Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2018 / iii / Paper 210 (Topics in Statistical Theory)

For $1\le k\le n$, the nearest neighbour distance ${\rho }_{(k)}(x)$ is the $k$th order statistic of $D_i=|X_i-x|$. Each $D_i$ has continuous distribution function $p_x(r)$ on $[0,\infty )$. The probability integral transform makes $U_i=p_x(D_i)$ independent and identically distributed random variables with the uniform distribution on $(0,1)$. Monotonicity of $p_x$ gives $P=U_{(k)}$, a uniform order statistic. Strict monotonicity is not needed at this stage.

For $0<s<1$, counting observations below $s$ givesDifferentiating and cancelling consecutive terms gives the Beta distribution:The Gamma function identity $\Gamma (j)=(j-1)!$ identifies this with the stated normalization. Ratios of Beta function integrals yield the momentsThis is the probability content of a nearest neighbour ball identity, specialized to intervals on the real line.

Now write $f_0=f(x)>0$. The Lipschitz bound givesThusStrict positivity of the probability density function makes $p_x$ continuous and strictly increasing from zero to one, so its inverse function is defined for every $s\in (0,1)$.

For the requested conditional calculation, suppose $f_0^2\ge L$. At $r_0=s/f_0$ the preceding bound givesTherefore $r=p_x^{-1}(s)\le s/f_0$, and substituting in the approximation proves the inverse probability content bound for a Lipschitz density:The same argument works, without $f_0^2\ge L$, on the meaningful local range $0<s<1$ with $s\le f_0^2/L$.

Since the nearest neighbour density estimator obeys $f(x)/{\hat{f}}_{(k)}(x)=2(n+1)f_0{p}_x^{-1}(P)/k$, its conditional bound follows from the Beta distribution moments:Hence, under the printed location condition,The conditional inverse function bound also bounds $p_x^{-1}(P)$, so the expected value in this calculation is finite under those formal hypotheses.

There is, however, a genuine flaw in the original PDF: the printed condition $f(x)\ge \sqrt{L}$ has no admissible points when $f$ is strictly positive on all of $\mathbb{R}$. A probability density function on all of $\mathbb{R}$ cannot have Lipschitz constant zero, so $L>0$. Its Lipschitz bound forcesIntegrating this triangular lower envelope gives the Lipschitz density height boundThe inequality is strict because the probability density function has positive mass outside the finite interval. Thus $f(x)<\sqrt{L}$ everywhere. The last two conditional conclusions above are valid implications but vacuous as printed. Dropping strict positivity gives only $f(x)\le \sqrt{L}$, with equality forcing the entire probability density function to be the normalized triangular envelope. The local inverse bound does not justify replacing the printed condition by its reverse in the final expected value bound, since $P$ ranges over all of $(0,1)$.

Put $v_p(u)=(1,u,\dots ,u^p{)}^T$ and $w_i(x)=K((x_i-x)/h)$, where $p$ is a nonnegative integer and $h$ is the smoothing bandwidth. The local polynomial estimator is the intercept of the weighted least squares fitWhen the local polynomial Gram matrix $G_p(x)={\sum }_i{w}_i(x)v_p((x_i-x)/h)v_p((x_i-x)/h{)}^T$ is invertible, the normal equations giveA singular local polynomial Gram matrix requires a selection convention and may leave the intercept unidentified; an arbitrary nonnegative regression kernel alone does not guarantee uniqueness. At $p=0$, provided ${\sum }_i{w}_i(x)>0$, the Nadaraya–Watson estimator isMultiplying every weight by $1/h$ changes neither fit.

For the uniform kernel, let $I_x=\{i:|i/n-x|\le h\}$ and $N_x=|I_x|$. Then ${\hat{m}}_h(x)=N_x^{-1}{\sum }_{i\in I_x}{Y}_i$. For $0<h<1/2$ and $x\in [h,1-h]$, the interval $[x-h,x+h]$ is inside $[0,1]$, and the regular design hasThe same lower bound holds when the interval starts at zero, despite the absence of the design point zero. In particular the Nadaraya–Watson estimator is defined throughout the integration interval.

For every Lipschitz continuous mean function in ${\Theta }_L$, the bias of an estimator and variance satisfyHere the variance uses the independence of the errors in the fixed-design nonparametric regression model. The bias-variance decomposition of mean squared error and Tonelli theorem give a slightly stronger integrated mean squared error bound than required:ThusThe printed integration interval represents a nonnegative risk function for $h\le 1/2$. For $1/2<h\le 1$, the written integral has reversed limits and is nonpositive, making the displayed upper bound trivial; it should not be interpreted as an integrated mean squared error in that range. For $h>1$, evaluation outside $[0,1]$ would additionally require a specified extension of the mean function. The subsequent optimization restricts to $h<1/3$.

Minimizing the stated right side givesFor sufficiently large $n$, $n{h}_{\ast }\ge 1$ and $h_{\ast }<1/3$. For example take $n_0=1+\lceil \max \{1,2L/(\sqrt{3}\sigma ),81{\sigma }^2/(4L^2)\}\rceil$. Therefore the upper bound holds with

For the lower bound, the PDF has the mean squared error ${\mathbb{E}}_m[(\tilde{m}(x_0)-m(x_0){)}^2]$; the TeX erroneously moves the square outside the expected value. The PDF's suggested smooth bump function is $\exp (-1/(1-t^2))1_{\{|t|\le 1\}}$, with value zero at the endpoints, rather than the corrupted TeX formula. A triangular alternative suffices because only Lipschitz continuity is needed.

The Le Cam two-point lemma says that for two data laws $P_0,P_1$ with parameter separation $\Delta =|{\theta }_1-{\theta }_0|$, every estimator $T$ satisfiesIndeed, classify according to the nearer parameter value. Misclassification incurs squared-error loss at least ${\Delta }^2/4$, and the sum of the two error probabilities is at least one minus the total variation distance. Averaging the two risk functions proves the stated form.

Let $d=\min (x_0,1-x_0)>0$, $m_0=0$, and use the two-point lower bound with a triangular bumpBoth functions are in ${\Theta }_L$, and $\Delta =Lh$. Assume first that $h\le d$ and $nh\ge 1$. At most $2nh+1$ design points meet the bump's support. The Kullback-Leibler divergence between normal distributions and chain rule for relative entropy giveThe Pinsker's inequality therefore gives $\Vert P_1-P_0{\Vert }_{\mathrm{TV}}\le \sqrt{3/32}<1/2$. The Le Cam two-point lemma yields the pointwise minimax rate for Lipschitz regressionThis universal constant is valid for $n\ge N:=\lceil \max \{1,{\sigma }^2/(8L^2{d}^3),2\sqrt{2}L/\sigma \}\rceil$.

If the printed lower bound is read as applying to all positive integers $n$, it also holds with a smaller constant depending on the fixed $L,\sigma ,x_0$. For $n<N$, use the constant mean functions $m_0=0$ and $m_1=\sigma /\sqrt{n}$. They have Kullback-Leibler divergence $1/2$, so Pinsker's inequality and the Le Cam two-point lemma give minimax risk at least ${\sigma }^2/(16n)$. Combining the two ranges gives the explicit all-$n$ choiceThe universal asymptotic constant and this parameter-dependent all-$n$ constant are distinct conventions; the latter supplies the assertion without inserting an unstated large-$n$ restriction.

For independent and identically distributed random variables with distribution function $F$, let $M_n={\max }_{1\le i\le n}{X}_i$ be the sample maximum. In extreme value theory, $F$ belongs to the maximum domain of attraction $D(G)$ of a nondegenerate distribution function $G$ when there exist $a_n>0$ and $b_n\in \mathbb{R}$ such thatat every continuity point of $G$. Thus the normalized sample maxima have convergence in distribution to $G$.

A positive measurable function $q$ has regular variation at infinity with index $\rho$, written $q\in {\mathrm{RV}}_{\rho }$, ifThe case $\rho =0$ defines a slowly varying function; equivalently a regularly varying function is $q(t)=t^{\rho }\ell (t)$ with $\ell$ a slowly varying function.

Write $\overline{F}=1-F$ for the survival function and $x_F=\sup \{x:F(x)<1\}$ for the right endpoint of a distribution. For $\alpha >0$, use the following standard extreme value theory normalization conventions:They are respectively the Fréchet distribution, the negative Weibull distribution, and the Gumbel distribution for maxima. The negative Weibull distribution is supported to the left of its finite endpoint; it is not the usual positive Weibull distribution.

The necessary and sufficient maximum domain of attraction criteria are:

For the corresponding sufficient hazard function conditions, assume $F$ is absolutely continuous near $x_F$, its survival function tends to zero there, and its probability density function $f$ is positive there. Write $\eta (t)=f(t)/\overline{F}(t)$. The Von Mises conditions for extreme values giveThe last condition additionally assumes that the reciprocal hazard function is continuously differentiable near the endpoint. It concerns the derivative of the reciprocal hazard function, not the derivative of the hazard function itself. Equivalently, when $f$ is differentiable, it is $\overline{F}(t)f^{\prime }(t)/f(t{)}^2\to -1$.

To see the connection, taking an integral of the hazard function givesThe first two limits make the logarithmic tail ratios over multiplicative or endpoint-distance intervals tend to $-\alpha \log u$ or $\alpha \log u$, giving the required regular variation. For the Gumbel distribution, set $a(t)=1/\eta (t)$. The derivative condition makes $a(t+a(t)v)/a(t)\to 1$ uniformly on bounded $v$-intervals, soThe endpoint assumptions ensure these shifts are admissible: at an infinite endpoint $a(t)/t\to 0$, and at a finite endpoint $a(t)/(x_F-t)\to 0$. These are sufficient smooth-tail conditions; the tail-ratio characterizations above are necessary and sufficient without differentiability assumptions. For a source using the same reciprocal-hazard convention, see Smith and Weissman's university lecture notes, equations (2.18)–(2.24).

For the Gamma distribution with integer shape $m$ and rate one, let ${\overline{F}}_m(t)={\int }_t^{\infty }{u}^{m-1}{e}^{-u}du/(m-1)!$. The base case is ${\overline{F}}_1(t)=e^{-t}$, and integration by parts givesInduction provesThis survival function has the asymptotic form ${\overline{F}}_m(t)\sim e^{-t}{t}^{m-1}/(m-1)!$; for $m=1$ the relation is exact. Put $t_n={\beta }_n+x$. For every fixed real $x$, $t_n\to \infty$ and $t_n/\log n\to 1$. The proposed centering satisfiessoOnly the highest-degree term contributes to the limit, with the same reasoning covering $m=1$. The Taylor expansion $\log (1-u)=-u+O(u^2)$ now givesbecause $n{\overline{F}}_m({\beta }_n+x{)}^2\to 0$. Therefore the Gumbel limit for gamma maxima isEquivalently, $M_n-{\beta }_n$ has convergence in distribution to the standard Gumbel distribution, with scale $a_n=1$.

Let $S={\sum }_i{Y}_i$ and $V_H={\sum }_i(b_i-a_i{)}^2$. To prove the Hoeffding lemma, take a centered random variable $Y\in [a,b]$ and its cumulant-generating function $\psi (t)=\log \mathbb{E}{e}^{tY}$. Under exponential tilting, ${\psi }^{\prime \prime }(t)$ is the variance of $Y$. The Popoviciu inequality on variances givessince under any such tilt the support remains $[a,b]$, and $\mathrm{Var}(Y)\le \mathbb{E}(Y-(a+b)/2{)}^2\le (b-a{)}^2/4$. Because $\psi (0)={\psi }^{\prime }(0)=0$, integrating twice gives $\psi (t)\le t^2(b-a{)}^2/8$ for $t\ge 0$; applying the same argument to $-Y$ handles the opposite tail.

The independence of the $Y_i$ gives $\mathbb{E}{e}^{tS}\le \exp (t^2{V}_H/8)$. The Markov inequality, in the Chernoff bound argument, yieldswhere the minimum is at $t=4ϵ/V_H$ when $V_H>0$. Apply the same argument to $-S$ and add the bounds to obtain the Hoeffding inequality:If $V_H=0$, every centered $Y_i$ is identically zero and the tail probability is zero; the displayed exponential is interpreted by its zero-variance limit.

For the Bennett inequality, write $v=n{\sigma }^2$, and first assume $M>0$ and $v>0$. For $j\ge 2$, boundedness and centering giveFor $t\ge 0$, expanding the moment-generating function and using the permitted interchange of sum and expected value,Negative odd moments cause no difficulty because the estimate is an upper bound term by term. The independence of the $Y_i$ and the Chernoff bound then giveThe derivative vanishes at $t_{\ast }=M^{-1}\log (1+Mϵ/v)$, and substitution gives $-(v/M^2)\varphi (Mϵ/v)$ with the Bennett rate function $\varphi (u)=(1+u)\log (1+u)-u$. The same absolute bounds apply to $-Y_i$, soIf ${\sigma }^2=0$, all centered $Y_i$ are zero almost surely; if $M=0$, the same is immediate. Handle those cases directly rather than divide by zero. Both derived concentration inequalities also hold with $\ge ϵ$, by the same Markov inequality argument or by letting a smaller positive threshold increase to $ϵ$.

For the binomial distribution, write $X={\sum }_{i=1}^n{Z}_i$ with independent and identically distributed random variables $Z_i$ having the Bernoulli distribution with parameter $p=p_n$. Then $Y_i=Z_i-p$ has range $[-p,1-p]$, width one, and variance $p(1-p)$. For large $n$, $p<1/2$, so $M=1-p$ and $v=np(1-p)$. Set $ϵ=C\sqrt{v}$.

The Hoeffding inequality givesAfter truncation at one, this is asymptotically the trivial probability bound. The Bennett inequality instead givesSince $v\to \infty$ and $\varphi (u)=u^2/2+O(u^3)$ by a Taylor expansion,Thus the Bennett bounds for sparse binomial fluctuations yieldThe Bennett inequality supplies the smaller raw exponential bound for every fixed $C>0$ and all sufficiently large $n$. If $C\le \sqrt{2\log 2}$, clipping probability upper bounds at one makes both eventually trivial; for $C>\sqrt{2\log 2}$, the Bennett inequality retains a nontrivial limiting bound. This distinction avoids claiming a probability improvement after clipping when both raw bounds exceed one.