A number of applications require two-sample testing on ranked preference data. For instance, in crowdsourcing, there is a long-standing question of whether pairwise comparison data provided by people is distributed similar to ratings-converted-to-comparisons. Other examples include sports data analysis and peer grading. In this paper, we design two-sample tests for pairwise comparison data and ranking data. For our two-sample test for pairwise comparison data, we establish an upper bound on the sample complexity required to correctly distinguish between the distributions of the two sets of samples. Our test requires essentially no assumptions on the distributions. We then prove complementary lower bounds showing that our results are tight (in the minimax sense) up to constant factors. We investigate the role of modeling assumptions by proving lower bounds for a range of pairwise comparison models (WST, MST, SST, parameter-based such as BTL and Thurstone). We also provide testing algorithms and associated sample complexity bounds for the problem of two-sample testing with partial (or total) ranking data. Furthermore, we empirically evaluate our results via extensive simulations as well as two real-world datasets consisting of pairwise comparisons. By applying our two-sample test on real-world pairwise comparison data, we conclude that ratings and rankings providedmore »
Testing Shape Restrictions of Discrete Distributions
We study the question of testing structured properties (classes) of discrete distributions. Specifically, given sample access to an arbitrary distribution D over [n] and a property P, the goal is to distinguish between D ∈ P and ℓ1(D, P) > ε. We develop a general algorithm for this question, which applies to a large range of “shape-constrained” properties, including monotone, log-concave, t-modal, piecewise-polynomial, and Poisson Binomial distributions. Moreover, for all cases considered, our algorithm has near-optimal sample complexity with regard to the domain size and is computationally efficient. For most of these classes, we provide the first non-trivial tester in the literature. In addition, we also describe a generic method to prove lower bounds for this problem, and use it to show our upper bounds are nearly tight. Finally, we extend some of our techniques to tolerant testing, deriving nearly–tight upper and lower bounds for the corresponding questions.
- Award ID(s):
- 1650733
- Publication Date:
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10078631
- Journal Name:
- Theory of computing systems
- Volume:
- 62
- Issue:
- 1
- Page Range or eLocation-ID:
- 4-62
- ISSN:
- 1433-0490
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The approximate degree of a Boolean function f is the least degree of a real polynomial that approximates f pointwise to error at most 1/3. The approximate degree of f is known to be a lower bound on the quantum query complexity of f (Beals et al., FOCS 1998 and J. ACM 2001). We find tight or nearly tight bounds on the approximate degree and quantum query complexities of several basic functions. Specifically, we show the following. k-Distinctness: For any constant k, the approximate degree and quantum query complexity of the k-distinctness function is Ω(n3/4−1/(2k)). This is nearly tight for large k, as Belovs (FOCS 2012) has shown that for any constant k, the approximate degree and quantum query complexity of k-distinctness is O(n3/4−1/(2k+2−4)). Image size testing: The approximate degree and quantum query complexity of testing the size of the image of a function [n]→[n] is Ω~(n1/2). This proves a conjecture of Ambainis et al. (SODA 2016), and it implies tight lower bounds on the approximate degree and quantum query complexity of the following natural problems. k-Junta testing: A tight Ω~(k1/2) lower bound for k-junta testing, answering the main open question of Ambainis et al. (SODA 2016). Statistical distance frommore »
-
We study the \emph{offline reinforcement learning} (offline RL) problem, where the goal is to learn a reward-maximizing policy in an unknown \emph{Markov Decision Process} (MDP) using the data coming from a policy $\mu$. In particular, we consider the sample complexity problems of offline RL for the finite horizon MDPs. Prior works derive the information-theoretical lower bounds based on different data-coverage assumptions and their upper bounds are expressed by the covering coefficients which lack the explicit characterization of system quantities. In this work, we analyze the \emph{Adaptive Pessimistic Value Iteration} (APVI) algorithm and derive the suboptimality upper bound that nearly matches $ O\left(\sum_{h=1}^H\sum_{s_h,a_h}d^{\pi^\star}_h(s_h,a_h)\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{Var}_{P_{s_h,a_h}}{(V^\star_{h+1}+r_h)}}{d^\mu_h(s_h,a_h)}}\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}}\right). $ We also prove an information-theoretical lower bound to show this quantity is required under the weak assumption that $d^\mu_h(s_h,a_h)>0$ if $d^{\pi^\star}_h(s_h,a_h)>0$. Here $\pi^\star$ is a optimal policy, $\mu$ is the behavior policy and $d(s_h,a_h)$ is the marginal state-action probability. We call this adaptive bound the \emph{intrinsic offline reinforcement learning bound} since it directly implies all the existing optimal results: minimax rate under uniform data-coverage assumption, horizon-free setting, single policy concentrability, and the tight problem-dependent results. Later, we extend the result to the \emph{assumption-free} regime (where we make no assumption on $ \mu$) and obtain the assumption-free intrinsicmore »
-
We study the fundamental problems of identity testing (goodness of fit), and closeness testing (two sample test) of distributions over k elements, under differential privacy. While the problems have a long history in statistics, finite sample bounds for these problems have only been established recently. In this work, we derive upper and lower bounds on the sample complexity of both the problems under (epsilon, delta)-differential privacy. We provide sample optimal algorithms for identity testing problem for all parameter ranges, and the first results for closeness testing. Our closeness testing bounds are optimal in the sparse regime where the number of samples is at most k. Our upper bounds are obtained by privatizing non-private estimators for these problems. The non-private estimators are chosen to have small sensitivity. We propose a general framework to establish lower bounds on the sample complexity of statistical tasks under differential privacy. We show a bound on di erentially private algorithms in terms of a coupling between the two hypothesis classes we aim to test. By carefully constructing chosen priors over the hypothesis classes, and using Le Cam’s two point theorem we provide a general mechanism for proving lower bounds. We believe that the framework can bemore »
-
We consider message-efficient continuous random sampling from a distributed stream, where the probability of inclusion of an item in the sample is proportional to a weight associated with the item. The unweighted version, where all weights are equal, is well studied, and admits tight upper and lower bounds on message complexity. For weighted sampling with replacement, there is a simple reduction to unweighted sampling with replacement. However, in many applications the stream may have only a few heavy items which may dominate a random sample when chosen with replacement. Weighted sampling without replacement (weighted SWOR) eludes this issue, since such heavy items can be sampled at most once. In this work, we present the first message-optimal algorithm for weighted SWOR from a distributed stream. Our algorithm also has optimal space and time complexity. As an application of our algorithm for weighted SWOR, we derive the first distributed streaming algorithms for tracking heavy hitters with residual error. Here the goal is to identify stream items that contribute significantly to the residual stream, once the heaviest items are removed. Residual heavy hitters generalize the notion of $\ell_1$ heavy hitters and are important in streams that have a skewed distribution of weights. Inmore »
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Publisher's Version of Record
- The DOI is not currently available
