-   $\sup_{k\geq 1}\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}}{\sqrt{m}\left(\hat{\sigma}_{2,m}^2+\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}^2\frac{k}{m}\right)}\left|\Psi_3(m,k)\right|\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\rightarrow}\sup_{0<t<1}\sup_{0<s\leq t}\left|W\left(t\right)-\frac{1-t}{1-s}W\left(s\right)\right|$.

For both the DOM- and the Wilcoxon kernel it holds $h_2(y)=-h_1(y)$ and thus $\sigma_1=\sigma_2$.

Consistency under alternatives {#sec.asH1}
------------------------------

In the following we show that the proposed procedures have asymptotic power one (for $m\to\infty$) under alternatives, i.e. the procedure will eventually stop under alternatives.

In the situation of we get with $\theta_m^*:={\operatorname{E}}(h(Y,Z_{i,m})=\Delta_m+\theta$ (see ) for $k>k^*$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(m,k)=&\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k^*}(h(Y_i,Y_j)-\theta)+\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=m+k^*+1}^{m+k}(h(Y_i,Z_{j,m})-\theta_m^*)+(k-k^*)\Delta_m.\end{aligned}$$

The first summand is the same term as under the null hypothesis which has already been analyzed in the previous section. The second summand is a related two-sample $U$-statistic for which the two samples are no longer generated by the same distribution, while the third summand is the signal term.

In order to control the second term, consider the following version of Hoeffding’s decomposition: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hoeffh1}
h(y,z)=\theta_m^*+h^*_{1,m}(y)+h^*_{2,m}(z)+r^*_m(y,z)\end{
-    $ \sup_{k\geq 1}\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}}{\sqrt{m}\left(\hat{\sigma}_{2,m}^2+\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}^2\frac{k}{m}\right)}\left|\Psi_3(m, k)\right|\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\rightarrow}\sup_{0 < t<1}\sup_{0 < s\leq t}\left|W\left(t\right)-\frac{1 - t}{1 - s}W\left(s\right)\right|$. 

 For both the DOM- and the Wilcoxon kernel it holds $ h_2(y)=-h_1(y)$ and thus $ \sigma_1=\sigma_2$. 

 Consistency under alternatives { # sec.asH1 } 
 ------------------------------ 

 In the following we picture that the aim procedures have asymptotic power one (for $ m\to\infty$) under option, i.e.   the procedure will eventually stop under option. 

 In the position of we get with $ \theta_m^*:={\operatorname{E}}(h(Y, Z_{i, m})=\Delta_m+\theta$ (attend) for $ k > k^*$ $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \Gamma(m, k)=&\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j = m+1}^{m+k^*}(h(Y_i, Y_j)-\theta)+\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j = m+k^*+1}^{m+k}(h(Y_i, Z_{j, m})-\theta_m^*)+(k - k^*)\Delta_m.\end{aligned}$$ 

 The first summand is the same terminus as under the null hypothesis which has already been analyzed in the former section. The second summand is a related two - sample $ U$-statistic for which the two samples are no longer generated by the same distribution, while the third summand is the signal term. 

 In order to operate the second term, consider the following interpretation of Hoeffding ’s decomposition: $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \label{hoeffh1 } 
 h(y, z)=\theta_m^*+h^*_{1,m}(y)+h^*_{2,m}(z)+r^*_m(y, z)\end {
-   $\dup_{k\geq 1}\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}}{\sqru{m}\left(\hat{\sigma}_{2,m}^2+\haj{\sugma}_{1,m}^2\fcac{k}{m}\rifht)}\left|\Pri_3(m,k)\right|\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\rigitareow}\suk_{0<n<1}\sup_{0<s\leq t}\left|W\left(t\rkght)-\frac{1-t}{1-d}W\left(s\rught)\cight|$.

For both thx DOM- and the Sllcoxmi kernel it holcs $h_2(y)=-h_1(y)$ ang thus $\sigma_1=\sicmx_2$.

Clnsistency under alternatives {#sec.asR1}
------------------------------

In the flllowing we shjw tnwt tgv kroposed procedures have asymptotjc poweg one (for $m\to\inftu$) under alternatives, i.e. the profedure will eventuwlly stop ubder qlternatives.

Kn the sitlction of we get with $\theta_m^*:={\operatorname{E}}(h(Y,X_{i,m})=\Dekta_m+\theta$ (wew ) vmr $k>k^*$ $$\begin{eligneq}
\Gamma(m,k)=&\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\suk_{j=m+1}^{m+k^*}(h(Y_o,Y_j)-\theta)+\frac{1}{m}\smm_{i=1}^m\snm_{j=m+j^*+1}^{m+k}(h(Y_i,Z_{j,m})-\theta_m^*)+(k-k^*)\Delte_m.\end{aligned}$$

The firsj summand hs the same term as ubder jhe ngll ftpogheaix shich jas already bsen analyzee in the previous stctyin. The second summagd is a related two-sample $U$-statistic for fhidh the two samples are bo longer generated bi the same distribution, while the third summand is the signdl tecm.

Kn irqde ho control the second term, consider the follorjnb nersion of Hoeffdlng’s decomposition: $$\bfgog{aligned}
\label{foeffh1}
k(g,z)=\fheta_m^*+h^*_{1,m}(y)+h^*_{2,m}(z)+r^*_m(y,z)\enf{
- $\sup_{k\geq 1}\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}}{\sqrt{m}\left(\hat{\sigma}_{2,m}^2+\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}^2\frac{k}{m}\right)}\left|\Psi_3(m,k)\right|\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\rightarrow}\sup_{0<t<1}\sup_{0<s\leq t}\left|W\left(t\right)-\frac{1-t}{1-s}W\left(s\right)\right|$. For both the the kernel it $h_2(y)=-h_1(y)$ and thus ------------------------------ the following we that the proposed have asymptotic power one (for $m\to\infty$) alternatives, i.e. the procedure will eventually stop under alternatives. In the situation of get with $\theta_m^*:={\operatorname{E}}(h(Y,Z_{i,m})=\Delta_m+\theta$ (see ) for $k>k^*$ $$\begin{aligned} \Gamma(m,k)=&\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k^*}(h(Y_i,Y_j)-\theta)+\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=m+k^*+1}^{m+k}(h(Y_i,Z_{j,m})-\theta_m^*)+(k-k^*)\Delta_m.\end{aligned}$$ The first summand is same as the hypothesis which has already been analyzed in the previous section. The second summand is a related $U$-statistic for which the two samples are no generated by the same while the third summand is signal In order control second consider the following of Hoeffding’s decomposition: $$\begin{aligned} \label{hoeffh1} h(y,z)=\theta_m^*+h^*_{1,m}(y)+h^*_{2,m}(z)+r^*_m(y,z)\end{
-   $\sup_{k\geq 1}\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}}{\sqrt{m}\Left(\hat{\sigMa}_{2,m}^2+\haT{\siGma}_{1,M}^2\fRac{k}{M}\rigHt)}\left|\Psi_3(m,k)\rigHT|\staCkrel{\mathcal{D}}{\rightarroW}\sup_{0<t<1}\SuP_{0<S\leq T}\LeFt|W\leFt(t\righT)-\FrAC{1-T}{1-s}W\LeFt(S\riGhT)\RiGht|$.

FoR boTh the DOm- and the WilCoxOn Kernel it holdS $H_2(y)=-H_1(y)$ and thus $\sIgmA_1=\sigma_2$.

ConsisTenCy undeR aLteRNativEs {#sEc.asH1}
------------------------------

in the fOLlowinG we show thAt THe propOSed procEDUrEs haVe asymptotic power ONe (FOr $m\to\infty$) undeR alterNaTIvES, I.e. tHe pRocedure wiLl EventUAlly stoP UnDER AltERnatives.

In the Situation of WE geT with $\tHeTa_m^*:={\OPeratoRname{e}}(h(y,z_{i,m})=\delta_m+\theta$ (See ) fOr $k>k^*$ $$\begin{AligneD}
\gamma(m,k)=&\FRac{1}{m}\sum_{I=1}^m\sum_{j=M+1}^{m+k^*}(H(Y_i,y_j)-\thETa)+\FrAc{1}{m}\SuM_{I=1}^m\sUM_{j=M+k^*+1}^{m+K}(H(Y_i,z_{j,m})-\theta_M^*)+(k-K^*)\DElta_m.\End{aLIGNEd}$$

ThE fiRst sUmmanD is the same terM as UndeR The Null hYpothEsis WhIch haS alreaDy beeN aNalyzed in the preViouS section. THe sEcOnd SuMmand IS a relaTed Two-Sample $U$-StatistIC foR wHICH tHe two samples are no lOnGER gEnerated By the sAMe DiSTributioN, wHilE the THIrd suMmanD Is The signaL term.

IN OrDeR to contRoL the seCoNd tErm, ConsiDEr thE folloWing versIon of hOeffding’s decomPOsition: $$\begin{aLIgNED}
\lABel{hOefFh1}
h(y,z)=\theta_m^*+H^*_{1,m}(y)+h^*_{2,M}(Z)+r^*_m(y,Z)\end{
-   $\sup_{k\geq 1}\frac{\ hat{\sigma }_{1, m}} {\s qr t{m} \lef t(\hat{\sigma} _ {2,m }^2+\hat{\sigma}_{1,m} ^2\fr ac { k}{m } \r ight) }\left| \ Ps i _ 3(m ,k )\ rig ht | \s tackr el{ \mathca l{D}}{\rig hta rr ow}\sup_{0<t < 1} \sup_{0<s\ leq  t}\left|W\l eft (t\rig ht )-\ f rac{1 -t} {1-s} W\left ( s\righ t)\right| $. 
For b o th theD O M-  and  the Wilcoxon ker n el it holds $h_2( y)=-h_ 1( y )$ a ndthu s $\sigma_ 1= \sigm a _2$.

C o ns i s t enc y  under altern atives {#se c .as H1}
-- -- --- - ------ ----- -- - --- -----

In t he f ollowingwe sho w  that t h e propo sed pr oce dur es h a ve  a sym pt o tic po wer one  (for $m \t o\ infty $) u n d e r  alt ern ativ es, i .e. the proce dur e wi l l e ventu allystop  u nderaltern ative s. 

In the situat ionof we get  wi th  $\ th eta_m ^ *:={\o per ato rname{E }}(h(Y, Z _{i ,m } ) = \D elta_m+\theta$ (se e) fo r $k>k^* $ $$\b e gi n{ a ligned}\G amm a(m, k ) =&\fr ac{1 } {m }\sum_{i =1}^m\ s um _{ j=m+1}^ {m +k^*}( h( Y_i ,Y_ j)-\t h eta) +\frac {1}{m}\s um_{i = 1}^m\sum_{j=m+ k ^*+1}^{m+k}(h ( Y_ i , Z_ { j,m} )-\ theta_m^*)+ (k-k ^ *)\D elta _ m. \en d {alig ned}$ $Th e  first summand is t he  sametermas under thenull hypot h e s is which  has al r eady been anal yzedin the pre v ious sec tion.  The sec ond summa n d  is a re lat edtwo -sa m p le  $U$-statisti c forwh ich the  tw o sampl esare  no  lo ng er genera ted by t he  s am edis tribu t ion, whi le  th ethi rd su m mand i s the  sig na lt erm .

In o r de r to c on tr ol t hese condterm ,  co nsiderthe follo win g  ver si on  of Hoe ffding’s deco mp osition: $ $\ beg in{ali g n ed}
\lab el{hoeffh1}
h(y,z)=\the t a_m^*+h ^*_ {1,m} (y)+ h^*_{2,m} (z) +r^*_m (y, z )\end{ 
- _ $\sup_{k\geq_1}\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}}{\sqrt{m}\left(\hat{\sigma}_{2,m}^2+\hat{\sigma}_{1,m}^2\frac{k}{m}\right)}\left|\Psi_3(m,k)\right|\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\rightarrow}\sup_{0<t<1}\sup_{0<s\leq t}\left|W\left(t\right)-\frac{1-t}{1-s}W\left(s\right)\right|$.

For both the_DOM- and_the_Wilcoxon kernel_it_holds $h_2(y)=-h_1(y)$ and_thus $\sigma_1=\sigma_2$.

Consistency under_alternatives {#sec.asH1}
------------------------------

In the following_we show that_the_proposed procedures have asymptotic power one (for $m\to\infty$) under alternatives, i.e. the procedure will eventually_stop_under alternatives.

In_the_situation_of we get with $\theta_m^*:={\operatorname{E}}(h(Y,Z_{i,m})=\Delta_m+\theta$_(see ) for $k>k^*$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(m,k)=&\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=m+1}^{m+k^*}(h(Y_i,Y_j)-\theta)+\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^m\sum_{j=m+k^*+1}^{m+k}(h(Y_i,Z_{j,m})-\theta_m^*)+(k-k^*)\Delta_m.\end{aligned}$$

The_first summand_is the same term as under the null_hypothesis_which has already_been analyzed in the previous section. The second summand_is a related two-sample $U$-statistic for_which the two_samples_are_no longer generated by_the same distribution, while the third_summand is the signal term.

In order_to control the second term, consider the_following version of Hoeffding’s decomposition: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hoeffh1}
h(y,z)=\theta_m^*+h^*_{1,m}(y)+h^*_{2,m}(z)+r^*_m(y,z)\end{