Conditional independence testing for discrete distributions: Beyond χ2- and G-tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the problem of conditional independence testing for discrete data. In recent years, researchers have shed new light on this fundamental problem, emphasizing finite-sample optimality. The non-asymptotic viewpoint adapted in these works has led to novel conditional independence tests that enjoy certain optimality under various regimes. Despite their attractive theoretical properties, the considered tests are not necessarily practical, relying on a Poissonization trick and unspecified constants in their critical values. In this work, we attempt to bridge the gap between theory and practice by reproving optimality without Poissonization and calibrating tests using Monte Carlo permutations. Along the way, we also prove that classical asymptotic χ2- and G-tests are notably sub-optimal in a high-dimensional regime, which justifies the demand for new tools. Our theoretical results are complemented by experiments on both simulated and real-world datasets. Accompanying this paper is an R package UCI that implements the proposed tests.
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 | 0.045 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".