REVIEW 1 cited by
Precise Error Rates for Computationally Efficient Testing
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We revisit the fundamental question of simple-versus-simple hypothesis testing with an eye towards computational complexity, as the statistically optimal likelihood ratio test is often computationally intractable in high-dimensional settings. In the classical spiked Wigner model with a general i.i.d. spike prior we show (conditional on a conjecture) that an existing test based on linear spectral statistics achieves the best possible tradeoff curve between type I and type II error rates among all computationally efficient tests, even though there are exponential-time tests that do better. This result is conditional on an appropriate complexity-theoretic conjecture, namely a natural strengthening of the well-established low-degree conjecture. Our result shows that the spectrum is a sufficient statistic for computationally bounded tests (but not for all tests). To our knowledge, our approach gives the first tool for reasoning about the precise asymptotic testing error achievable with efficient computation. The main ingredients required for our hardness result are a sharp bound on the norm of the low-degree likelihood ratio along with (counterintuitively) a positive result on achievability of testing. This strategy appears to be new even in the setting of unbounded computation, in which case it gives an alternate way to analyze the fundamental statistical limits of testing.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Quasi-Polynomial Low-Degree Conjecture is False
The paper constructs counterexamples showing that a vanishing low-degree advantage does not imply noise-tolerant computational hardness.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.