Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Comparison with Other Approaches (1) This is not the sparsity approach of Bickel and Levina (2008, AoS): 10 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Comparison with Other Approaches (1) This is not the sparsity approach of Bickel and Levina (2008, AoS): they assume that the current orthormal basis is special in the sense that most of the p ( p − 1) / 2 covariances are zero 10 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Comparison with Other Approaches (1) This is not the sparsity approach of Bickel and Levina (2008, AoS): they assume that the current orthormal basis is special in the sense that most of the p ( p − 1) / 2 covariances are zero this condition would not hold true in general after rotation 10 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Comparison with Other Approaches (1) This is not the sparsity approach of Bickel and Levina (2008, AoS): they assume that the current orthormal basis is special in the sense that most of the p ( p − 1) / 2 covariances are zero this condition would not hold true in general after rotation it requires a priori information about the orientation of the eigenvectors of the population covariance matrix, which is unverifiable in practice. 10 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Comparison with Other Approaches (1) This is not the sparsity approach of Bickel and Levina (2008, AoS): they assume that the current orthormal basis is special in the sense that most of the p ( p − 1) / 2 covariances are zero this condition would not hold true in general after rotation it requires a priori information about the orientation of the eigenvectors of the population covariance matrix, which is unverifiable in practice. (2) This is not the linear shrinkage of Ledoit and Wolf (2004, JMVA): 10 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Comparison with Other Approaches (1) This is not the sparsity approach of Bickel and Levina (2008, AoS): they assume that the current orthormal basis is special in the sense that most of the p ( p − 1) / 2 covariances are zero this condition would not hold true in general after rotation it requires a priori information about the orientation of the eigenvectors of the population covariance matrix, which is unverifiable in practice. (2) This is not the linear shrinkage of Ledoit and Wolf (2004, JMVA): they assume the modified eigenvalues are linear functions of the � observed ones: ∀ i = 1 , . . . , p δ n , i = a n + b n λ n , i 10 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Comparison with Other Approaches (1) This is not the sparsity approach of Bickel and Levina (2008, AoS): they assume that the current orthormal basis is special in the sense that most of the p ( p − 1) / 2 covariances are zero this condition would not hold true in general after rotation it requires a priori information about the orientation of the eigenvectors of the population covariance matrix, which is unverifiable in practice. (2) This is not the linear shrinkage of Ledoit and Wolf (2004, JMVA): they assume the modified eigenvalues are linear functions of the � observed ones: ∀ i = 1 , . . . , p δ n , i = a n + b n λ n , i they have only 2 degrees of freedom, whereas our class has p ≫ 2 degrees of freedom 10 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Comparison with Other Approaches (1) This is not the sparsity approach of Bickel and Levina (2008, AoS): they assume that the current orthormal basis is special in the sense that most of the p ( p − 1) / 2 covariances are zero this condition would not hold true in general after rotation it requires a priori information about the orientation of the eigenvectors of the population covariance matrix, which is unverifiable in practice. (2) This is not the linear shrinkage of Ledoit and Wolf (2004, JMVA): they assume the modified eigenvalues are linear functions of the � observed ones: ∀ i = 1 , . . . , p δ n , i = a n + b n λ n , i they have only 2 degrees of freedom, whereas our class has p ≫ 2 degrees of freedom linear shrinkage is a good first-order approximation if optimal nonlinear shrinkage happens to be ‘almost’ linear, but in the general case it can be further improved 10 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Loss Functions 11 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Loss Functions �� � ��� � 2 � . = 1 L FR . p Tr Σ n − Σ n Frobenius: Σ n , Σ n n �� �� n Σ n � Σ − 1 Σ − 1 �� � Tr p 1 n L MV . Minimum Variance: Σ n , Σ n . = − � � � �� �� � 2 n Σ − 1 Σ − 1 Tr / p Tr p n n �� � � � � � �� . = 1 − 1 Σ n � Σ n � L IS Σ − 1 Σ − 1 . Inverse Stein: Σ n , Σ n p Tr p log det n n n �� � � � � � �� . = 1 − 1 n � n � L ST . Σ − 1 Σ − 1 Stein: Σ n , Σ n p Tr Σ n p log det Σ n n �� � ��� � 2 � . = 1 L IF Σ − 1 n − Σ − 1 . Inverse Frobenius: Σ n , Σ n p Tr n n �� � ��� � 2 Σ − 1 � . = 1 L WF . Weighted Frobenius: Σ n , Σ n p Tr Σ n − Σ n n n 11 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Loss Functions �� � ��� � 2 � . = 1 L FR . p Tr Σ n − Σ n Frobenius: Σ n , Σ n n �� �� n Σ n � Σ − 1 Σ − 1 �� � Tr p 1 n L MV . Minimum Variance: Σ n , Σ n . = − � � � �� �� � 2 n Σ − 1 Σ − 1 Tr / p Tr p n n �� � � � � � �� . = 1 − 1 Σ n � Σ n � L IS Σ − 1 Σ − 1 . Inverse Stein: Σ n , Σ n p Tr p log det n n n �� � � � � � �� . = 1 − 1 n � n � L ST . Σ − 1 Σ − 1 Stein: Σ n , Σ n p Tr Σ n p log det Σ n n �� � ��� � 2 � . = 1 L IF Σ − 1 n − Σ − 1 . Inverse Frobenius: Σ n , Σ n p Tr n n �� � ��� � 2 Σ − 1 � . = 1 L WF . Weighted Frobenius: Σ n , Σ n p Tr Σ n − Σ n n n We use the Minimum-Variance Loss championed by Rob Engle, Olivier Ledoit and Michael Wolf (2019) 11 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Finite-Sample Optimal (FSOPT) Estimator 12 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Finite-Sample Optimal (FSOPT) Estimator Find rotation-equivariant estimator closest to Σ n according to MV loss 12 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Finite-Sample Optimal (FSOPT) Estimator Find rotation-equivariant estimator closest to Σ n according to MV loss Optimization problem: � p � δ n , i · u n , i u ′ L MV min n , i , Σ n n � δ n , 1 , . . . , � δ n , p i = 1 12 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Finite-Sample Optimal (FSOPT) Estimator Find rotation-equivariant estimator closest to Σ n according to MV loss Optimization problem: � p � δ n , i · u n , i u ′ L MV min n , i , Σ n n δ n , 1 , . . . , � � δ n , p i = 1 Solution: p � S ∗ d ∗ n , i · u n , i u ′ d ∗ . = u ′ . . . = where n , i Σ n u n , i (1) n n , i n , i i = 1 12 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Finite-Sample Optimal (FSOPT) Estimator Find rotation-equivariant estimator closest to Σ n according to MV loss Optimization problem: � p � δ n , i · u n , i u ′ L MV min n , i , Σ n n δ n , 1 , . . . , � � δ n , p i = 1 Solution: p � S ∗ d ∗ n , i · u n , i u ′ d ∗ . = u ′ . . . = where n , i Σ n u n , i (1) n n , i n , i i = 1 Very intuitive: d ∗ n , i is the true variance of the linear combination of original variables weighted by eigenvector u n , i 12 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Finite-Sample Optimal (FSOPT) Estimator Find rotation-equivariant estimator closest to Σ n according to MV loss Optimization problem: � p � δ n , i · u n , i u ′ L MV min n , i , Σ n n � δ n , 1 , . . . , � δ n , p i = 1 Solution: p � S ∗ d ∗ n , i · u n , i u ′ d ∗ . = u ′ . . . = where n , i Σ n u n , i (1) n n , i n , i i = 1 Very intuitive: d ∗ n , i is the true variance of the linear combination of original variables weighted by eigenvector u n , i By contrast, λ n , i is the sample variance of the linear combination of original variables weighted by eigenvector u n , i : overfitting! 12 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Finite-Sample Optimal (FSOPT) Estimator Find rotation-equivariant estimator closest to Σ n according to MV loss Optimization problem: � p � δ n , i · u n , i u ′ L MV min n , i , Σ n n � δ n , 1 , . . . , � δ n , p i = 1 Solution: p � S ∗ d ∗ n , i · u n , i u ′ d ∗ . = u ′ . . . = where n , i Σ n u n , i (1) n n , i n , i i = 1 Very intuitive: d ∗ n , i is the true variance of the linear combination of original variables weighted by eigenvector u n , i By contrast, λ n , i is the sample variance of the linear combination of original variables weighted by eigenvector u n , i : overfitting! FSOPT is the unattainable ‘Gold Standard’ 12 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts Estimate the eigenvectors from the first part 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts Estimate the eigenvectors from the first part Estimate the d ∗ n , i ’s from the second part 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts Estimate the eigenvectors from the first part Estimate the d ∗ n , i ’s from the second part Average over many di ff erent ways to split the sample 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts Estimate the eigenvectors from the first part Estimate the d ∗ n , i ’s from the second part Average over many di ff erent ways to split the sample Gets around the overfitting problem 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts Estimate the eigenvectors from the first part Estimate the d ∗ n , i ’s from the second part Average over many di ff erent ways to split the sample Gets around the overfitting problem Problems: 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts Estimate the eigenvectors from the first part Estimate the d ∗ n , i ’s from the second part Average over many di ff erent ways to split the sample Gets around the overfitting problem Problems: Requires brute-force spectral decomposition of many matrices 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts Estimate the eigenvectors from the first part Estimate the d ∗ n , i ’s from the second part Average over many di ff erent ways to split the sample Gets around the overfitting problem Problems: Requires brute-force spectral decomposition of many matrices Easy to code but slow to execute 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts Estimate the eigenvectors from the first part Estimate the d ∗ n , i ’s from the second part Average over many di ff erent ways to split the sample Gets around the overfitting problem Problems: Requires brute-force spectral decomposition of many matrices Easy to code but slow to execute Cannot go much beyond dimension p = 1000 computationally 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Numerical Scheme: NERCOME Proposed by Abadir et al. (2014) and Lam (2016, AoS) Split the sample into two parts Estimate the eigenvectors from the first part Estimate the d ∗ n , i ’s from the second part Average over many di ff erent ways to split the sample Gets around the overfitting problem Problems: Requires brute-force spectral decomposition of many matrices Easy to code but slow to execute Cannot go much beyond dimension p = 1000 computationally To get an analytical solution: need Random Matrix Theory 13 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Outline Introduction 1 Finite Samples 2 Random Matrix Theory 3 Kernel Estimation 4 Monte Carlo 5 Application 6 Conclusion 7 14 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Limiting Spectral Distribution 15 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Limiting Spectral Distribution Assumption 3.1 p and n go to infinity with p / n → c ∈ (0 , 1) ‘concentration ratio’ 15 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Limiting Spectral Distribution Assumption 3.1 p and n go to infinity with p / n → c ∈ (0 , 1) ‘concentration ratio’ population eigenvalues are τ n , 1 , . . . , τ n , p 15 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Limiting Spectral Distribution Assumption 3.1 p and n go to infinity with p / n → c ∈ (0 , 1) ‘concentration ratio’ population eigenvalues are τ n , 1 , . . . , τ n , p . = p − 1 � p population spectral c.d.f. is H n ( x ) . i = 1 1 { x ≥ τ i } 15 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Limiting Spectral Distribution Assumption 3.1 p and n go to infinity with p / n → c ∈ (0 , 1) ‘concentration ratio’ population eigenvalues are τ n , 1 , . . . , τ n , p . = p − 1 � p population spectral c.d.f. is H n ( x ) . i = 1 1 { x ≥ τ i } H n converges to some limit H 15 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Limiting Spectral Distribution Assumption 3.1 p and n go to infinity with p / n → c ∈ (0 , 1) ‘concentration ratio’ population eigenvalues are τ n , 1 , . . . , τ n , p . = p − 1 � p population spectral c.d.f. is H n ( x ) . i = 1 1 { x ≥ τ i } H n converges to some limit H Remark 3.1 This is not the spiked model of Johnstone (2001, AoS), which assumes that, apart from a finite number r of ‘spikes’, the p − r population eigenvalues in the ‘bulk’ are equal to one another. By contrast, we can handle the general case with any shape(s) of bulk(s). 15 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Limiting Spectral Distribution Assumption 3.1 p and n go to infinity with p / n → c ∈ (0 , 1) ‘concentration ratio’ population eigenvalues are τ n , 1 , . . . , τ n , p . = p − 1 � p population spectral c.d.f. is H n ( x ) . i = 1 1 { x ≥ τ i } H n converges to some limit H Remark 3.1 This is not the spiked model of Johnstone (2001, AoS), which assumes that, apart from a finite number r of ‘spikes’, the p − r population eigenvalues in the ‘bulk’ are equal to one another. By contrast, we can handle the general case with any shape(s) of bulk(s). Theorem 1 (Marˇ cenko and Pastur (1967)) There exists a unique F . . = F c , H such that the sample spectral c.d.f. . = p − 1 � p F n ( x ) . i = 1 1 { x ≥ λ n , i } converges to F ( x ) . 15 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Σ n = Identity Matrix: Marˇ cenko-Pastur Law 16 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Σ n = Identity Matrix: Marˇ cenko-Pastur Law � � � 2 ( a + − x )( x − a − ) √ f c , H ( x ) . where a ± . ∀ x ∈ [ a − , a + ] . = . = 1 ± c 2 π cx 16 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Σ n = Identity Matrix: Marˇ cenko-Pastur Law � � � 2 ( a + − x )( x − a − ) √ f c , H ( x ) . where a ± . ∀ x ∈ [ a − , a + ] . = . = 1 ± c 2 π cx H(x) = 1 {x 1} 3.5 c = 0.01 3 2.5 Density 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sample Eigenvalues 16 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Σ n = Identity Matrix: Marˇ cenko-Pastur Law � � � 2 ( a + − x )( x − a − ) √ f c , H ( x ) . where a ± . ∀ x ∈ [ a − , a + ] . = . = 1 ± c 2 π cx H(x) = 1 {x 1} 3.5 c = 0.01 c = 0.05 3 2.5 Density 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sample Eigenvalues 16 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Σ n = Identity Matrix: Marˇ cenko-Pastur Law � � � 2 ( a + − x )( x − a − ) √ f c , H ( x ) . where a ± . ∀ x ∈ [ a − , a + ] . = . = 1 ± c 2 π cx H(x) = 1 {x 1} 3.5 c = 0.01 c = 0.05 3 c = 0.1 2.5 Density 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sample Eigenvalues 16 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Σ n = Identity Matrix: Marˇ cenko-Pastur Law � � � 2 ( a + − x )( x − a − ) √ f c , H ( x ) . where a ± . ∀ x ∈ [ a − , a + ] . = . = 1 ± c 2 π cx H(x) = 1 {x 1} 3.5 c = 0.01 c = 0.05 3 c = 0.1 c = 0.15 2.5 Density 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sample Eigenvalues 16 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Σ n = Identity Matrix: Marˇ cenko-Pastur Law � � � 2 ( a + − x )( x − a − ) √ f c , H ( x ) . where a ± . ∀ x ∈ [ a − , a + ] . = . = 1 ± c 2 π cx H(x) = 1 {x 1} 3.5 c = 0.01 c = 0.05 3 c = 0.1 c = 0.15 2.5 c = 0.2 Density 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sample Eigenvalues 16 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Σ n = Identity Matrix: Marˇ cenko-Pastur Law � � � 2 ( a + − x )( x − a − ) √ f c , H ( x ) . where a ± . ∀ x ∈ [ a − , a + ] . = . = 1 ± c 2 π cx H(x) = 1 {x 1} 3.5 c = 0.01 c = 0.05 3 c = 0.1 c = 0.15 2.5 c = 0.2 c = 0.25 Density 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Sample Eigenvalues 16 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion General Case: True Covariance Matrix � Identity 17 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion General Case: True Covariance Matrix � Identity Definition 2 (Stieltjes Transform) � m F ( z ) . ( λ − z ) − 1 dF ( λ ) The Stieltjes transform of F is . = for z ∈ C + : complex numbers with imaginary part > 0. 17 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion General Case: True Covariance Matrix � Identity Definition 2 (Stieltjes Transform) � m F ( z ) . ( λ − z ) − 1 dF ( λ ) The Stieltjes transform of F is . = for z ∈ C + : complex numbers with imaginary part > 0. Theorem 3 (Silverstein and Bai (1995); Silverstein (1995)) m ≡ m F ( z ) is the unique solution in C + to � + ∞ dH ( τ ) m = τ [1 − c − c z m ] − z −∞ 17 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion General Case: True Covariance Matrix � Identity Definition 2 (Stieltjes Transform) � m F ( z ) . ( λ − z ) − 1 dF ( λ ) The Stieltjes transform of F is . = for z ∈ C + : complex numbers with imaginary part > 0. Theorem 3 (Silverstein and Bai (1995); Silverstein (1995)) m ≡ m F ( z ) is the unique solution in C + to � + ∞ dH ( τ ) m = τ [1 − c − c z m ] − z −∞ Theorem 4 (Silverstein and Choi (1995)) m F ( x ) . m F admits a continuous extension to the real line ˘ . = lim z ∈ C + → x m F ( z ) , and the sample spectral density is f ( x ) . . = F ′ ( x ) = π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] . 17 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion General Case: True Covariance Matrix � Identity Definition 2 (Stieltjes Transform) � m F ( z ) . ( λ − z ) − 1 dF ( λ ) The Stieltjes transform of F is . = for z ∈ C + : complex numbers with imaginary part > 0. Theorem 3 (Silverstein and Bai (1995); Silverstein (1995)) m ≡ m F ( z ) is the unique solution in C + to � + ∞ dH ( τ ) m = τ [1 − c − c z m ] − z −∞ Theorem 4 (Silverstein and Choi (1995)) m F ( x ) . m F admits a continuous extension to the real line ˘ . = lim z ∈ C + → x m F ( z ) , and the sample spectral density is f ( x ) . . = F ′ ( x ) = π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] . Integrate f , and this is how you go from ( c , H ) to F = F c , H . 17 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Conjecture on the Inverse Problem when F = F c , H 18 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Conjecture on the Inverse Problem when F = F c , H Conjecture 3.1 For every c ′ ≤ c, there exists a c.d.f. H ′ such that F c ′ , H ′ = F. 18 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Conjecture on the Inverse Problem when F = F c , H Conjecture 3.1 For every c ′ ≤ c, there exists a c.d.f. H ′ such that F c ′ , H ′ = F. Mapping from ( c ', f ) to h' 1.6 c ' = 0 1.4 1.2 1 Density h' Limiting 0.8 Sample Spectral 0.6 Density 0.4 f 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Population Eigenvalues 18 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Conjecture on the Inverse Problem when F = F c , H Conjecture 3.1 For every c ′ ≤ c, there exists a c.d.f. H ′ such that F c ′ , H ′ = F. Mapping from ( c ', f ) to h' 1.6 c ' = 0 1.4 c ' = 0.05 1.2 1 Density h' Limiting Limiting 0.8 Sample Sample Spectral Spectral 0.6 Density Density 0.4 f f 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Population Eigenvalues 18 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Conjecture on the Inverse Problem when F = F c , H Conjecture 3.1 For every c ′ ≤ c, there exists a c.d.f. H ′ such that F c ′ , H ′ = F. Mapping from ( c ', f ) to h' 1.6 c ' = 0 1.4 c ' = 0.05 c ' = 0.1 1.2 1 Density h' Limiting Limiting Limiting 0.8 Sample Sample Sample Spectral Spectral Spectral 0.6 Density Density Density 0.4 f f f 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Population Eigenvalues 18 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Conjecture on the Inverse Problem when F = F c , H Conjecture 3.1 For every c ′ ≤ c, there exists a c.d.f. H ′ such that F c ′ , H ′ = F. Mapping from ( c ', f ) to h' 1.6 c ' = 0 1.4 c ' = 0.05 c ' = 0.1 c ' = 0.125 1.2 1 Density h' Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting 0.8 Sample Sample Sample Sample Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral 0.6 Density Density Density Density 0.4 f f f f 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Population Eigenvalues 18 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Conjecture on the Inverse Problem when F = F c , H Conjecture 3.1 For every c ′ ≤ c, there exists a c.d.f. H ′ such that F c ′ , H ′ = F. Mapping from ( c ', f ) to h' 1.6 c ' = 0 1.4 c ' = 0.05 c ' = 0.1 c ' = 0.125 1.2 c ' = 0.15 1 Density h' Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting 0.8 Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral 0.6 Density Density Density Density Density 0.4 f f f f f 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Population Eigenvalues 18 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Conjecture on the Inverse Problem when F = F c , H Conjecture 3.1 For every c ′ ≤ c, there exists a c.d.f. H ′ such that F c ′ , H ′ = F. Mapping from ( c ', f ) to h' 1.6 c ' = 0 1.4 c ' = 0.05 c ' = 0.1 c ' = 0.125 1.2 c ' = 0.15 c ' = 0.16 1 Density h' Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting 0.8 Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral 0.6 Density Density Density Density Density Density 0.4 f f f f f f 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Population Eigenvalues 18 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion A Conjecture on the Inverse Problem when F = F c , H Conjecture 3.1 For every c ′ ≤ c, there exists a c.d.f. H ′ such that F c ′ , H ′ = F. Mapping from ( c ', f ) to h' 1.6 c ' = 0 1.4 c ' = 0.05 c ' = 0.1 c ' = 0.125 1.2 c ' = 0.15 c ' = 0.16 1 Density h' c ' = 0.17 Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting Limiting 0.8 Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral Spectral 0.6 Density Density Density Density Density Density Density 0.4 f f f f f f f 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Population Eigenvalues 18 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion The Real Part of the Stieltjes Transform 19 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion The Real Part of the Stieltjes Transform π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] = f ( x ): the limiting sample spectral density 19 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion The Real Part of the Stieltjes Transform π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] = f ( x ): the limiting sample spectral density π − 1 Re [ ˘ m F ( x )] = H f ( x ): its Hilbert transform 19 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion The Real Part of the Stieltjes Transform π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] = f ( x ): the limiting sample spectral density π − 1 Re [ ˘ m F ( x )] = H f ( x ): its Hilbert transform Krantz (2009) The Hilbert transform is, without question, the most important operator in analysis. It arises in many di ff erent contexts, and all these contexts are intertwined in profound and influential ways. 19 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion The Real Part of the Stieltjes Transform π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] = f ( x ): the limiting sample spectral density π − 1 Re [ ˘ m F ( x )] = H f ( x ): its Hilbert transform Krantz (2009) The Hilbert transform is, without question, the most important operator in analysis. It arises in many di ff erent contexts, and all these contexts are intertwined in profound and influential ways. � Hilbert transform of some p.d.f. g : H g ( x ) . . = π − 1 PV ( t − x ) − 1 g ( t ) dt 19 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion The Real Part of the Stieltjes Transform π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] = f ( x ): the limiting sample spectral density π − 1 Re [ ˘ m F ( x )] = H f ( x ): its Hilbert transform Krantz (2009) The Hilbert transform is, without question, the most important operator in analysis. It arises in many di ff erent contexts, and all these contexts are intertwined in profound and influential ways. � Hilbert transform of some p.d.f. g : H g ( x ) . . = π − 1 PV ( t − x ) − 1 g ( t ) dt Cauchy Principal Value: � � � + ∞ � x − ε � −∞ g ( t ) g ( t ) g ( t ) t − xdt . PV . = lim PV t − xdt + PV t − x ε ց 0 −∞ −∞ x − ε 19 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion The Real Part of the Stieltjes Transform π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] = f ( x ): the limiting sample spectral density π − 1 Re [ ˘ m F ( x )] = H f ( x ): its Hilbert transform Krantz (2009) The Hilbert transform is, without question, the most important operator in analysis. It arises in many di ff erent contexts, and all these contexts are intertwined in profound and influential ways. � Hilbert transform of some p.d.f. g : H g ( x ) . . = π − 1 PV ( t − x ) − 1 g ( t ) dt Cauchy Principal Value: � � � + ∞ � x − ε � −∞ g ( t ) g ( t ) g ( t ) t − xdt . PV . = lim PV t − xdt + PV t − x ε ց 0 −∞ −∞ x − ε Highly positive just below the center of mass of the density g 19 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion The Real Part of the Stieltjes Transform π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] = f ( x ): the limiting sample spectral density π − 1 Re [ ˘ m F ( x )] = H f ( x ): its Hilbert transform Krantz (2009) The Hilbert transform is, without question, the most important operator in analysis. It arises in many di ff erent contexts, and all these contexts are intertwined in profound and influential ways. � Hilbert transform of some p.d.f. g : H g ( x ) . . = π − 1 PV ( t − x ) − 1 g ( t ) dt Cauchy Principal Value: � � � + ∞ � x − ε � −∞ g ( t ) g ( t ) g ( t ) t − xdt . PV . = lim PV t − xdt + PV t − x ε ց 0 −∞ −∞ x − ε Highly positive just below the center of mass of the density g Highly negative just above the center of mass of the density g 19 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion The Real Part of the Stieltjes Transform π − 1 Im [ ˘ m F ( x )] = f ( x ): the limiting sample spectral density π − 1 Re [ ˘ m F ( x )] = H f ( x ): its Hilbert transform Krantz (2009) The Hilbert transform is, without question, the most important operator in analysis. It arises in many di ff erent contexts, and all these contexts are intertwined in profound and influential ways. � Hilbert transform of some p.d.f. g : H g ( x ) . . = π − 1 PV ( t − x ) − 1 g ( t ) dt Cauchy Principal Value: � � � + ∞ � x − ε � −∞ g ( t ) g ( t ) g ( t ) t − xdt . PV . = lim PV t − xdt + PV t − x ε ց 0 −∞ −∞ x − ε Highly positive just below the center of mass of the density g Highly negative just above the center of mass of the density g Fades to zero away from center of mass 19 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Four Examples of Hilbert Transforms 20 / 53
Introduction Finite Samples Random Matrix Theory Kernel Estimation Monte Carlo Application Conclusion Four Examples of Hilbert Transforms Gaussian Semicircle 0.5 0.5 0 0 -0.5 -0.5 -4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4 Density Hilbert Transform Epanechnikov Triangular 0.5 0.5 0 0 -0.5 -0.5 -4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4 Works like a local attraction force 20 / 53
Recommend
More recommend
