 we require Gaussianity. Nevertheless, the proof works the same for other error densities, but bounding the Kullback-Leibler or Hellinger distance between alternatives might be more cumbersome.

Let us also mention that the proof strategy can also yield a lower bound for convergence in probability: $$\inf_{\hat h_n}\sup_{h\in H^r_R}P_h\Big(\delta_n^{-1}{\lVert \hat
h_n-h \rVert}_X^2{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sigma_0^2}{4\exp(4M)}\Big){\geqslant}c>0,\quad
\text{with}~\delta_n ~\text{given in Theorem \ref{thm-lb}},$$ cf. Korostelev and Tsybakov (1993).

Note that Assumption 2.2 is automatically satisfied under the general source condition with $K^\ast K = {\varphi}(B^{-2})$. Following the proof of Theorem \[thm-lb\], we immediately obtain:

\[source-lb\] Suppose that Assumption \[h-smooth\] is satisfied with $h\in {{\mathscr}H}_{source}$ and $u_k = e_k$, $\nu_k^{-r} = \psi (\lambda_k)$ for all $k{\geqslant}1$. Let ${\varphi}(B^{-2})=K^\ast K$. Then, for NPIR model and for NPIV model (under Assumption \[ass-complexity\]), we have the same minimax risk lower bound: $$\inf_{\hat h_n}\sup_{h\in {{\mathscr}H}_{source}}\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}_h[{\lVert \hat
h_n-h \rVert}_X^2]{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sigma_0^2}{4\exp(4M)} \delta_n,\quad
\text{with}~\delta_n ~\text{given in Theorem \ref{thm-lb}},$$ where the infimum runs over all possible estimators $\hat{h}_n$ based on $n$ observations. An equivalent way to determine the lower bound $\delta_n$ is to choose the largest possible integer $m$ such that $$\delta_n =n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^m \lambda^{-1}_k,\quad
\sigma_0^2n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^m [\psi (\lambda_k)]^{-2}\lambda
we require Gaussianity. Nevertheless, the proof works the like for early erroneousness densities, but restrict the Kullback - Leibler or Hellinger distance between option might be more cumbersome. 

 Let us also note that the proof scheme can also yield a lower bound for convergence in probability: $ $ \inf_{\hat h_n}\sup_{h\in H^r_R}P_h\Big(\delta_n^{-1}{\lVert \hat 
 h_n - h \rVert}_X^2{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sigma_0 ^ 2}{4\exp(4M)}\Big){\geqslant}c>0,\quad 
 \text{with}~\delta_n ~\text{given in Theorem \ref{thm - lb}},$$ cf. Korostelev and Tsybakov (1993). 

 notice that Assumption 2.2 is automatically satisfied under the general reservoir condition with $ K^\ast thousand = { \varphi}(B^{-2})$. Following the proof of Theorem \[thm - lb\ ], we immediately receive: 

 \[source - lb\ ] Suppose that Assumption \[h - smooth\ ] is satisfied with $ h\in { { \mathscr}H}_{source}$ and $ u_k = e_k$, $ \nu_k^{-r } = \psi (\lambda_k)$ for all $ k{\geqslant}1$. lease $ { \varphi}(B^{-2})=K^\ast K$. Then, for NPIR model and for NPIV model (under Assumption \[ass - complexity\ ]), we have the like minimax risk lower adhere: $ $ \inf_{\hat h_n}\sup_{h\in { { \mathscr}H}_{source}}\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}_h[{\lVert \hat 
 h_n - h \rVert}_X^2]{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sigma_0 ^ 2}{4\exp(4 M) } \delta_n,\quad 
 \text{with}~\delta_n ~\text{given in Theorem \ref{thm - lb}},$$ where the infimum runs over all possible estimators $ \hat{h}_n$ free-base on $ n$ observations. An equivalent way to determine the lower bound $ \delta_n$ is to choose the largest possible integer $ m$ such that $ $ \delta_n = n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^m \lambda^{-1}_k,\quad 
 \sigma_0 ^ 2n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^m [ \psi (\lambda_k)]^{-2}\lambda
 we require Gaussianity. Nevtrtheless, the proof workv the aame for other error densities, but blubding the Kullback-Leibler of Hellingvr distanxe bttween alternativxa might be modc cumyecsome.

Let us alsp mention dhat the proof sgrctegy can also yield a lower bound fjr convrrhence in probafiliuy: $$\ynf_{\hzn m_n}\sup_{h\in H^r_R}P_h\Big(\delta_n^{-1}{\lVert \hat
g_n-h \rVegt}_X^2{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sogma_0^2}{4\exp(4M)}\Big){\geqslant}c>0,\quad
\tedt{wihh}~\delta_n ~\text{given in Theorem \ref{eym-lb}},$$ cf. Korortelev and Tsybakov (1993).

Noje that Assumption 2.2 is automaticxlly xatisfied oueer jhe general wourcv condition wlnh $K^\ast K = {\varlhi}(B^{-2})$. Following thx priof of Theorem \[thm-lb\], xe immediately obtaig:

\[source-lb\] Sbppose that Assumptiob \[y-smoojh\] is satkwfidd sivh $g\in {{\mahhsrr}H}_{source}$ ahd $u_k = e_k$, $\ny_k^{-r} = \psi (\lambda_k)$ fot wol $k{\geqslant}1$. Met ${\vawpri}(B^{-2})=K^\ast K$. Then, for NPIR model and for NKIV mkdel (under Assumption \[aws-complexity\]), we have jhe same mynimax risk lower bound: $$\inf_{\hat h_n}\sup_{h\in {{\mathscr}H}_{smurce}}\koercbjfbale{{\mathbb E}}_h[{\lVert \hat
h_n-h \rVert}_X^2]{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sidja_0^2}{4\txp(4K)} \delta_n,\quad
\tewt{with}~\delta_n ~\text{govfn yn Theorem \rew{thm-lb}},$$ whsre the infimum rujs over all possible tstimstors $\hat{h}_n$ based on $n$ obseevations. An vquicalent way to detexmine the locer boond $\dekta_n$ is to choose the lcrgest possible ijteger $m$ ajch that $$\delta_n =v^{-1}\suk_{k=1}^k \lambda^{-1}_k,\quad
\sigma_0^2n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^m [\pfi (\lambda_j)]^{-2}\lamyda
we require Gaussianity. Nevertheless, the proof works for error densities, bounding the Kullback-Leibler might more cumbersome. Let also mention that proof strategy can also yield a bound for convergence in probability: $$\inf_{\hat h_n}\sup_{h\in H^r_R}P_h\Big(\delta_n^{-1}{\lVert \hat h_n-h \rVert}_X^2{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sigma_0^2}{4\exp(4M)}\Big){\geqslant}c>0,\quad \text{with}~\delta_n ~\text{given Theorem \ref{thm-lb}},$$ cf. Korostelev and Tsybakov (1993). Note that Assumption 2.2 is automatically under general condition $K^\ast K = {\varphi}(B^{-2})$. Following the proof of Theorem \[thm-lb\], we immediately obtain: \[source-lb\] Suppose that \[h-smooth\] is satisfied with $h\in {{\mathscr}H}_{source}$ and $u_k e_k$, $\nu_k^{-r} = \psi for all $k{\geqslant}1$. Let ${\varphi}(B^{-2})=K^\ast Then, NPIR model for model Assumption \[ass-complexity\]), we the same minimax risk lower bound: $$\inf_{\hat h_n}\sup_{h\in {{\mathscr}H}_{source}}\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}_h[{\lVert \hat h_n-h \rVert}_X^2]{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sigma_0^2}{4\exp(4M)} \delta_n,\quad \text{with}~\delta_n ~\text{given in \ref{thm-lb}},$$ where runs over possible $\hat{h}_n$ on $n$ observations. way to determine the lower bound choose the largest possible integer $m$ such that =n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^m \lambda^{-1}_k,\quad [\psi (\lambda_k)]^{-2}\lambda
 we require Gaussianity. NeverTheless, the Proof WorKs tHe Same For oTher error densiTIes, bUt bounding the Kullback-LEibleR oR hellINgEr disTance beTWeEN AltErNaTivEs MIgHt be mOre CumbersOme.

Let us alSo mEnTion that the pROoF strategy cAn aLso yield a lowEr bOund foR cOnvERgencE in ProbaBility: $$\INf_{\hat h_N}\sup_{h\in H^r_r}P_H\big(\delTA_n^{-1}{\lVert \HAT
h_N-h \rVErt}_X^2{\geqslant}\tfrac{\SIgMA_0^2}{4\exp(4M)}\Big){\geqslaNt}c>0,\quaD
\tEXt{WITh}~\dEltA_n ~\text{giveN iN TheoREm \ref{thM-Lb}},$$ CF. kOroSTelev and TsybaKov (1993).

Note that aSsuMption 2.2 Is AutOMaticaLly saTiSFieD under the geNeraL source coNditioN With $K^\asT k = {\varphi}(b^{-2})$. FolloWinG thE proOF oF THeoReM \[Thm-LB\], wE imMEdiAtely obtAiN:

\[sOurce-Lb\] SuPPOSE thaT AsSumpTion \[h-Smooth\] is satisFieD witH $H\in {{\MathsCr}H}_{soUrce}$ AnD $u_k = e_k$, $\Nu_k^{-r} = \psI (\lambDa_K)$ for all $k{\geqslanT}1$. Let ${\Varphi}(B^{-2})=K^\aSt K$. thEn, fOr nPIR mODel and For nPIv model (uNder AssUMptIoN \[ASS-cOmplexity\]), we have the SaME MiNimax risK lower BOuNd: $$\INf_{\hat h_n}\sUp_{H\in {{\MathSCR}H}_{souRce}}\oPErAtorname{{\Mathbb e}}_H[{\lveRt \hat
h_n-H \rvert}_X^2]{\gEqSlaNt}\tFrac{\sIGma_0^2}{4\eXp(4M)} \delTa_n,\quad
\tExt{wiTH}~\delta_n ~\text{givEN in Theorem \ref{THm-LB}},$$ WhERe thE inFimum runs ovEr alL PossIble EStImaTOrs $\haT{h}_n$ baSeD On $N$ Observations. An equivAlEnt way To detErmine the loweR bound $\deltA_N$ IS to choosE the LArGEst possible intEger $m$ Such that $$\deLTa_n =n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^M \lambDa^{-1}_k,\quad
\sIgma_0^2n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^M [\PSi (\lambda_K)]^{-2}\laMbdA
 we require Gaussianity. N evertheles s, th e p roo fwork s th e same for oth e r er ror densities, but bou nding  t h e Ku l lb ack-L eiblero rH e lli ng er  di st a nc e bet wee n alter natives mi ght  b e more cumbe r so me.

Let u s a lso mentiontha t thepr oof strat egy  canalso y i eld alower bou nd for co n vergenc e in  pro bability: $$\inf_ { \h a t h_n}\sup_{h\ in H^r _R } P_ h \ Big (\d elta_n^{-1 }{ \lVer t  \hat
h _ n- h \ rVe r t}_X^2{\geqsl ant}\tfrac{ \ sig ma_0^2 }{ 4\e x p(4M)} \Big) {\ g eqs lant}c>0,\q uad\text{wit h}~\de l ta_n ~\ t ext{giv en inThe ore m \r e f{ th m-l b} } ,$$ cf . K o ros telev an dTs ybako v (1 9 9 3 ) .

N ote  tha t Ass umption 2.2 i s a utom a tic allysatis fied  u nderthe ge neral  s ource condition  wit h $K^\ast  K={\v ar phi}( B ^{-2}) $.Fol lowingthe pro o f o fT h e or em \[thm-lb\], weim m e di ately ob tain:\[ so u rce-lb\]  S upp oset h at As sump t io n \[h-sm ooth\] is  s atisfie dwith $ h\ in{{\ maths c r}H} _{sour ce}$ and  $u_k = e_k$, $\nu_k ^ {-r} = \psi ( \ la m b da _ k)$for  all $k{\ge qsla n t}1$ . Le t  $ {\v a rphi} (B^{- 2} ) =K ^ \ast K$. Then, forNP IR mod el an d for NPIV mo del (under A s sumption  \[a s s- c omplexity\]),we ha ve the sam e  minimax  risk  lower b ound: $$\ i n f_{\hath_n }\s up_ {h\ i n  { {\mathscr}H}_ { s ourc e} }\opera tor name{{\ mat hbb  E} }_h [{ \lVert \h at
h_n-h  \ rV er t} _X^ 2]{\g e qslant}\ tf rac {\ sig ma_0^ 2 }{4\ex p(4M) } \d el ta _ n,\ quad
\t e xt { w ith} ~\ de lta_ n ~ \t ext{g iven inTheorem  \ref{thm -lb } },$$  w he re theinfimum runsov er all pos si ble  estim a t ors $\ha t{h}_n$ based on $n$ ob s ervatio ns.  An e quiv alent way  to  deter min e  the l ower b ound$\ del t a _n$ i s to  ch oo se the lar g e stpossi bl e in teger $ m$ such that $$\de l ta_ n =n^{-1}\sum _{k =1}^ m \l amb d a^ { -1} _k , \qu a d 
\sigma_0^2n^{- 1}\sum_{k= 1} ^ m[\psi (\la m bda _k )]^{-2} \lambda 
 we_require Gaussianity._Nevertheless, the proof works_the same_for_other error_densities,_but bounding the_Kullback-Leibler or Hellinger_distance between alternatives might_be more cumbersome.

Let_us_also mention that the proof strategy can also yield a lower bound for convergence_in_probability: $$\inf_{\hat_h_n}\sup_{h\in_H^r_R}P_h\Big(\delta_n^{-1}{\lVert_\hat
h_n-h \rVert}_X^2{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sigma_0^2}{4\exp(4M)}\Big){\geqslant}c>0,\quad
\text{with}~\delta_n ~\text{given in Theorem_\ref{thm-lb}},$$ cf. Korostelev and Tsybakov_(1993).

Note that_Assumption 2.2 is automatically satisfied under the general_source_condition with $K^\ast_K = {\varphi}(B^{-2})$. Following the proof of Theorem \[thm-lb\],_we immediately obtain:

\[source-lb\] Suppose that Assumption_\[h-smooth\] is satisfied_with_$h\in_{{\mathscr}H}_{source}$ and $u_k =_e_k$, $\nu_k^{-r} = \psi (\lambda_k)$ for_all $k{\geqslant}1$. Let ${\varphi}(B^{-2})=K^\ast K$. Then,_for NPIR model and for NPIV model_(under Assumption \[ass-complexity\]), we have the_same minimax risk lower bound:_$$\inf_{\hat h_n}\sup_{h\in_{{\mathscr}H}_{source}}\operatorname{{\mathbb E}}_h[{\lVert \hat
h_n-h \rVert}_X^2]{\geqslant}\tfrac{\sigma_0^2}{4\exp(4M)} \delta_n,\quad
\text{with}~\delta_n_~\text{given in Theorem_\ref{thm-lb}},$$ where_the infimum runs_over all possible estimators $\hat{h}_n$ based_on $n$ observations._An equivalent way to determine the_lower_bound $\delta_n$ is_to_choose_the largest_possible integer $m$_such_that $$\delta_n_=n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^m_\lambda^{-1}_k,\quad
\sigma_0^2n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^m [\psi (\lambda_k)]^{-2}\lambda