Papers › Kernel Stein Tests for Multiple Model Comparison

Kernel Stein Tests for Multiple Model Comparison

27 Oct 2019NeurIPS 2019 12arXiv:1910.12252archive 2025-07-28

Jen Ning Lim, Makoto Yamada, Bernhard Schölkopf, Wittawat Jitkrittum

We address the problem of non-parametric multiple model comparison: given l candidate models, decide whether each candidate is as good as the best one(s) or worse than it. We propose two statistical tests, each controlling a different notion of decision errors. The first test, building on the post selection inference framework, provably controls the number of best models that are wrongly declared worse (false positive rate). The second test is based on multiple correction, and controls the proportion of the models declared worse but are in fact as good as the best (false discovery rate). We prove that under appropriate conditions the first test can yield a higher true positive rate than the second. Experimental results on toy and real (CelebA, Chicago Crime data) problems show that the two tests have high true positive rates with well-controlled error rates. By contrast, the naive approach of choosing the model with the lowest score without correction leads to more false positives.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

18 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 18 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 18 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections