1. Introduction
In this study, we shall consider nonlinear operator equations of the form
(1) 
where the nonlinear mapping is acting between the real separable Hilbert spaces and . Such nonlinear inverse problems occur in many situations, and examples are given in the seminal monograph [9]
. Of special importance are problems of parameter identification in partial differential equations, and we mention the monograph
[12, Chapt. 1], and the more recent [25].Within the classical setup it is assumed to observe noisy data with , where the number denotes the noise level. In supervised learning, it is assumed that the image space consists of functions, given on some domain and taking values in another Hilbert space . Moreover, function evaluation is continuous, such that for the values are well defined elements in . The goal is to learn the unknown and indirectly observed quantity from examples, given in the form of i.i.d. samples , where the elements are noisy observations of at random points of the form
(2) 
We assume that the random observations of
are drawn independently and identically according to some unknown joint probability distribution
on the sample space . The noise termsare independent centered random variables satisfying
. The cardinality of the samples is called sample size.In the case of random observations, the literature is much more scarce than for the classical setup. Milestone work includes [19]
which considers asymptotic analysis for the generalized Tikhonov regularization for (
3) using the linearization technique. The reference [3] considers a 2step approach, however, it is assumed that the norm in (the space of square integrable functions with respected the probability measure on ) is observable, an unrealistic assumption if the only information on is available through the points . The references [1] and [11] consider respectively a GaussNewton algorithm and the MOR method for certain nonlinear inverse problem, but also in the idealized setting of Hilbertian white or colored noise, which can only cover sampling effects when is known. Loubes et al. [14] consider (3) under a fixed design and concentrate on the problem of model selection. Finally, the recent work [23] analyzes rates of convergence in a model where observations are of the formperturbed by noise, but only in a white noise model and for specific, univariate nonlinear link functions
, linear operator .A widely used approach to stabilizing the estimation problem (2) is Tikhonov regularization or regularized leastsquares algorithm or method of regularization (MOR). The estimate of the true solution of (2) is obtained by minimizing an objective function consisting of an error term measuring the fit to the data plus a smoothness term measuring the complexity of the quantity . For the nonlinear statistical inverse learning problem (2), the regularization scheme over the hypothesis space can be described as
(3) 
Here denotes some initial guess of the true solution, which offers the possibility to incorporate a priori information. The regularization parameter is positive which controls the tradeoff between the error term measuring the fitness of data and the complexity of the solution measured in the norm in .
The objective of this paper is to analyze the theoretical properties of the regularized leastsquares estimator , in particular, the asymptotic performance of the algorithm is evaluated by the bounds and the rates of convergence of the regularized leastsquares estimator in the reproducing kernel ansatz. Precisely, we develop a nonasymptotic analysis of Tikhonov regularization (3) for the nonlinear statistical inverse learning problem based on the tools that have been developed for the modern mathematical study of reproducing kernel methods. The challenges specific to the studied problem are that the considered model is an inverse problem (rather than a pure prediction problem) and nonlinear. The upper rate of convergence for the regularized leastsquares estimator to the true solution is described in probabilistic sense by exponential tail inequalities. For sample size , a positive decreasing function , and for confidence level , we establish bounds of the form
The function describes the rate of convergence as . The upper rate of convergence is complemented by a minimax lower bound for any learning algorithm for considered nonlinear statistical inverse problem. The lower rate result shows that the error rate attained by Tikhonov regularization scheme for suitable parameter choice of the regularization parameter is optimal on a suitable class of probability measures.
Now we review previous results concerning regularization algorithms on different learning schemes which are directly comparable to our results: Rastogi et al. [22] and Blanchard et al. [4]. For convenience, we tried to present the most essential points in a unified way in Table 1.
Smoothness  Scheme  general source condition  Optimal rates  

Rastogi et al. [22]  General regularization for direct learning  
Blanchard et al. [4]  General regularization for linear inverse learning  
Our Results  Tikhonov regularization for nonlinear inverse learning 
In this table, the parameter corresponds to a (Hölder type) smoothness assumption for the unknown true solution, and the parameter
corresponds to the decay rate of the eigenvalues of the covariance operator, both to be introduced below in Assumption
6, and Assumption 7, respectively.The model (2) covers nonparametric regression under random design (which we also call the direct problem, i.e., ), and the linear statistical inverse learning problem. Thus, introducing a general nonlinear operator gives a unified approach to the different learning problems. In the direct learning setting, Rastogi et al. [22] obtained minimax optimal rates of convergence for general regularization under general source condition. Blanchard et al. [4] considered the general regularization for the linear statistical inverse learning problem. They generalized the convergence analysis of the direct learning scheme to the inverse learning setting and achieved the minimax optimal rates of convergence for general regularization under a Hölder source condition. They considered that the image of the operator is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space which is a special case of our general assumption that is contained in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. Here, we consider Tikhonov regularization for the nonlinear statistical inverse learning problem. We obtain minimax optimal rates of convergence under a general source condition. The assumptions on the nonlinear operator (see Assumption 5, and the condition (11), below) allow us to estimate the error bounds for the source condition under some additional constraint, which for Hölder source condition () corresponds to the range .
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the basic setup and notation for supervised learning problems in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space framework. In Sections 3 and 4, we discuss the main results of this paper on consistency and error bounds of the regularized leastsquares solution under certain assumptions on the (unknown) joint probability measure , and on the (nonlinear) mapping . We establish minimax rates of convergence over the regularity classes defined through appropriate source conditions by using the concept of effective dimension. In Section 5, we present a concluding discussion on some further aspects of the results. In the appendix, we establish the concentration inequalities, perturbation results and the proofs of consistency results, upper error bounds and lower error bounds.
2. Setup and basic definitions
In this section, we discuss the mathematical concepts and definitions used in our analysis. We start with a brief description of the reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces since our approximation schemes will be built in such spaces. The vectorvalued reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces are the extension of realvalued reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces, see e.g.
[18].Definition 2.1.
Let be a nonempty set, be a real separable Hilbert space and be a Hilbert space of functions from to . If the linear functional , defined by
is continuous for every and , then is called vectorvalued reproducing kernel Hilbert space.
For the Banach space of bounded linear operators , a function is said to be an operatorvalued positive semidefinite kernel if for each pair , , and for every finite set of points and ,
For every operatorvalued positive semidefinite kernel, , there exists a unique vectorvalued reproducing kernel Hilbert space of functions from to satisfying the following conditions:

For all and , the function , defined by
belongs to ; this allows us to define the linear mapping .

The span of the set is dense in .

For all , and , , in other words (reproducing property).
Moreover, there is a onetoone correspondence between operatorvalued positive semidefinite kernels and vectorvalued reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces [18]. In special case, when is a bounded subset of , the reproducing kernel Hilbert space is said to be realvalued reproducing kernel Hilbert space. In this case, the operatorvalued positive semidefinite kernel becomes the symmetric, positive semidefinite kernel and each reproducing kernel Hilbert space can described as the completion of the span of the set for . Moreover, for every function in the reproducing kernel Hilbert space , the reproducing property can be described as .
First, we assume that the input space be a Polish space and the output space be a real separable Hilbert space. Hence, the joint probability measure on the sample space can be described as , where is the conditional distribution of given and is the marginal distribution on .
We specify the abstract framework for the present study. We consider that random observations follow the model with the centered noise .
Assumption 1 (True solution ).
The conditional expectation w.r.t. of given exists (a.s.), and there exists such that
The element is the true solution which we aim at estimating.
Assumption 2 (Noise condition).
There exist some constants such that for almost all ,
This Assumption is usually referred to as a Bernsteintype assumption.
Concerning the Hilbert space , we assume the following throughout the paper.
Assumption 3 (Vector valued reproducing kernel Hilbert space ).
We assume to be a vectorvalued reproducing kernel Hilbert space of functions corresponding to the kernel such that

For all , is a HilbertSchmidt operator, and
implying in particular that .

The realvalued function , defined by , is measurable .
Note that in case of realvalued functions (), Assumption 3 simplifies to the condition that the kernel is measurable and .
The operator denotes the canonical injection map , that
We denote the corresponding covariance operator.
3. Consistency
We establish consistency in RMS sense and almost surely of Tikhonov regularization in the sense that as . For this we need weak assumptions on the operator.
Assumption 4 (Lispschitz continuity).
We suppose that is weakly closed with nonempty interior and is Lipschitz continuous, onetoone.
The inequality for and the continuity of the operator implies that is also continuous. Since is weakly closed, therefore is weakly sequentially closed^{1}^{1}1i.e., if a sequence converges weakly to some and if the sequence converges weakly to some , then and .. For the continuous and weakly sequentially closed opeator , there exists a global minimizer of the functional in (3). But it is not necessarily unique since is nonlinear (see [25, Section 4.1.1]).
Theorem 3.1.
Remark 3.2.
The previous result can be strengthened as follows.
4. Convergence rates
In order to derive rates of convergence additional assumptions are made on the operator . We need to introduce the corresponding notion of smoothness of the true solution from Assumption 1. We discuss the class of probability measures defined through the appropriate source condition which describe the smoothness of the true solution.
Following the work of Engl et al. [9, Chapt. 10] on ‘classical’ nonlinear inverse problems, we consider the following assumption:
Assumption 5 (Nonlinearity of the operator).
We assume that is convex with nonempty interior, is weakly sequentially closed and onetoone. Furthermore, we assume that

is Fréchet differentiable,

the Fréchet derivative of at is bounded in a sufficiently large ball , i.e., there exists such that
and

there exists such that for all we have,
Remark 4.1.
The condition (iii) also holds true under the stronger assumption that is Lipschitz for the operator norm (see [9, Chapt. 10]), i.e.,
A sufficient condition for weak sequential closedness is that is weakly closed (e.g. closed and convex) and is weakly continuous. Note that under the Fréchet differentiability of (Assumption 5 (ii)), the operator is Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant .
To illustrate the general setting, we consider a family of integral operators on the Sobolev space satisfying the above assumptions, where the kernel is completely explicit.
Example 4.2.
Let be the Sobolev space of differential order (based on ), for the integer , which is defined as the completion of with respect to the norm given by:
The Sobolev space is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with the reproducing kernel , given by (see [24, Sec. 1.3.5])
where is the Euclidean norm in .
It satisfies Assumption 3 with . We consider the nonlinear operator given by:
where is times differentiable. It can be checked that , with
where
(assumed to be finite).
Under the above nonlinearity assumption on the operator we now introduce the corresponding operators which will turn out to be useful in the analysis of regularization schemes.
We recall that denotes the canonical injection map . We define the operator
We denote the corresponding covariance operator. The operators from Section 2, and are positive, selfadjoint and compact operators, even traceclass operators.
Observe that the operator depends on and , thus on the joint probability measure itself. It is bounded and satisfies .
The consistency results as established in Section 3, yield convergence of the minimizers , as tends to infinity, and the parameter is chosen appropriately. However, the rates of convergence may be arbitrarily slow. This phenomenon is known as the no free lunch theorem [8]. Therefore, we need some prior assumptions on the probability measure in order to achieve uniform rates of convergence for learning algorithms.
Assumption 6 (General source condition).
The true solution belongs to the class with
where is a continuous increasing index function defined on the interval with the assumption .
The general source condition , by allowing for the index functions , cover a wide range of source conditions, such as Hölder source condition with , and logarithmictype source condition with . The source sets are precompact sets in , since the operator is compact. Observe that in contrast with the linear case, in the equation from Assumption 6, the true solution appears on both sides, since the operator itself depends on it (through ). This condition is more easily interpreted as a condition on the “initial guess” , so that the initial error should satisfy a source condition with respect to the operator linearized at the true solution. Assumption 6 is usually referred to as a general source condition, see e.g. [17], which is a measure of regularity of the true solution . This is inspired, on the one hand, by the approach considered in previous works on statistical learning using kernels, and, on the other hand, by the “classical” literature on nonlinear inverse problems. The true solution is represented in terms of the marginal probability distribution over the input space , and of the linearized operator at the true solution, respectively. Both aspects enter into Assumption 6.
Following the concept of Bauer et al. [2], and Blanchard et al. [4], we consider the class of probability measures which satisfy both the noise assumption 2 and which allow for the smoothness assumption 6. This class depends on the observation noise distribution (reflected in the parameters , ) and the smoothness properties of the true solution (reflected in the parameters , ). For the convergence analysis, the output space need not be bounded as long as the noise condition for the output variable is fulfilled.
The class may further be constrained, by imposing properties of the covariance operator from above. Thus we consider the set of probability measures which also satisfy the following condition:
Assumption 7 (Eigenvalue decay condition).
The eigenvalues of the covariance operator follow a polynomial decay, i.e., for fixed positive constants and ,
Now under Assumption 5
(ii) using the relation for singular values
for (see Chapter 11 [20]) we obtain,Hence the polynomial decay condition on eigenvalues of the operator implies that the eigenvalues of also follows the polynomial decay.
We achieve optimal minimax rates of convergence using the concept of effective dimension of the operator . For the trace class operator , the effective dimension is defined as
For the infinite dimensional operator , the effective dimension is a continuously decreasing function of from to . For further discussion on the effective dimension, we refer to the literature [13, 15].
Under Assumptions 3, 5 (ii), the effective dimension can trivially be estimated as follows,
(8) 
However, we know from [5, Prop. 3] that, under Assumption 7, we have the improved bound
(9) 
4.1. Upper rates of convergence
In Theorems 4.3–4.4, we present the upper error bounds for the regularized leastsquares solution over the class of probability measures . We establish the error bounds for both the direct learning setting in the sense of the norm reconstruction error and the inverse problem setting in the sense of the norm reconstruction error . Since the explicit expression of is not known, we use the definition (3) of the regularized leastsquares solution to derive the error bounds. We use the linearization techniques for the operator in the neighborhood of the true solution under the (Fréchet) differentiability of . We estimate the error bounds for the regularized leastsquares estimator by measuring the complexity of the true solution and the effect of random sampling. The rates of convergence are governed by the noise condition (Assumption 2), the general source condition (Assumption 6) and the illposedness of the problem, as measured by an assumed power decay (Assumption 7) of the eigenvalues of with exponent . The effect of random sampling and the complexity of are measured through Assumption 2 and Assumption 6 in Proposition A.3 and Proposition C.1, respectively. We briefly discuss two additional assumptions of the theorem. Condition (10) below says that as the regularization parameter decreases, the sample size must increase. This condition will be automatically satisfied under the parameter choice considered later in Theorem 4.5. The additional assumption (11) is a “smallness” condition which imposes a constraint between and the nonlinearity as measured by the parameter in Assumption 5 (iii). In order for the latter norm to be finite for any function satisfying the source condition , it requires that remains bounded near 0, in particular if , that .
The error bound discussed in the following theorem holds nonasymptotically, but this holds with sufficiently small regularization parameter and sufficiently large sample size . For fixed and , we can choose sufficiently large sample size such that
(10) 
Under the source condition for , we have that for . We assume that
(11) 
Theorem 4.3.
Let be i.i.d. samples drawn according to the probability measure where . Suppose Assumptions 1–3, 5–6 and the conditions (10), (11) hold true. Then, for all , for the regularized leastsquares estimator (not necessarily unique) in (3) with the confidence the following upper bound holds:
and
where and depends on the parameters , , .
In the above theorem we discussed the error bounds for the Hölder source condition (Assumption 6) with . In the following theorem, we discuss the error bound for the general source condition with the suitable assumptions on the function .
Theorem 4.4.
Let be i.i.d. samples drawn according to the probability measure where is an index function satisfying the conditions that and are nondecreasing functions. Suppose Assumptions 1–3, 5–6 and the conditions (10), (11) hold true. Then, for all , for the regularized leastsquares estimator (not necessarily unique) in (3) with the confidence the following upper bound holds:
where depends on the parameters , , .
Note that error bounds for in both Theorem 4.3 and Theorem 4.4 are the same upto a constant factor which depends on the parameters , , .
In Theorems 4.3–4.4, the error estimates reveal the interesting fact that the error terms consist of increasing and decreasing functions of which led to propose a choice of regularization parameter by balancing the error terms. We derive the rates of convergence for the regularized leastsquares estimator based on a data independent (a priori) parameter choice of for the classes of probability measures and . The effective dimension plays a crucial role in the error analysis of regularized leastsquares learning algorithm. In Theorem 4.5, we derive the rate of convergence for the regularized leastsquares solution under the general source condition for the parameter choice rule for based on the index function and the sample size . For the class of probability measures , the polynomial decay condition (Assumption 7) on the spectrum of the operator also enters into the picture and the parameter enters in the parameter choice by the estimate (9) of effective dimension. For this class, we derive the minimax optimal rate of convergence in terms of the index function , the sample size and the parameter .
Theorem 4.5.
Under the same assumptions of Theorem 4.4, the convergence of the regularized leastsquares estimator in (3) to the true solution can be described as:

For the class of probability measures with the parameter choice where , we have
where depends on the parameters , , , , , , and

For the class of probability measures under Assumption 7 and the parameter choice where , we have
where depends on the parameters , , , , , , , , and
Notice that the rates given for the class is worse than the one for the (smaller) class , which is easily seen from the fact that for , and hence for .
We obtain the following corollary as a consequence of Theorem 4.5.
Corollary 4.6.
Under the same assumptions of Theorem 4.4 with the Hölder’s source condition , the convergence of the regularized leastsquares estimator in (3) to the true solution can be described as:

For the class of probability measures with the parameter choice , for all , we have with the confidence ,

For the class of probability measures with the parameter choice , for all , we have with the confidence ,
We obtain the following corollary as a consequence of Theorem 4.3.
Corollary 4.7.
Under the same assumptions of Theorem 4.3 with the Hölder’s source condition , the convergence of the regularized leastsquares estimator in (3) to the true solution can be described as:

For the class of probability measures with the parameter choice , for all , we have with the confidence ,
and
where and depends on the parameters , , , , , .

For the class of probability measures with the parameter choice , for all , we have with the confidence ,
and
Comments
There are no comments yet.