跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究通用高维两样本检验,分类准确率不构成经济预测或分布效应研究的直接证据。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Ilmun Kim
Aaditya Ramdas
Aarti Singh
Larry Wasserman

以分类准确率作为两样本检验的替代依据

研究问题
训练分类器后检验准确率是否超过随机猜测,作为高维两样本检验时何时一致,其功效与经典检验如何比较?
方法与思路
作者分析置换与高斯近似检验的一致性,再在高维高斯均值差设定中比较线性判别与 Hotelling 型检验。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,真实分类误差持续优于随机猜测时两类检验均一致;特定高维设定下还得到功效比较、效率和下界结果。
阅读关注点
应核对训练与检验样本的使用方式、置换有效性条件,以及固定分类优势和趋零优势下不同理论结论的范围。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;功效与效率比较有特定分布及渐近条件,不能声称任意分类器均接近最优检验。

原文摘要

When data analysts train a classifier and check if its accuracy is significantly different from chance, they are implicitly performing a two-sample test. We investigate the statistical properties of this flexible approach in the high-dimensional setting. We prove two results that hold for all classifiers in any dimensions: if its true error remains $\epsilon $-better than chance for some $\epsilon >0$ as $d,n\to \infty $, then (a) the permutation-based test is consistent (has power approaching to one), (b) a computationally efficient test based on a Gaussian approximation of the null distribution is also consistent. To get a finer understanding of the rates of consistency, we study a specialized setting of distinguishing Gaussians with mean-difference $\delta $ and common (known or unknown) covariance $\Sigma $, when $d/n\to c\in (0,\infty )$. We study variants of Fisher’s linear discriminant analysis (LDA) such as “naive Bayes” in a nontrivial regime when $\epsilon \to 0$ (the Bayes classifier has true accuracy approaching 1/2), and contrast their power with corresponding variants of Hotelling’s test. Surprisingly, the expressions for their power match exactly in terms of $n$, $d$, $\delta $, $\Sigma $, and the LDA approach is only worse by a constant factor, achieving an asymptotic relative efficiency (ARE) of $1/\sqrt{\pi }$ for balanced samples. We also extend our results to high-dimensional elliptical distributions with finite kurtosis. Other results of independent interest include minimax lower bounds, and the optimality of Hotelling’s test when $d=o(n)$. Simulation results validate our theory, and we present practical takeaway messages along with natural open problems.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文