Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2012 iii Paper 39 3 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
Use the usual probability-kernel convention: , , and , in addition to symmetry and compact support. These conditions are needed for the stated finite bound; symmetry and compact support by themselves do not impose normalization or nonnegativity. Interpret the differentiability assumption in the usual Sobolev space sense , or assume classical regularity sufficient for the integral Taylor remainder. The kernel density estimator isThe bias-variance decomposition of mean squared error, followed by Tonelli theorem, yieldsIndependence and a change of variables give the exact integrated variance of a kernel density estimatorAll changes of integration order are justified either by nonnegativity or by the displayed finite integrals.
For the bias of a kernel density estimator, symmetry gives . Taylor's integral remainder, with translations understood in , givesThe Minkowski inequality and translation invariance of the L2 norm implywhere . Consequently we obtain the slightly stronger conclusionSince , this proves the requested bound. For signed kernels, the same argument has in place of ; the printed bound is not generally justified merely by signed-kernel symmetry. For example, let and . This symmetric compactly supported signed kernel has integral one and , but its fourth moment is nonzero. For a normal density its convolution has nonzero bias at any fixed positive bandwidth. Sending would therefore contradict a bound containing only the integrated variance term.
Writing the requested bound as , differentiation gives when . Thus gives mean integrated squared error of order . With the sharper constant one instead has ; the rate is identical.
A direct heuristic for is to choose a twice differentiable pilot kernel , estimate by the second derivative kernel density estimatorand integrate its square. Its integrated variance contains a diagonal term , which should not be mistaken for the target. A useful corrected U-statistic removes that diagonal:Its expectation is . Thus smoothing bias of an estimator, rather than the diagonal contribution, remains. For a smooth compactly supported probability pilot kernel, the same variance calculation givesThe second term tends to zero because convolution with a shrinking probability kernel approximates every function. Thus and make the raw squared pilot estimate consistent for the quadratic density derivative functional. If , thenso the diagonal-corrected U-statistic is consistent under the same choice. Consistency already uses the assumed ; the additional third-derivative hypothesis is relevant to more ambitious rate heuristics.
Three bounded continuous derivatives do not justify a general root- estimation rate for . For a smooth perturbation with compact support, the directional derivative iswhere the last expression requires a fourth derivative in the appropriate weak sense. A regular root- argument would need an influence function proportional to , with finite variance under . Three derivatives do not supply that condition.
For a more quantitative heuristic, impose the additional assumption , use a smooth Fourier cutoff of width , and estimate the quadratic functional by its off-diagonal U-statistic. The tail bias of an estimator is because the Plancherel theorem weights this functional by frequency to the fourth power. The degenerate part of its standard deviation is : the squared norm of the quadratic kernel scales as . At , these two terms balance at and have size , already slower than ; any additional first-order variance cannot improve that balance. To make both terms requires and , which are compatible only when . This is an illustrative smoothness calculation under extra Sobolev and moment assumptions, not a rate theorem asserted solely from bounded third derivatives. Particular much smoother probability density functions may of course permit root- estimation.