Comparing conditional distributions is a fundamental challenge in statistics and machine learning, with applications across a wide range of domains. While proposed methods for measuring discrepancies using kernel embeddings of distributions in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) provide powerful non-parametric techniques, the existing literature remains fragmented and lacks a unified theoretical treatment. This paper addresses this gap by establishing a coherent framework for studying kernel-based methods to measure divergence between conditional distributions through what we refer to as conditional maximum mean discrepancy (CMMD). The CMMD consists of a family of metrics which we call levels, with three special cases each using a different type of RKHS embedding: CMMD$_0$ (conditional mean operators), CMMD$_1$ (conditional mean embeddings), and CMMD$_2$ (joint mean embeddings). We additionally introduce a general level $s$ CMMD, clarifying the required assumptions, and establishing mathematical connections between the levels through the lens of operator-based smoothing. In addition to reviewing previously proposed estimators, we introduce a novel doubly robust estimator for the CMMD that maintains consistency provided at least one of the underlying models is correctly specified. We provide numerical experiments demonstrating that the CMMD effectively captures complex conditional dependencies for statistical testing.

Combining test statistics from independent trials or experiments is a popular method of meta-analysis. However, there is very limited theoretical understanding of the power of the combined test, especially in high-dimensional models considering composite hypotheses tests. We derive a mathematical framework to study standard meta-analysis testing approaches in the context of the many normal means model, which serves as the platform to investigate more complex models. We introduce a natural and mild restriction on the meta-level combination functions of the local trials. This allows us to mathematically quantify the cost of compressing m trials into real-valued test statistics and combining these. We then derive minimax lower and matching upper bounds for the separation rates of standard combination methods for e.g.

We present a rigorous methodology for auditing differentially private machine learning algorithms by adding multiple carefully designed examples called canaries. We take a first principles approach based on three key components. First, we introduce Lifted Differential Privacy (LiDP) which expands the definition of differential privacy to handle randomized datasets. This gives us the freedom to design randomized canaries. Second, we audit LiDP by trying to distinguish between the model trained with K canaries versus K 1 canaries in the dataset, leaving one canary out. By drawing the canaries i.i.d., LiDP can leverage the symmetry in the design and reuse each privately trained model to run multiple statistical tests, one for each canary. Third, we introduce novel confidence intervals that take advantage of the multiple test statistics by adapting to the empirical higher-order correlations. Together, this new recipe demonstrates significant improvements in sample complexity, both theoretically and empirically, using synthetic and real data. Further, recent advances in designing stronger canaries can be readily incorporated into the new framework.

Conditional independence tests are crucial across various disciplines in determining the independence of an outcome variable $Y$ from a treatment variable $X$, conditioning on a set of confounders $Z$. The Conditional Randomization Test (CRT) offers a powerful framework for such testing by assuming known distributions of $X \mid Z$; it controls the Type-I error exactly, allowing for the use of flexible, black-box test statistics. In practice, testing for conditional independence often involves using data from a source population to draw conclusions about a target population. This can be challenging due to covariate shift---differences in the distribution of $X$, $Z$, and surrogate variables, which can affect the conditional distribution of $Y \mid X, Z$---rendering traditional CRT approaches invalid. To address this issue, we propose a novel Covariate Shift Corrected Pearson Chi-squared Conditional Randomization (csPCR) test. This test adapts to covariate shifts by integrating importance weights and employing the control variates method to reduce variance in the test statistics and thus enhance power. Theoretically, we establish that the csPCR test controls the Type-I error asymptotically. Empirically, through simulation studies, we demonstrate that our method not only maintains control over Type-I errors but also exhibits superior power, confirming its efficacy and practical utility in real-world scenarios where covariate shifts are prevalent. Finally, we apply our methodology to a real-world dataset to assess the impact of a COVID-19 treatment on the 90-day mortality rate among patients.

We introduce a natural and mild restriction on the meta-level combination functions of the local trials.

For (3), we relax our proposed test using techniques from robust statistics and imprecise probabilities.

However, evaluating whether or not these approximations can be trusted remains a challenge. Most approaches evaluate the posterior estimator only in expectation over the observation space.

The recent, counter-intuitive discovery that deep generative models (DGMs) can frequently assign a higher likelihood to outliers has implications for both outlier detection applications as well as our overall understanding of generative modeling. In this work, we present a possible explanation for this phenomenon, starting from the observation that a model's typical set and high-density region may not conincide. From this vantage point we propose a novel outlier test, the empirical success of which suggests that the failure of existing likelihood-based outlier tests does not necessarily imply that the corresponding generative model is uncalibrated. We also conduct additional experiments to help disentangle the impact of low-level texture versus high-level semantics in differentiating outliers. In aggregate, these results suggest that modifications to the standard evaluation practices and benchmarks commonly applied in the literature are needed.