Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Adaptive Measurement Allocation for Learning Kernelized SVMs Under Noisy Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Under noisy observations of a Gram matrix, this paper claims SVM learning should allocate measurement shots according to classifier sensitivity, not uniformly: shots proportional to |α_i α_j| sqrt(K_ij(1−K_ij)), with an active-set instabili

desk verdict Useful empirical heuristic, but the core derivation is wrong: Eq. 12's envelope-theorem claim does not hold, so the stated optimality of the allocation formula does not follow. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.22275 v2 pith:PIHRWK6U submitted 2026-05-21 cs.LG

Artur Miroszewski This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords kernelmethodssupportvectormachinesmeasurementallocationnoisykernelsquantumestimationNeymanadaptivesamplingearlystopping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that when a kernel matrix must be estimated from noisy Bernoulli measurements—as in quantum machine learning—spreading the measurement budget evenly across entries is the wrong default for SVMs. It claims that the right rule is to allocate shots in proportion to each entry's influence on the classifier margin, which yields a Neyman-type allocation N*_ij ∝ |α_i α_j| sqrt(K_ij(1−K_ij)), augmented by an active-set-instability term. The resulting multi-round adaptive scheme is claimed to recover the true-kernel SVM more accurately than uniform allocation at the same budget, and a dual-coefficient stability criterion lets it stop early using only about 16% of the budget. If correct, this turns shot allocation from a generic estimation problem into a task-aware design problem and offers a practical replacement for uniform sampling in noisy and quantum kernel learning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the score function s_ij = (1−λ)|α_i α_j y_i y_j| + λ P_i P_j C², modulated by the Bernoulli variance estimate sqrt(p_ij(1−p_ij)). Here |α_i α_j| comes from the claimed margin-sensitivity identity ∂||w||²/∂K_ij = α_i α_j y_i y_j, and P_i = Φ(−Δ_i/σ_{f,i}) estimates the probability that point i crosses the margin threshold under decision-function noise. These scores are normalized into a multinomial distribution over independent kernel entries, so each adaptive round concentrates shots on support-vector and near-margin entries. The same optimization also yields the closed-form Neyman allocation N*_ij ∝ sqrt(w_ij), which is the theoretical target the adaptive loop app

What would settle it

Compute the exact derivative of ||w||² with respect to K_12 in a two-point SVM with K_11=K_22=1, K_12=k, opposite labels, and no box constraint. The paper's sensitivity formula gives −1/(1−k)², while direct differentiation of the exact margin ||w||²=2/(1−k) gives +2/(1−k)²; this single toy calculation settles whether the sensitivity identity at the core of the allocation rule is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that measurement allocation for kernelized SVMs should follow the classifier's geometry, not equalize entry-wise variance. Minimizing a first-order proxy for Var(||w||²) under a total-shot constraint gives an oracle allocation N*_ij ∝ |α_i α_j| sqrt(K_ij(1−K_ij))—a Neyman allocation in which shots go to pairs with large dual products and uncertain kernel values. Because the true α and K are unknown, the paper wraps this formula in an adaptive procedure: a uniform pilot, repeated rounds that combine margin sensitivity with active-set instability P_i P_j, and early stopping when the dual vector stops changing. The claimed result is that this procedure yields an SVM

Load-bearing premise

The whole allocation rule stands on the claim that a small perturbation of a kernel entry leaves the SVM's optimal weights on training points unchanged, so an entry's influence on the margin is just the product of those weights.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a fixed total shot budget, adaptive allocation improves decision-function and margin estimation relative to uniform sampling on synthetic and quantum-kernel tasks, and reconstructs the support-vector block of the kernel much more accurately even though global kernel RMSE degrades.
  • The dual-coefficient stability criterion δ_r < ε is an observable stopping rule: at the critical threshold ε*≈0.5 it terminates in a median of six rounds using about 16% of the shot budget while still beating uniform allocation.
  • The gain from adaptivity is controlled by weight heterogeneity: in low-structure problems (small Gini of α) uniform allocation can tie or win, while in high-structure problems the adaptive rule gives large reductions in decision error.
  • On quantum kernels from real data, adaptive allocation yields significant gains at intermediate qubit numbers and budgets, and extends feasible learning before kernel concentration degrades both methods.
  • Under a quantum/classical cost model with typical small τ, the adaptive scheme is cost-efficient: the break-even τ* grows with n and favors adaptivity once measurements dominate classical retraining costs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the decision-function objective leads to the same Neyman structure (weights sqrt(α_i²+α_j²) instead of |α_i α_j|), the allocation principle is likely to transfer to other kernel-based losses whose relevant entries are concentrated on large dual coefficients.
  • The active-set instability term is introduced heuristically; a sharper probabilistic model of threshold crossings could yield a formal prior over support-vector membership and improve the early rounds.
  • The early-stopping criterion could also serve as an online change detector: in non-stationary environments, a rise in dual instability would signal when the kernel estimate needs fresh measurement.
  • The paper's regime analysis suggests that a practical system should estimate the Gini or heterogeneity of α before choosing adaptive versus uniform allocation; this is a testable decision rule the authors do not explicitly propose.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies learning kernelized SVMs when the Gram matrix is observed through noisy Bernoulli measurements, as in quantum kernel estimation. It proposes to allocate a fixed shot budget non-uniformly across kernel entries, using an oracle Neyman-type allocation derived from a margin-variance proxy, and then an adaptive algorithm that combines estimated geometric sensitivity with active-set instability, plus an early-stopping rule based on dual-coefficient stability. The empirical section compares the adaptive scheme with uniform allocation on synthetic and quantum-kernel datasets and reports improved support-vector recovery, margin accuracy, and decision-function RMSE, with substantial measurement savings from early stopping.

Significance. The problem is timely and practically relevant: shot allocation in quantum kernel methods is usually uniform, and a principled task-aware allocation could yield real resource savings. The paper contains a broad experimental study, an honest treatment of regimes where uniform allocation wins, and a simple early-stopping criterion that appears useful. However, the theoretical core is currently not reliable. The margin-sensitivity formula (Eq. 12) misapplies the envelope theorem, so the oracle allocation Eq. (23), Proposition 1, and the claim that Eq. (19) is the margin variance are not established. As a result, the paper presently supports a promising heuristic rather than the formal optimality claims it states. The empirical findings may survive a corrected theory, but the formal claims must be repaired or substantially reframed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II-C, Eq. (12)] The envelope theorem is applied to the wrong quantity. Appendix B correctly shows that for the dual value V(K)=max_α g(α,K), one has ∂V/∂K_ij = -α_iα_j y_i y_j. But Eq. (12) claims ∂||w||²/∂K_ij = α_iα_j y_i y_j. Since ||w||² = 2(Σ_i α_i - V), the correct expression contains 2Σ_l ∂α_l/∂K_ij plus the direct term; the dual variables are not locally constant when the active set is fixed. In the minimal two-point model with K_11=K_22=1, K_12=k, y=(+1,-1), the exact solution gives ||w||²=2/(1-k), so d||w||²/dk = 2/(1-k)², whereas Eq. (12) gives -1/(1-k)². The sign and magnitude are wrong, and the discrepancy is entry-dependent in larger examples with bound support vectors, so it is not absorbed by the squared weight in Eq. (23). Consequently Eq. (19) is not the stated margin variance, Eq. (23) does not solve (18), and Prop. 1 does not establish the claimed oracle comparison. The sparsity conc
  2. [Secs. III-B and IV-A, Eq. (23) vs Algorithm 1] The oracle allocation Eq. (23) is defined in terms of the true dual solution α and true kernel K. Algorithm 1 replaces these by estimates from the noisy kernel bK and the current model. The paper acknowledges this in the discussion after Prop. 1 but provides no convergence result, consistency argument, or finite-sample bound showing that the adaptive score approaches Eq. (23), or that the misallocation error is controlled. The central claim that the adaptive scheme approximates the oracle-optimal Neyman allocation is therefore an assertion rather than a theorem. Moreover, the experiments compare Algorithm 1's heuristic score (Eq. 28) against uniform allocation, not against the oracle allocation Eq. (23); they do not directly validate the margin-variance optimality claimed in Sec. III-B.
  3. [Sec. III-C, Prop. 1 and Prop. 2] The two propositions are formally correct for the proxy objective V = Σ_i<j w_ij/N_ij if the weights w_ij are the ones in Eq. (24). But because Eq. (12) is incorrect, the weights do not correspond to the true squared sensitivity of ||w||². The inequality V* ≤ V_unif is therefore a statement about an auxiliary objective, not about the geometric margin of the SVM. The practical interpretation in Sec. III-C and Fig. 2 — that heterogeneity in the true kernel importance governs the advantage of adaptive allocation — may be qualitatively right, but it is not supported by the derivation as written.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 11 vs Eq. (28)] The pseudocode defines s_ij ← (1−λ)|α_iα_j y_i y_j| + λ P_i P_j, while Eq. (28) in the text has an additional C² factor in the active-set instability term. The two are inconsistent; if the C² scaling is intentional, it should appear in the pseudocode.
  2. [Sec. II-B, Eq. (4)] The measurement model writes K^(k) = K + ε^(k) with zero mean but does not state that K^(k) must lie in [0,1] for the Bernoulli sampling in Eq. (7) to be well-defined. Either the noise should be interpreted as clipped to [0,1], or a bounded-noise assumption should be stated.
  3. [Sec. V-C and Fig. 6] The text states that the decision-function RMSE decreases monotonically, but Fig. 6 shows only medians with an interquartile ribbon; no per-run monotonicity is demonstrated. Please soften the wording or add a supporting statement.
  4. [Sec. III-D] The comparison between margin-based and decision-function allocations uses the inequality |α_iα_j| ≤ (α_i²+α_j²)/2 ≤ α_i²+α_j². This shows the two weights have the same support-vector concentration, but it does not establish that the resulting allocations are 'equivalent up to constant factors', as stated; the sqrt-based allocation differs by more than a constant factor.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the oracle allocation is explicitly acknowledged as idealized and the adaptive algorithm is empirically benchmarked against the true-kernel SVM and uniform baseline.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense prohibited here. The oracle allocation, Eq. 23 with weights Eq. 24, depends on the true dual solution α and true kernel K; the paper explicitly labels this an "idealized optimum, assuming oracle access to the true kernel and the associated optimal dual solution" (Sec. III-B) and then replaces it with estimates in Algorithm 1. The claimed empirical result—that the adaptive loop matches the true-kernel SVM better than uniform allocation at fixed budget—is not forced by construction, because the algorithm never sees the true α or K and the comparison is an external benchmark (Jaccard, margin error, decision-function RMSE against the SVM trained on the true kernel). Proposition 1 is a Cauchy–Schwarz inequality for arbitrary fixed weights, not a self-referential prediction, and Proposition 2 explicitly accounts for weight-estimation error. The self-citations [6] and [18] are contextual (shot-count motivation and dataset provenance), not load-bearing. The envelope-theorem issue raised against Eq. 12 concerns mathematical correctness rather than circularity: a misapplied theorem, if real, invalidates a proof step but does not make the prediction equivalent to its input by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central allocation rule depends on several hand-set hyperparameters (λ, ε, m_0, R, C) and on a questionable envelope-theorem assumption that is load-bearing for the theoretical derivation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • score weight λ = 0.5
    Balances margin sensitivity versus active-set instability in Eq. 28; chosen by hand with no reported sensitivity analysis.
  • stopping threshold ε = 10^-2–10^-1; critical ε*≈0.5 used for headline early-stopping result
    Controls early stopping; the 16% budget figure is obtained at a post hoc chosen threshold where the sign of ΔRMSE changes.
  • pilot shots m_0 = not reported numerically
    Initial uniform budget per kernel entry; must be large enough for a useful pilot SVM but no value is stated.
  • SVM regularization C = defaults from standard libraries
    Fixed during optimization; affects α magnitudes and the C² scaling in the active-set instability term.
  • number of adaptive rounds R = up to R; median 6 at ε*≈0.54
    Maximum refinement iterations; a hyperparameter controlling the trade-off between measurement cost and retraining overhead.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The optimal dual coefficients α can be treated as locally constant when the active set is unchanged, so the envelope theorem gives ∂||w||²/∂K_ij = α_iα_j y_i y_j.
    Invoked in Sec. II-C; not justified and generally false because α varies with K, so the derivative of ||w||² includes dα terms.
  • domain assumption Decision values at training points are locally Gaussian, giving P_i = Φ(−Δ̂_i/σ_{f,i}).
    Used in Sec. II-D to define active-set instability; a heuristic approximation without supporting normality diagnostics.
  • domain assumption Effective kernel noise is zero-mean with stationary second-order statistics and covariance σ²_phys; Bernoulli observations are conditionally independent given the effective kernel.
    Sec. II-B and App. A; this gives the variance decomposition Eq. 10 that underlies the allocation objective.
  • domain assumption The kernel is normalized with K_ii=1, diagonal entries are known exactly, and only upper-triangle entries must be estimated.
    Sec. II-B; standard for quantum kernels but restrictive for general noisy-kernel settings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Measurement Allocation for Learning Kernelized SVMs Under Noisy Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PIHRWK6U

@misc{pith2026260522275,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Measurement Allocation for Learning Kernelized SVMs Under Noisy Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PIHRWK6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.22275}
}
read the original abstract

Kernel methods are typically formulated under the assumption of exact, noise-free access to the Gram matrix. However, in emerging settings each kernel entry must be inferred from noisy observations, and its accuracy depends on how a limited measurement budget is allocated. Despite this, existing approaches overwhelmingly rely on uniform allocation, which equalizes estimator variance but ignores the highly non-uniform dependence of kernelized classifiers on the Gram matrix. In this work, we formulate measurement allocation for noisy kernel estimation as a task-aware optimization problem tailored to kernelized Support Vector Machines (SVMs). We derive a variance-aware allocation framework that combines classifier sensitivity with estimator uncertainty, leading to a Neyman-type allocation rule for measurement-based kernels and a Bernoulli specialization relevant to quantum kernel estimation. Building on this analysis, we develop an adaptive measurement allocation strategy that combines margin sensitivity and active set instability, concentrating measurements on the most classifier-relevant regions of the kernel matrix. Theoretical analysis reveals distinct allocation regimes governed by the heterogeneity of the induced allocation weights, identifying conditions under which adaptive or uniform strategies are preferable. Experiments on synthetic and quantum-kernel datasets demonstrate improved classifier fidelity relative to uniform allocation, while a dual coefficient stability criterion enables substantial measurement savings through early stopping. Together, these results establish adaptive measurement allocation as an effective alternative to uniform sampling for learning with noisy kernels, improving both predictive accuracy and measurement efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22275 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of measurement allocation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Variance of uniform and optimal shot-allocation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. At a high level, the procedure consists of a sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic overview of the adaptive measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Critical values of the relative cost parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summary of metrics comparing uniform and adaptive measurement schemes across the algorithm stages (pilot, round 1,. . . , round R). Row 1: Global kernel reconstruction error RMSE(K) and SV-block error RMSE(KSV), both on a logarithmic scale. Row 2: Support-vector set ag…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Saturation behavior of the adaptive measurement scheme over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Early stopping via dual–stability. The adaptive algorithm halts once the dual–stability change [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relative decision-function error reduction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Adaptive vs uniform measurement allocation on quantum kernels derived from the Indian Pines dataset using block [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Active Quantum Kernel Acquisition for Gaussian Process Regression

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sensitivity-weighted shot allocation for quantum kernels in GP regression yields 10-21% test-RMSE gains over uniform allocation on UCI benchmarks and transfers to real quantum kernels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kernel methods in machine learning,

    T. Hofmann, B. Sch ¨olkopf, and A. J. Smola, “Kernel methods in machine learning,”The Annals of Statistics, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1171 – 1220,

  2. [2]

    Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces,

    V . Havl ´ıˇcek, A. D. C ´orcoles, K. Temme, A. W. Harrow, A. Kandala, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, “Supervised learning with quantum- enhanced feature spaces,”Nature, vol. 567, no. 7747, pp. 209–212, 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces,

    M. Schuld and N. Killoran, “Quantum machine learning in feature hilbert spaces,”Physical review letters, vol. 122, no. 4, p. 040504, 2019

    2019

  4. [4]

    Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,

    J. R. McClean, S. Boixo, V . N. Smelyanskiy, R. Babbush, and H. Neven, “Barren plateaus in quantum neural network training landscapes,”Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 4812, Nov. 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Exponential concentration in quantum kernel methods,

    S. Thanasilp, S. Wang, M. Cerezo, and Z. Holmes, “Exponential concentration in quantum kernel methods,”Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 5200, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    In search of quantum advantage: Estimating the number of shots in quantum kernel methods,

    A. Miroszewski, M. F. Asiani, J. Mielczarek, B. L. Saux, and J. Nalepa, “In search of quantum advantage: Estimating the number of shots in quantum kernel methods,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15776

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    The complexity of quantum support vector machines,

    G. Gentinetta, A. Thomsen, D. Sutter, and S. Woerner, “The complexity of quantum support vector machines,”Quantum, vol. 8, p. 1225, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Quantum-efficient kernel target alignment,

    R. Coelho, G. Kruse, and A. Rosskopf, “Quantum-efficient kernel target alignment,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08225, 2025

    arXiv 2025

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Kernel matrix completion for offline quantum-enhanced machine learn- ing,

    A. Naveh, I. Fitzgerald, A. Phan, A. Lockwood, and T. L. Scholten, “Kernel matrix completion for offline quantum-enhanced machine learn- ing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08449, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Shot-frugal and robust quantum kernel classifiers,

    A. Shastry, A. Jayakumar, A. Patel, and C. Bhattacharyya, “Shot-frugal and robust quantum kernel classifiers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06971, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aqka: Active quantum kernel acquisition under a shot budget,

    J. Xu, C. Li, D. Zeng, J. Paisley, and Q. Zhao, “Aqka: Active quantum kernel acquisition under a shot budget,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.14672, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Optimal algorithmic complexity of inference in quantum kernel methods,

    E. Gil-Fuster, S. Shin, S. Jerbi, J. Eisert, and M. J. Kramer, “Optimal algorithmic complexity of inference in quantum kernel methods,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.15214, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,

    J. Preskill, “Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond,”Quan- tum, vol. 2, p. 79, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Comparative analysis of contem- porary quantum computer processors: Architectures, performance and perspectives,

    M. Vuk ˇsi´c, J. ´Celi´c, and A. Cuculi ´c, “Comparative analysis of contem- porary quantum computer processors: Architectures, performance and perspectives,”IEEE access, 2026. 17

    2026

  7. [15]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit,

    A. Javadi-Abhari, M. Treinish, K. Krsulich, C. J. Wood, J. Lishman, J. Gacon, S. Martiel, P. D. Nation, L. S. Bishop, A. W. Crosset al., “Quantum computing with Qiskit,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08810, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical com- putations,

    V . Bergholm, J. Izaac, M. Schuld, C. Gogolin, S. Ahmed, V . Ajith, M. S. Alam, G. Alonso-Linaje, B. AkashNarayanan, A. Asadiet al., “Pennylane: Automatic differentiation of hybrid quantum-classical com- putations,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04968, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Libsvm: A library for support vector machines,

    C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin, “Libsvm: A library for support vector machines,”ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology (TIST), vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1–27, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Large-Scale Quantum Kernels for Hyperspectral Data Classification,

    A. Delilbasic, A. Miroszewski, A. Wijata, J. Nalepa, J. Mielczarek, M. Riedel, and G. Cavallaro, “Large-Scale Quantum Kernels for Hyperspectral Data Classification,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17587

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Provable and scalable quantum gaussian processes for quantum learning,

    J. J ¨ager, P. Braccia, P. Bermejo, M. G. Algaba, D. Garc ´ıa-Mart´ın, and M. Cerezo, “Provable and scalable quantum gaussian processes for quantum learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.00099, 2026. APPENDIXA VARIANCE OFKERNELESTIMATES UNDERHARDWARE ANDSAMPLINGNOISE In this appe...

    2026 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Variance of Individual Measurements:We apply the law of total variance: Var(X(t)) =E[Var(X (t) | ˜K (t))] + Var(E[X(t) | ˜K (t)]). (44) Since Var(X(t) | ˜K (t)) = ˜K (t)(1− ˜K (t)),(45) E[X (t) | ˜K (t)] = ˜K (t),(46) we obtain Var(X(t)) =E ˜K (t)(1− ˜K (t)) + Var( ˜K (t)).(47...

  13. [22]

    Covariance Between Measurements:We compute the covariance using the law of total covariance: Cov(X(t), X(s)) =E[Cov(X (t), X(s) | ˜K)] + Cov(E[X(t) | ˜K],E[X (s) | ˜K]). (50) Given ˜K (t) and ˜K (s), the measurements are conditionally independent, hence Cov(X(t), X(s) | ˜K) = ...

  14. [23]

    Discussion The variance of the kernel estimator decomposes into two contributions: •Asampling (shot) noiseterm, K(1−K) N , which decreases with the number of measurements

    Final Expression:We now combine the results: Var( bK) = 1 N 2 N K(1−K) +N(N−1)σ 2 phys (54) = K(1−K) N + 1− 1 N σ2 phys.(55) 18 D. Discussion The variance of the kernel estimator decomposes into two contributions: •Asampling (shot) noiseterm, K(1−K) N , which decreases with th...

  15. [2008]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1214/009053607000000677

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1214/009053607000000677

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.