Distribution Testing with a Confused Collector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are interested in testing properties of distributions with systematically mislabeled samples. Our goal is to make decisions about unknown probability distributions, using a sample that has been collected by a confused collector, such as a machine-learning classifier that has not learned to distinguish all elements of the domain. The confused collector holds an unknown clustering of the domain and an input distribution μ, and provides two oracles: a sample oracle which produces a sample from μ that has been labeled according to the clustering; and a label-query oracle which returns the label of a query point x according to the clustering. Our first set of results shows that identity, uniformity, and equivalence of distributions can be tested efficiently, under the earth-mover distance, with remarkably weak conditions on the confused collector, even when the unknown clustering is adversarial. This requires defining a variant of the distribution testing task (inspired by the recent testable learning framework of Rubinfeld & Vasilyan), where the algorithm should test a joint property of the distribution and its clustering. As an example, we get efficient testers when the distribution tester is allowed to reject if it detects that the confused collector clustering is "far" from being a decision tree. The second set of results shows that we can sometimes do significantly better when the clustering is random instead of adversarial. For certain one-dimensional random clusterings, we show that uniformity can be tested under the TV distance using Õ((√n)/(ρ^{3/2} ε²)) samples and zero queries, where ρ ∈ (0,1] controls the "resolution" of the clustering. We improve this to O((√n)/(ρ ε²)) when queries are allowed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".