On the Robustness of Kernel Goodness-of-Fit Tests
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper examines the robustness of kernel-based goodness-of-fit tests to data corruption.
- Kernel tests are widely used to assess if a dataset follows a hypothesized distribution.
- The authors investigate how kernel tests perform when the data is corrupted or contaminated.
- They provide theoretical analysis and empirical results on the behavior of kernel tests under different types of data corruption.
Plain English Explanation
The paper focuses on a type of statistical test called a kernel goodness-of-fit test. These tests are used to determine if a dataset follows a specific distribution that researchers are interested in. For example, a researcher might want to know if their data matches a normal distribution.
Kernel tests work by comparing the shape of the data to the shape of the expected distribution. If the shapes are similar, the test concludes the data matches the distribution.
However, the authors found that kernel tests can be sensitive to corrupted or contaminated data. This means that even small amounts of bad data points can cause the test to give inaccurate results. The paper explores how different types of data corruption, like outliers or systematic biases, can impact the performance of kernel goodness-of-fit tests.
Through theoretical analysis and experiments, the authors provide insights into when and why kernel tests may be unreliable in the face of data corruption. This is an important consideration, as these tests are widely used in fields like machine learning and statistics to validate model assumptions.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the robustness of kernel-based goodness-of-fit tests, which are popular nonparametric statistical tests used to assess whether a dataset follows a hypothesized distribution.
The authors provide a theoretical analysis of the behavior of kernel tests under different types of data corruption, including outliers, systematic biases, and covariate shift. They derive bounds on the test statistic's deviation from its expected value under corrupted data.
Empirically, the authors evaluate several kernel goodness-of-fit tests, such as the Kernel Stein Discrepancy test and the Maximum Mean Discrepancy test, on synthetic and real-world datasets with various corruption patterns. The results demonstrate that kernel tests can be highly sensitive to even small amounts of data corruption, exhibiting inflated Type I error rates and reduced statistical power.
The paper highlights the importance of assessing the robustness of kernel goodness-of-fit tests, as their widespread use in fields like machine learning and statistics relies on the validity of their underlying distributional assumptions.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough theoretical and empirical examination of the robustness of kernel goodness-of-fit tests to data corruption, which is an important practical consideration for researchers and practitioners who rely on these tests.
One potential limitation is that the analysis is restricted to specific types of data corruption, such as outliers and systematic biases. It would be valuable to explore the impact of other forms of data corruption, such as missing data or complex distribution shifts, on the performance of kernel tests.
Additionally, the paper does not offer concrete recommendations for practitioners on how to detect or mitigate the impact of data corruption on kernel tests. Further research could explore methods for robust kernel goodness-of-fit testing or techniques for identifying and addressing data quality issues before applying these statistical tests.
Overall, the paper makes a significant contribution by highlighting the fragility of kernel goodness-of-fit tests in the face of data corruption and motivating the need for more robust statistical techniques in the era of large and potentially noisy datasets.
Conclusion
This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the robustness of kernel-based goodness-of-fit tests to data corruption. The authors demonstrate, both theoretically and empirically, that these widely used statistical tests can be highly sensitive to even small amounts of corrupted or contaminated data, leading to inflated error rates and reduced statistical power.
The findings underscore the importance of carefully assessing the robustness of statistical methods, particularly when dealing with real-world datasets that may be subject to various forms of data quality issues. This research motivates the need for the development of more robust kernel testing procedures and highlights the broader challenge of ensuring the reliability of statistical inference in the face of data corruption.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
On the Robustness of Kernel Goodness-of-Fit Tests
Xing Liu, Franc{c}ois-Xavier Briol
Goodness-of-fit testing is often criticized for its lack of practical relevance; since ``all models are wrong'', the null hypothesis that the data conform to our model is ultimately always rejected when the sample size is large enough. Despite this, probabilistic models are still used extensively, raising the more pertinent question of whether the model is good enough for a specific task. This question can be formalized as a robust goodness-of-fit testing problem by asking whether the data were generated by a distribution corresponding to our model up to some mild perturbation. In this paper, we show that existing kernel goodness-of-fit tests are not robust according to common notions of robustness including qualitative and quantitative robustness. We also show that robust techniques based on tilted kernels from the parameter estimation literature are not sufficient for ensuring both types of robustness in the context of goodness-of-fit testing. We therefore propose the first robust kernel goodness-of-fit test which resolves this open problem using kernel Stein discrepancy balls, which encompass perturbation models such as Huber contamination models and density uncertainty bands.
Read more8/26/2024
0
Robust Kernel Hypothesis Testing under Data Corruption
Antonin Schrab, Ilmun Kim
We propose two general methods for constructing robust permutation tests under data corruption. The proposed tests effectively control the non-asymptotic type I error under data corruption, and we prove their consistency in power under minimal conditions. This contributes to the practical deployment of hypothesis tests for real-world applications with potential adversarial attacks. One of our methods inherently ensures differential privacy, further broadening its applicability to private data analysis. For the two-sample and independence settings, we show that our kernel robust tests are minimax optimal, in the sense that they are guaranteed to be non-asymptotically powerful against alternatives uniformly separated from the null in the kernel MMD and HSIC metrics at some optimal rate (tight with matching lower bound). Finally, we provide publicly available implementations and empirically illustrate the practicality of our proposed tests.
Read more5/31/2024
⛏️
0
Robust Validation: Confident Predictions Even When Distributions Shift
Maxime Cauchois, Suyash Gupta, Alnur Ali, John C. Duchi
While the traditional viewpoint in machine learning and statistics assumes training and testing samples come from the same population, practice belies this fiction. One strategy -- coming from robust statistics and optimization -- is thus to build a model robust to distributional perturbations. In this paper, we take a different approach to describe procedures for robust predictive inference, where a model provides uncertainty estimates on its predictions rather than point predictions. We present a method that produces prediction sets (almost exactly) giving the right coverage level for any test distribution in an $f$-divergence ball around the training population. The method, based on conformal inference, achieves (nearly) valid coverage in finite samples, under only the condition that the training data be exchangeable. An essential component of our methodology is to estimate the amount of expected future data shift and build robustness to it; we develop estimators and prove their consistency for protection and validity of uncertainty estimates under shifts. By experimenting on several large-scale benchmark datasets, including Recht et al.'s CIFAR-v4 and ImageNet-V2 datasets, we provide complementary empirical results that highlight the importance of robust predictive validity.
Read more7/8/2024
➖
0
Spectral Regularized Kernel Two-Sample Tests
Omar Hagrass, Bharath K. Sriperumbudur, Bing Li
Over the last decade, an approach that has gained a lot of popularity to tackle nonparametric testing problems on general (i.e., non-Euclidean) domains is based on the notion of reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) embedding of probability distributions. The main goal of our work is to understand the optimality of two-sample tests constructed based on this approach. First, we show the popular MMD (maximum mean discrepancy) two-sample test to be not optimal in terms of the separation boundary measured in Hellinger distance. Second, we propose a modification to the MMD test based on spectral regularization by taking into account the covariance information (which is not captured by the MMD test) and prove the proposed test to be minimax optimal with a smaller separation boundary than that achieved by the MMD test. Third, we propose an adaptive version of the above test which involves a data-driven strategy to choose the regularization parameter and show the adaptive test to be almost minimax optimal up to a logarithmic factor. Moreover, our results hold for the permutation variant of the test where the test threshold is chosen elegantly through the permutation of the samples. Through numerical experiments on synthetic and real data, we demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed test in comparison to the MMD test and other popular tests in the literature.
Read more5/3/2024