The numeraire e-variable and reverse information projection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We consider testing a composite null hypothesis P against a point alternative mathsfQ using e-variables, which are nonnegative random variables X such that mathbbE_mathsfP[X] ≤ 1 for every mathsfP ∈ P. This paper establishes a fundamental result: under no conditions whatsoever on P or mathsfQ, there exists a special e-variable X^* that we call the numeraire, which is strictly positive and satisfies mathbbE_mathsfQ[X/X^*] ≤ 1 for every other e-variable X. In particular, X^* is log-optimal in the sense that mathbbE_mathsfQ[log(X/X^*)] ≤ 0. Moreover, X^* identifies a particular sub-probability measure mathsfP^* via the density d mathsfP^*/d mathsfQ = 1/X^*. As a result, X^* can be seen as a generalized likelihood ratio of mathsfQ against P. We show that mathsfP^* coincides with the reverse information projection (RIPr) when additional assumptions are made that are required for the latter to exist. Thus mathsfP^* is a natural definition of the RIPr in the absence of any assumptions on P or mathsfQ. In addition to the abstract theory, we provide several tools for finding the numeraire and RIPr in concrete cases. We discuss several nonparametric examples where we can indeed identify the numeraire and RIPr, despite not having a reference measure. Our results have interpretations outside of testing in that they yield the optimal Kelly bet against P if we believe reality follows mathsfQ. We end with a more general optimality theory that goes beyond the ubiquitous logarithmic utility. We focus on certain power utilities, leading to reverse R'enyi projections in place of the RIPr, which also always exist.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 29 Feb 2024.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 7.
12 papers.
- 2024Active, anytime-valid risk controlling prediction setscited by 14
- 2025Backward Conformal Predictioncited by 14
- 2025On Stopping Times of Power-one Sequential Tests: Tight Lower and Upper Boundscited by 7
- 2025Post-detection inference for sequential changepoint localizationcited by 5
- 2026Efficient Sequential Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025Fuzzy Prediction Sets: Conformal Prediction with E-valuescited by 3
- 2026Power one sequential tests exist for weakly compact mathscr P against mathscr Pccited by 2
- 2026Multi-Armed Sequential Hypothesis Testing by Bettingcited by 1
- 2026The Type-II Error of Test Supermartingales: e-Power versus the Chernoff-Stein Exponentcited by 1
- 2026Optimal sequential tests yield log-optimal e-processescited by 0
- 2026Always-On Experimentationcited by 0
- 2026textGrain watermarking is harder to detect: can sum-tests still do it optimally?cited by 0
- 2026textGrain watermarking is harder to detect: can sum-tests still do it optimally?13 Oct 2026
- 2026Always-On Experimentation30 Sep 2026
- 2026The Type-II Error of Test Supermartingales: e-Power versus the Chernoff-Stein Exponent19 Aug 2026
- 2026Efficient Sequential Evaluation of Large Language Models19 Jul 2026
- 2026Optimal sequential tests yield log-optimal e-processes12 May 2026
- 2026Power one sequential tests exist for weakly compact mathscr P against mathscr Pc3 Apr 2026
- 2026Multi-Armed Sequential Hypothesis Testing by Betting18 Mar 2026
- 2025Fuzzy Prediction Sets: Conformal Prediction with E-values16 Sep 2025
- 2025Backward Conformal Prediction19 May 2025
- 2025On Stopping Times of Power-one Sequential Tests: Tight Lower and Upper Bounds28 Apr 2025
- 2025Post-detection inference for sequential changepoint localization10 Feb 2025
- 2024Active, anytime-valid risk controlling prediction sets15 Jun 2024