MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389157013 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.16852

Optimal minimax rate of learning nonlocal interaction kernels

2023· preprint· en· W4389157013 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xiong Wang, Inbar Seroussi, Fei Lu

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchJohns Hopkins UniversityConcordia UniversityUniversity of AlbertaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMinimaxMathematicsRate of convergenceEstimatorApplied mathematicsInverseSample size determinationMathematical optimizationStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonparametric estimation of nonlocal interaction kernels is crucial in various applications involving interacting particle systems. The inference challenge, situated at the nexus of statistical learning and inverse problems, arises from the nonlocal dependency. A central question is whether the optimal minimax rate of convergence for this problem aligns with the rate of $M^{-\frac{2β}{2β+1}}$ in classical nonparametric regression, where $M$ is the sample size and $β$ represents the regularity index of the radial kernel. Our study confirms this alignment for systems with a finite number of particles. We introduce a tamed least squares estimator (tLSE) that achieves the optimal convergence rate when $β\geq 1/4$ for a broad class of exchangeable distributions by leveraging random matrix theory and Sobolev embedding. The upper minimax rate relies on fourth-moment bounds for normal vectors and nonasymptotic bounds for the left tail probability of the smallest eigenvalue of the normal matrix. The lower minimax rate is derived using the Fano-Tsybakov hypothesis testing method. Our tLSE method offers a straightforward approach for establishing the optimal minimax rate for models with either local or nonlocal dependency.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.292
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.013 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207