DUAL: Learning Diverse Kernels for Aggregated Two-sample and Independence Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To adapt kernel two-sample and independence testing to complex structured data, aggregation of multiple kernels is frequently employed to boost testing power compared to single-kernel tests. However, we observe a phenomenon that directly maximizing multiple kernel-based statistics may result in highly similar kernels that capture highly overlapping information, limiting the effectiveness of aggregation. To address this, we propose an aggregated statistic that explicitly incorporates kernel diversity based on the covariance between different kernels. Moreover, we identify a fundamental challenge: a trade-off between the diversity among kernels and the test power of individual kernels, i.e., the selected kernels should be both effective and diverse. This motivates a testing framework with selection inference, which leverages information from the training phase to select kernels with strong individual performance from the learned diverse kernel pool. We provide rigorous theoretical statements and proofs to show the consistency on the test power and control of Type-I error, along with asymptotic analysis of the proposed statistics. Lastly, we conducted extensive empirical experiments demonstrating the superior performance of our proposed approach across various benchmarks for both two-sample and independence testing.
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 | 0.014 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".