Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
Adapting Bell and Cover’s classic portfolio result to testing by betting, this work establishes that multiplying the numeraire e-variable by an independent uniform variable $U \sim (0,2)$ guarantees it beats any rival e-variable in a head-to-head matchup with probability at least one half. The authors prove that this competitive optimality is mathematically equivalent to the foundational numeraire inequality $\mathbb{E}_Q[E/E^*] \le 1$, but show that randomization fails to confer a similar competitive advantage to non-numeraire e-variables. Crucially for sequential evaluation, this competitive edge comes at the direct expense of expected log-wealth and detection power, ultimately being dominated in rejection probability by standard threshold randomization like randomized Markov's inequality.
Scaling a numeraire e-variable by an independent uniform multiplier guarantees a head-to-head win against any rival test with at least 50% probability, yet fundamentally degrades sequential power and expected log-growth.
Bell and Cover showed that an investor who multiplies the initial unit of capital by an independent uniform random variable on $(0,2)$, and then uses the log-optimal portfolio, wins a head-to-head wealth comparison with probability at least one half against every independently randomized competitor. We explain very simply how this result transfers to testing by betting: for any composite null $\mathcal P$ and simple alternative $Q$, denoting $E^*$ as the corresponding numeraire e-variable, we show that $UE^*$ exceeds any other e-variable $E$ with probability at least half. Interestingly, we show that this competitive optimality result is actually equivalent to the numeraire inequality $\mathbb E_Q[E/E^*]\leq1$, and in general randomization only helps the numeraire and fails to improve the competitive advantage of an arbitrary e-variable. Under optional stopping with or without knowledge of $U$, we emphasize a key distinction between e-process validity and competitive optimality. We also show that competitive optimality comes at the price of expected log wealth and power: thresholding $UE^*$ at $1/α$ has sharp size at most $α/2$, but the factor of two actually disappears under optional stopping. Even after correcting for this factor of two, the test is dominated in conditional rejection probability by randomizing the testing threshold (randomized Markov's inequality). Thus, Bell-Cover randomization is optimal for a specific competitive objective, at the cost of others.