Paper detail

Minimal penalty for Goldenshluger-Lepski method

This paper is concerned with adaptive nonparametric estimation using the Goldenshluger-Lepski selection method. This estimator selection method is based on pairwise comparisons between estimators with respect to some loss function. The method also involves a penalty term that typically needs to be large enough in order that the method works (in the sense that one can prove some oracle type inequality for the selected estimator). In the case of density estimation with kernel estimators and a quadratic loss, we show that the procedure fails if the penalty term is chosen smaller than some critical value for the penalty: the minimal penalty. More precisely we show that the quadratic risk of the selected estimator explodes when the penalty is below this critical value while it stays under control when the penalty is above this critical value. This kind of phase transition phenomenon for penalty calibration has already been observed and proved for penalized model selection methods in various contexts but appears here for the first time for the Goldenshluger-Lepski pairwise comparison method. Some simulations illustrate the theoretical results and lead to some hints on how to use the theory to calibrate the method in practice.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.