Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
In likelihood-free hypothesis testing (LFHT), given samples from two unknown distributions $P,Q$ on $[n]$ with $\mathrm{d_{TV}}(P,Q)\geq\varepsilon$, and from a third distribution $D\in\{P,Q\}$, the goal is to identify whether $D=P$ or $D=Q$. We study asymmetric likelihood-free hypothesis testing, where the sample budgets $s_P$ and $s_Q$ for $P$ and $Q$ may differ, and characterize the feasible triples $(s_P,s_Q,s_D)$ up to logarithmic factors. We establish that unequal reference budgets can give a polynomial saving. For instance, for constant separation, $n$ samples from $P$ and $n^{3/4}$ from $Q$ allow testing with $\widetilde O(n^{1/4})$ samples from $D$, whereas both existing baselines---symmetric LFHT and unequal-sample closeness testing---require $Ω(\sqrt n)$ samples from $D$. We further apply our results to non-adaptive distribution 2-clustering, where the sample allocation among $k$ distributions must be fixed before observing any data. We obtain matching upper and lower bounds for this problem up to logarithmic factors in terms of the domain size, number of distributions, smaller cluster size, and separation, both with one cluster distribution known and with both unknown. Comparing with known bounds for adaptive sample allocation gives a worst-case adaptivity gap of $\widetildeΘ(k^{1/4})$.