MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392019626 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.13196

Practical Kernel Tests of Conditional Independence

2024· preprint· en· W4392019626 on OpenAlexafffund
Roman Pogodin, Antonin Schrab, Yazhe Li, Danica J. Sutherland, Arthur Gretton

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsConditional independenceIndependence (probability theory)Kernel (algebra)Computer scienceEconometricsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a data-efficient, kernel-based approach to statistical testing of conditional independence. A major challenge of conditional independence testing is to obtain the correct test level (the specified upper bound on the rate of false positives), while still attaining competitive test power. Excess false positives arise due to bias in the test statistic, which is in our case obtained using nonparametric kernel ridge regression. We propose SplitKCI, an automated method for bias control for the Kernel-based Conditional Independence (KCI) test based on data splitting. We show that our approach significantly improves test level control for KCI without sacrificing test power, both theoretically and for synthetic and real-world data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.182
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.182
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.270
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.062 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207