Learning and Testing Junta Distributions with Subcube Conditioning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problems of learning and testing junta distributions on $\{-1,1\}^n$ with respect to the uniform distribution, where a distribution $p$ is a $k$-junta if its probability mass function $p(x)$ depends on a subset of at most $k$ variables. The main contribution is an algorithm for finding relevant coordinates in a $k$-junta distribution with subcube conditioning [BC18, CCKLW20]. We give two applications: 1. An algorithm for learning $k$-junta distributions with $\tilde{O}(k/ε^2) \log n + O(2^k/ε^2)$ subcube conditioning queries, and 2. An algorithm for testing $k$-junta distributions with $\tilde{O}((k + \sqrt{n})/ε^2)$ subcube conditioning queries. All our algorithms are optimal up to poly-logarithmic factors. Our results show that subcube conditioning, as a natural model for accessing high-dimensional distributions, enables significant savings in learning and testing junta distributions compared to the standard sampling model. This addresses an open question posed by Aliakbarpour, Blais, and Rubinfeld [ABR17].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it