Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 50 references

Dimension Agnostic Testing of Survey Data Credibility through the Lens of Regression

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Survey credibility for regression can be certified with a sample count that never depends on the data dimension.

desk verdict The task-based FDD/survey-credibility idea is new and dimension-free, but Theorem 5's proof has a Hoeffding-range bug and an unstated equal-noise-variance assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20616 v1 pith:CM2JQRTJ submitted 2025-08-28 cs.LG stat.ML

Debabrota Basu , Sourav Chakraborty , Debarshi Chanda , Buddha Dev Das , Arijit Ghosh , Arnab Ray This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords surveycredibilitydistributiontestingregressionsamplecomplexityRademacherFunctionalDistanceofDistributionsdimension-freemodelvalidation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that deciding whether a survey dataset is credible for downstream regression does not require estimating how similar the survey's distribution is to the population's, since that approach costs exponentially many samples in the dimension. Instead, it proposes a task-specific metric, the Functional Distance of Distributions (FDD), which measures how far the best regression model on the survey is from the best model on the true distribution, evaluated on the true distribution. The central theorem states that a simple algorithm, SurVerify, can ACCEPT or REJECT a survey using only $O(\epsilon^{-2}\log(1/\delta))$ samples drawn from the true population, a number independent of the number of covariates. The guarantee holds for Lasso, Ridge, and kernel regression when the survey is large enough and the regression noise is homoskedastic and uncorrelated. If true, this means credible surveys can be certified cheaply even in high-dimensional settings where classical distribution testing is infeasible.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Functional Distance of Distributions (FDD), defined as the distributional $\ell_2$-distance between the optimal model for the survey distribution and the optimal model for the true distribution, both evaluated under the true distribution. The identity that carries the argument is Lemma 4, which decomposes the true expected squared loss of the survey-fitted model as $\text{FDD}^2 + \sigma_\eta^2$, so that credibility becomes a statement about loss rather than about distributions. SurVerify then estimates the true expected loss on a small fresh sample, compares it to the survey's own training loss, and uses an early-rejection rule plus a final threshold to accept or reject. The sample-size requirements come from a new two-sided generalization bound, proved with empirical Rademacher complexity and Talagrand's contraction lemma, which controls both over- and under-estimation of the expected loss.

What would settle it

Fix a true distribution $D^*$ with noise variance $\sigma_\eta^2$ and construct a survey distribution $D_S$ whose conditional mean is the same function $f^*$ but whose noise variance is $\sigma_\eta^2/4$; then the squared FDD is zero, so Theorem 5 predicts ACCEPT with probability $1-\delta$, yet the survey loss $\hat L_S$ underestimates $\sigma_\eta^2$, which can push $\hat\gamma - \tau \hat L_S$ above $3\tau\epsilon$ and trigger REJECT. Observing rejections above $\delta$ under this construction would show that equation (11), which asserts equality of noise variances across the two distributions, is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 5: given a survey drawn from an unknown distribution $D_S$, a regression model class, and i.i.d. sampling access to the true distribution $D^*$, SurVerify accepts with probability at least $1-\delta$ when the squared Functional Distance of Distributions is at most $\epsilon$, rejects with probability at least $1-\delta$ when that squared distance exceeds $5\epsilon$, and uses at most $\lceil 2/(1.9\epsilon)^2 \log(3/\delta)\rceil$ samples from $D^*$. The efficiency comes from testing the model the survey produces rather than reconstructing the population model; the paper also proves that any algorithm that reconstructs the model first must spend $\Omega(d\lambda_{\min}\sigma_\eta^2/\epsilon^2)$ samples. A new two-sided generalization bound, obtained through Rademacher complexity, supplies the required survey size for Lasso, Ridge, and kernel classes. The FDD-variance decomposition, Lemma 4, is the load-bearing identity: the expected squared loss of the survey model under the true distribution equals the squared FDD plus the irreducible noise variance $\sigma_\eta^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof requires that the noise variance in the survey data equals the noise variance in the true population, so that the survey's training loss estimates the irreducible noise variance $\sigma_\eta^2$; if the survey is noisier or cleaner than the population, the accept and reject thresholds shift and the guarantee can fail even when the fitted models are close.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Lasso, Ridge, and kernel regression, a survey of sufficient size can be certified using only $O(\epsilon^{-2}\log(1/\delta))$ samples from the true population, with no dependence on the ambient dimension.
  • If the squared FDD is at most $\epsilon$, SurVerify accepts with probability $1-\delta$; if it exceeds $5\epsilon$, SurVerify rejects with probability $1-\delta$, leaving an explicit tolerance gap between $\epsilon$ and $5\epsilon$.
  • The early-rejection rule means that surveys that are far from credible are detected with fewer samples than the worst-case bound, matching the paper's experiments where average samples used drop rapidly as the model distance grows.
  • Because SurVerify does not reconstruct the regression model, it avoids the linear-in-dimension sample cost that any reconstruction-based testing method must pay, as established by the paper's lower bound.
  • The same fresh samples from $D^*$ can be reused for multiple projection-based credibility checks, since the paper notes that FDD is not robust to arbitrary projections and recommends running SurVerify on projected dimensions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same two-sided concentration can be obtained for other losses, such as classification losses or heteroskedastic regression, SurVerify's compare-the-losses logic would extend to a wider family of task-specific credibility notions; the paper explicitly leaves these extensions open.
  • The dimension-free sample count suggests a practical validation protocol: maintain a small gold-standard sample from the population and reuse it to certify many different survey datasets for a fixed regression task, since the required sample size is constant for fixed tolerance and confidence.
  • The early-rejection stopping time itself carries quantitative information about how far the survey model is from the true model, so the algorithm could be adapted to return a constant-factor estimate of FDD rather than just a binary accept or reject.
  • The FDD equivalence classes point to a possible design principle: two survey distributions are interchangeable for a task if they induce the same optimal model under the chosen hypothesis class, which could inform stratified sampling design before data collection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a task-based approach to assessing whether a sample survey is credible for downstream regression analysis. It defines the Functional Distance of Distributions (FDD), the distance, measured under the true distribution, between the regression models that are optimal for the survey distribution and for the true distribution. The main algorithmic contribution is SurVerify, which fits a regression model to the survey, draws a small number of validation samples from the true distribution, and decides ACCEPT or REJECT by comparing validation loss against the survey's empirical loss. The headline claim is that the number of validation samples is O(log(1/delta)/epsilon^2), independent of the covariate dimension, with a 1-delta guarantee under an epsilon/5epsilon acceptance/rejection gap. The paper also proves a two-sided Rademacher-style generalization bound, gives survey-size lower bounds for Lasso, Ridge, and kernel classes, and presents a dimension-dependent lower bound for approaches that reconstruct the model. Experiments on synthetic data and ACS_Income illustrate the acceptance-rate behavior. The central idea is appealing, but the proof of the main theorem contains several load-bearing gaps that need to be addressed before the stated guarantees can be accepted.

Significance. If the main theorem were fully established, the paper would make a useful contribution: it offers a concrete way to certify survey credibility for regression without exponential-in-dimension distribution testing, and its validation sample complexity is genuinely dimension-free. The proposed two-sided generalization bound (Theorem 6) is also of independent interest, and the lower bound in Lemma 9 gives a useful contrast between model reconstruction and task-based testing. The experiments are careful in structure and support the qualitative accept/reject behavior claimed for the algorithm. However, the paper's central guarantee as stated is not established: the proof of Theorem 5 relies on incorrect Hoeffding constants, an unstated equality of irreducible noise variances across the survey and true distributions, and a mismatch between the FDD condition in the theorem statement and the empirical model actually used by the algorithm. These issues are load-bearing, but they appear fixable either by adding the missing assumptions or by restating the theorem in terms of the quantity the algorithm actually controls.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D, Eqs. (22) and (26)] The Hoeffding-based concentration estimates in the proof of Theorem 5 use constants appropriate for [0,1]-valued variables, while the squared loss is bounded in [0,4] by Assumption 2. In Eq. (22), the threshold sqrt(t * 2 log(3τ/δ)) with [0,4]-valued summands gives exponent -log(3τ/δ)/4, not -log(3τ/δ), so the claimed bound delta/(3τ) does not follow. In Eq. (26), even under [0,1] boundedness the stated calculation gives 2 exp(-τ(1.9ε)^2/2) = 2δ/3 rather than delta/3; with [0,4] boundedness the discrepancy is larger. Consequently the union-bound argument does not establish the stated 1-delta guarantee. This is fixable by choosing tau with an additional factor of 8 (and adjusting the early-stopping threshold), which preserves the O(1/epsilon^2 log(1/delta)) dimension-free sample complexity, but the constants in the theorem and the algorithm description must be corrected.
  2. [Appendix C.1, Eq. (11)] Lemma 14 and Lemma 7 identify the survey empirical loss L_S with the true irreducible noise variance sigma_eta^2 through Eq. (11), which asserts sigma_eta^2 = E_{D*}[(f*(x)-y)^2] = E_{DS}[(f*_S(x)-y)^2]. Assumption 1 only postulates homoskedasticity and non-correlation of the noise within each distribution; it does not state that the irreducible noise variance under DS equals that under D*. If the survey is noisier or cleaner than the population by Delta, the final ACCEPT test gamma_tau - tau L_S <= 3 tau epsilon carries an additive bias tau(sigma_{D*}^2 - sigma_{DS}^2), so a perfectly credible survey can be rejected with high probability, and a far-from-credible survey can be accepted. The theorem's conditions are silent on this equality, so Theorem 5 as stated is not established. The fix is to add equal noise variance across DS and D* as an explicit assumption, or to estimate sigma_eta^2 from the D* validation samples and adjust the comparison accordingly.
  3. [Theorem 5, statement and proof in Appendix D] The theorem statement conditions on FDD_{D*}(DS,D*) = dist_{D*}(f_{DS}, f*), the distance between population-optimal models, but the algorithm uses fS, the empirical minimizer on the finite survey. In the proof, the condition used before Eq. (23) is 'dist^2_{D*}(fS,f*) <= epsilon', which is a different quantity from FDD^2. Nothing in Lemma 7 or in the survey-size conditions of Table 1 bounds dist_{D*}(fS, f_{DS}) under D*; uniform convergence on DS controls risk under DS, and DS and D* may have very different covariate supports. Thus FDD <= epsilon does not prevent the validation loss from being large when fS differs from f_{DS} on the support of D*, which would cause part 1 of Theorem 5 to fail as stated. The proof also assumes a unique minimizer f_{DS}, which Assumption 1 does not guarantee. The theorem should be restated in terms of dist_{D*}(fS, f*) (the quantity the algorithm actually tests), or the authors must prove a transfer bound from fS to f_{DS} under D* under explicit additional assumptions.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Appendix D] The proof of Theorem 5 contains the repeated headings 'Proof of 5' and 'Proof of 5'; these should be 'Proof of Part 1' and 'Proof of Part 2'.
  2. [Section 5 and Tables 3-6] The figures in Section 5 and the appendix state delta = 0.1, while the appendix tables say delta = 0.01 throughout; this discrepancy should be reconciled.
  3. [Lemma 9, discussion after the proof] The text says that if the expected losses differ by epsilon, then FDD = epsilon by Lemma 4; under equal noise variance Lemma 4 gives FDD^2 equal to the loss difference, so FDD would be sqrt(epsilon), not epsilon.
  4. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'sample complexity of our algorithm is independent of the data's dimension' refers only to the validation samples from D*; the survey size in Table 1 for Ridge is Omega(d/epsilon^2) and for Lasso depends on d through log d. This distinction should be stated explicitly in the abstract and introduction.
  5. [Section 5, RQ1] The sentence 'how does the acceptance rate of SurVerify change as the the distance between the survey set S and the true distribution D*, and the tolerance parameter change?' contains a duplicated article and an ungrammatical structure.
  6. [Assumption 2 and Table 1] Assumption 2 states f(x) <= 1, but for the kernel class with ||theta||_H <= 1 and K(x,x) <= r^2 one only has |f(x)| <= r; if r > 1 the boundedness condition is violated, and the kernel row of Table 1 should state the additional requirement r <= 1 or rescale the kernel.
  7. [References and typos] The reference list contains the typo 'NuerPS' for NeurIPS, and Section 1 contains 'odtained' for 'obtained'; Section 5 repeatedly uses '#samples-to-set' where '#samples-to-test' is meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: FDD is a defined population target, not a fitted output; Eq. (11)'s equal-noise-variance assertion is an unsupported assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No circular steps are present in SurVerify's derivation. Definition 3 defines FDD as a population-level distance between the optimal models f_D1 and f_D2, and the algorithm never fits FDD from the validation samples; the decision rule is a concentration test on the validation loss gamma against the survey loss L_S. The finite-sample gap between E_DS[(f_S-y)^2] and L_S is handled by Theorem 6's two-sided Rademacher bound, which is proved from external textbook results (McDiarmid, Talagrand contraction, MRT18/AFM20 Rademacher estimates), and the proof explicitly accounts for f_S being the ERM on S. Thus the accept/reject threshold is not the input re-labeled as a prediction. The only load-bearing caveat is Appendix C.1, Eq. (11): 'sigma_eta^2 = E_(x,y)~D*[(f*(x)-y)^2] = E_(x,y)~DS[(f*_S(x)-y)^2]' is asserted 'from Assumption 1,' but Assumption 1 states homoskedasticity and non-correlation within a regression model, not equality of irreducible noise or zero approximation error across D* and DS. If the survey distribution is noisier or cleaner, the test boundary shifts by the variance mismatch and Theorem 5 can accept or reject incorrectly. This is an unstated assumption / correctness gap, not a circular reduction: L_S is not being relabeled as FDD, and adding the equal-noise-variance condition as an explicit hypothesis would make the theorem an independent statement. There are no load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central guarantee rests on the standard regression noise model and boundedness assumptions, plus an unstated equality of the survey and population noise variances. The external Rademacher bounds and the DW13 lower bound are standard. No new physical entities are posited and no constants are fitted to make the main theorem true; the main risk is the implicit equal-noise assumption rather than hidden free parameters.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Exogenous noise model y=f(x)+eta with zero-mean, uncorrelated, homoskedastic noise (Assumption 1).
    Used throughout Lemma 4 and the proof of Lemma 14 to decompose expected loss into FDD squared plus noise variance; the decomposition is exact only under this model.
  • domain assumption Boundedness: |y| <= 1, |x|_inf <= 1, |f(x)| <= 1 (Assumption 2).
    Used to bound the loss by 4, to invoke Rademacher complexity bounds for linear and kernel classes, and to set M and the Lipschitz constant in Theorem 6.
  • ad hoc to paper Equal irreducible noise variance under DS and D*.
    Eq. (11) in Appendix C.1 asserts E_DS[(f*_S(x)-y)^2] = sigma_eta^2 without being stated in Assumption 1; this is the weakest load-bearing premise.
  • standard math Known Rademacher complexity bounds for bounded linear and kernel classes.
    Cites Lemma 15 from [AFM20] and Lemma 17 from [MRT18] to convert the two-sided generalization bound into the survey size results in Table 1.
  • standard math Statistical lower bound for regression parameter estimation from [DW13].
    Used in Lemma 9 to lower bound samples needed for model reconstruction; accepted as an external known result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dimension Agnostic Testing of Survey Data Credibility through the Lens of Regression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CM2JQRTJ

@misc{pith2026250820616,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dimension Agnostic Testing of Survey Data Credibility through the Lens of Regression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CM2JQRTJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20616}
}
read the original abstract

Assessing whether a sample survey credibly represents the population is a critical question for ensuring the validity of downstream research. Generally, this problem reduces to estimating the distance between two high-dimensional distributions, which typically requires a number of samples that grows exponentially with the dimension. However, depending on the model used for data analysis, the conclusions drawn from the data may remain consistent across different underlying distributions. In this context, we propose a task-based approach to assess the credibility of sampled surveys. Specifically, we introduce a model-specific distance metric to quantify this notion of credibility. We also design an algorithm to verify the credibility of survey data in the context of regression models. Notably, the sample complexity of our algorithm is independent of the data dimension. This efficiency stems from the fact that the algorithm focuses on verifying the credibility of the survey data rather than reconstructing the underlying regression model. Furthermore, we show that if one attempts to verify credibility by reconstructing the regression model, the sample complexity scales linearly with the dimensionality of the data. We prove the theoretical correctness of our algorithm and numerically demonstrate our algorithm's performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20616 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Acceptance rate of SurVerify w.r.t. model class F2 on Synthetic Data vs. change in µ (over 50 runs) for δ = 0.1 and ϵ = 0.05 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Acceptance rate of SurVerify w.r.t. model class F2 on ACS_Income (over 50 runs) for δ = 0.1 and varying range of ϵ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Acceptance rate of SurVerify w.r.t. model class F2 on Synthetic Data vs. change in µ (over 50 runs) for δ = 0.1 and ϵ = 0.05 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Acceptance rate of SurVerify w.r.t. model class F1 on Synthetic Data vs. change in µ (over 50 runs) for δ = 0.1 and ϵ = 0.05. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Acceptance rate of SurVerify w.r.t. model class F2 on ACS_Income (over 50 runs) for δ = 0.1 and varying range of ϵ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Acceptance rate of SurVerify w.r.t. model class F1 on ACS_Income (over 50 runs) for δ = 0.1 and varying range of ϵ. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On the R ademacher complexity of linear hypothesis sets

    Pranjal Awasthi, Natalie Frank, and Mehryar Mohri. On the R ademacher complexity of linear hypothesis sets. CoRR , abs/2007.11045, 2020

    arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Geometric dataset distances via optimal transport

    David Alvarez-Melis and Nicol\` o Fusi. Geometric dataset distances via optimal transport. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS '20, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2020. Curran Associates Inc

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Lower bounds for testing graphical models: Colorings and antiferromagnetic ising models

    Ivona Bez \'a kov \'a , Antonio Blanca, Zongchen Chen, Daniel S tefankovi c , and Eric Vigoda. Lower bounds for testing graphical models: Colorings and antiferromagnetic ising models. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 21(25):1--62, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Hardness of identity testing for restricted boltzmann machines and potts models

    Antonio Blanca, Zongchen Chen, Daniel S tefankovi c , and Eric Vigoda. Hardness of identity testing for restricted boltzmann machines and potts models. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 22(152):1--56, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    E-governance, accountability, and leakage in public programs: Experimental evidence from a financial management reform in india

    Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Clement Imbert, Santhosh Mathew, and Rohini Pande. E-governance, accountability, and leakage in public programs: Experimental evidence from a financial management reform in india. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 12(4):39--72, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Testing that distributions are close

    Tugkan Batu, Lance Fortnow, Ronitt Rubinfeld, Warren D Smith, and Patrick White. Testing that distributions are close. In FOCS2000 , pages 259--269. IEEE, 2000

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Arnab Bhattacharyya, Sutanu Gayen, Saravanan Kandasamy, and N. V. Vinodchandran. Testing product distributions: A closer look. In Vitaly Feldman, Katrina Ligett, and Sivan Sabato, editors, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory , volume 132 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 367--396. PMLR, 16--19 Mar 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Arnab Bhattacharyya, Sutanu Gayen, Kuldeep S Meel, and N. V. Vinodchandran. Efficient distance approximation for structured high-dimensional distributions via learning. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages 14699--14711. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Mortality, lifestyle and socio-economic status

    Silvia Balia and Andrew M Jones. Mortality, lifestyle and socio-economic status. Journal of health economics , 27(1):1--26, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Cl \' e ment L. Canonne. A survey on distribution testing: Your data is big. but is it blue? Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex. , TR15-063 , 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Cl\' e ment L. Canonne. Topics and Techniques in Distribution Testing: A Biased but Representative Sample . Foundations and Trends in Communications and Information Theory , 19(6):1032--1198, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Canonne, Ilias Diakonikolas, Daniel M

    Clement L. Canonne, Ilias Diakonikolas, Daniel M. Kane, and Alistair Stewart. Testing bayesian networks. In Satyen Kale and Ohad Shamir, editors, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Learning Theory , volume 65 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 370--448. PML...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Impact of population aging on trends in diabetes prevalence: a meta-regression analysis of 160,000 japanese adults

    Hadrien Charvat, Atsushi Goto, Maki Goto, Machiko Inoue, Yoriko Heianza, Yasuji Arase, Hirohito Sone, Tomoko Nakagami, Xin Song, Qing Qiao, et al. Impact of population aging on trends in diabetes prevalence: a meta-regression analysis of 160,000 japanese adults. Journal of dia...

    2015

  6. [14]

    The price of tolerance in distribution testing

    Clement L Canonne, Ayush Jain, Gautam Kamath, and Jerry Li. The price of tolerance in distribution testing. In Po-Ling Loh and Maxim Raginsky, editors, Proceedings of Thirty Fifth Conference on Learning Theory , volume 178 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 57...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Testing ising models

    Constantinos Daskalakis, Nishanth Dikkala, and Gautam Kamath. Testing ising models. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms , SODA '18, page 1989–2007, USA, 2018. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    1989

  8. [16]

    Sample-optimal identity testing with high probability

    Ilias Diakonikolas, Themis Gouleakis, John Peebles, and Eric Price. Sample-optimal identity testing with high probability. In Ioannis Chatzigiannakis, Christos Kaklamanis, D \' a niel Marx, and Donald Sannella, editors, 45th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and...

    2018

  9. [17]

    Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning

    Frances Ding, Moritz Hardt, John Miller, and Ludwig Schmidt. Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning. In Marc'Aurelio Ranzato, Alina Beygelzimer, Yann N. Dauphin, Percy Liang, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, editors, NuerPS , pages 6478--6490, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Validation of linear regression models

    Holger Dette and Axel Munk. Validation of linear regression models. The Annals of Statistics , 26(2):778--800, 1998

    1998

  11. [19]

    Square hellinger subadditivity for bayesian networks and its applications to identity testing

    Constantinos Daskalakis and Qinxuan Pan. Square hellinger subadditivity for bayesian networks and its applications to identity testing. In Satyen Kale and Ohad Shamir, editors, Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Learning Theory , volume 65 of Proceedings of Machine Learning...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Duchi and Martin J

    John C. Duchi and Martin J. Wainwright. Distance-based and continuum fano inequalities with applications to statistical estimation, 2013

    2013

  13. [21]

    Training neural networks is np-hard in fixed dimension

    Vincent Froese and Christoph Hertrich. Training neural networks is np-hard in fixed dimension. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023 , 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Survey methodology

    Robert M Groves, Floyd J Fowler Jr, Mick P Couper, James M Lepkowski, Eleanor Singer, and Roger Tourangeau. Survey methodology . John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    Learning resources: Statistics: Power from data! non-probability sampling

    Statistics Canada Government of Canada. Learning resources: Statistics: Power from data! non-probability sampling. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/edu /power-pouvoir/ch13/nonprob/5214898-eng.htm , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    On choosing and bounding probability metrics

    Alison L Gibbs and Francis Edward Su. On choosing and bounding probability metrics. International statistical review , 70(3):419--435, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    Applied survey data analysis

    Steven G Heeringa, Brady T West, and Patricia A Berglund. Applied survey data analysis . chapman and hall/CRC, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Towards Principled Unskewing : Viewing 2020 Election Polls Through a Corrective Lens From 2016

    Michael Isakov and Shiro Kuriwaki. Towards Principled Unskewing : Viewing 2020 Election Polls Through a Corrective Lens From 2016. Harvard Data Science Review , 2(4), nov 3 2020. https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/cnxbwum6

    2020

  19. [27]

    An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R

    Gareth James, Daniela Witten, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R . Springer US, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Introduction to Survey Sampling

    Graham Kalton. Introduction to Survey Sampling . SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, May 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    The use of differential privacy for census data and its impact on redistricting: The case of the 2020 us census

    Christopher T Kenny, Shiro Kuriwaki, Cory McCartan, Evan TR Rosenman, Tyler Simko, and Kosuke Imai. The use of differential privacy for census data and its impact on redistricting: The case of the 2020 us census. Science advances , 7(41):eabk3283, 2021

    2020

  22. [30]

    Convergence and concentration of empirical measures under Wasserstein distance in unbounded functional spaces

    Jing Lei. Convergence and concentration of empirical measures under Wasserstein distance in unbounded functional spaces . Bernoulli , 26(1):767 -- 798, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Sampling: design and analysis

    Sharon L Lohr. Sampling: design and analysis . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Towards out-of-distribution generalization: A survey, 2023

    Jiashuo Liu, Zheyan Shen, Yue He, Xingxuan Zhang, Renzhe Xu, Han Yu, and Peng Cui. Towards out-of-distribution generalization: A survey, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Probability in Banach Spaces

    Michel Ledoux and Michel Talagrand. Probability in Banach Spaces . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1991

    1991

  26. [34]

    Rethinking traditional methods of survey validation

    Andrew Maul. Rethinking traditional methods of survey validation. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives , 15(2):51--69, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    The computational complexity of training relu(s)

    Pasin Manurangsi and Daniel Reichman. The computational complexity of training relu(s). CoRR , abs/1810.04207, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Foundations of machine learning

    Mehryar Mohri, Afshin Rostamizadeh, and Ameet Talwalkar. Foundations of machine learning . MIT Press, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Transgender population size in the united states: a meta-regression of population-based probability samples

    Esther L Meerwijk and Jae M Sevelius. Transgender population size in the united states: a meta-regression of population-based probability samples. American journal of public health , 107(2):e1--e8, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    A coincidence-based test for uniformity given very sparsely sampled discrete data

    Liam Paninski. A coincidence-based test for uniformity given very sparsely sampled discrete data. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 54(10):4750--4755, 2008

    2008

  31. [39]

    A newer equal part linear regression model: A case study of the influence of educational input on gross national income

    Wen-Tsao Pan. A newer equal part linear regression model: A case study of the influence of educational input on gross national income. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education , 13(8):5765--5773, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Picard and R

    Richard R. Picard and R. Dennis Cook. Cross-validation of regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 79(387):575--583, 1984

    1984

  33. [41]

    Information Theory: From Coding to Learning

    Yury Polyanskiy and Yihong Wu. Information Theory: From Coding to Learning . Cambridge University Press, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Robust regression and outlier detection

    Peter J Rousseeuw and Annick M Leroy. Robust regression and outlier detection . John wiley & sons, 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    How to conduct your own survey

    Priscilla Salant and Don A Dillman. How to conduct your own survey. Willey , 1994

    1994

  36. [44]

    Ronald D. Snee. Validation of regression models: Methods and examples. Technometrics , 19(4):415--428, 1977

    1977

  37. [45]

    Stein and Rami Shakarchi

    Elias M. Stein and Rami Shakarchi. Functional Analysis . Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Nonparametric model checks for regression

    Winfried Stute. Nonparametric model checks for regression . The Annals of Statistics , 25(2):613 -- 641, 1997

    1997

  39. [47]

    Statistical development and validation of clinical prediction models

    Steven J Staffa and David Zurakowski. Statistical development and validation of clinical prediction models. Anesthesiology , 135(3):396--405, September 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    An automatic inequality prover and instance optimal identity testing

    Gregory Valiant and Paul Valiant. An automatic inequality prover and instance optimal identity testing. SIAM Journal on Computing , 46(1):429--455, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference

    Larry Wasserman. All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference . Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer, New York, 2004

    2004

  42. [50]

    Minimax optimal estimation of KL divergence for continuous distributions

    Puning Zhao and Lifeng Lai. Minimax optimal estimation of KL divergence for continuous distributions. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 66(12):7787--7811, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.