appropriate criterion to analyze statistical tests in this setting. A suitable model for analysis is the high-dimensional model in which both $n$ and $m$ increase to infinity, and $n=o(m)$. A new performance criterion based on large deviations analysis is proposed and it generalizes the classical error exponent applicable for large sample problems (in which $m=O(n)$). This generalized error exponent criterion provides insights that are not available from asymptotic consistency or central limit theorem analysis. The following results are established for the uniform null distribution: (i) The best achievable probability of error $P_e$ decays as $P_e=\exp\{-(n^2/m) J (1+o(1))\}$ for some $J>0$. (ii) A class of tests based on separable statistics, including the coincidence-based test, attains the optimal generalized error exponents. (iii) Pearson's chi-square test has a zero generalized error exponent and thus its probability of error is asymptotically larger than the optimal test.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors4 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.