Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Cyrill Scheidegger

dblp:348/7007 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Information theory · 50% Mathematical optimization · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Mathematical optimization
conditional independence testing
0.612022
The Weighted Generalised Covariance Measure · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022
Information theory
hypothesis testing
0.612022
The Weighted Generalised Covariance Measure · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

simulation · 0.6nonlinear regression · 0.6generalised covariance measure · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 The Weighted Generalised Covariance Measure
abstract
We introduce a new test for conditional independence which is based on what we call the weighted generalised covariance measure (WGCM). It is an extension of the recently introduced generalised covariance measure (GCM). To test the null hypothesis of $X$ and $Y$ being conditionally independent given $Z$, our test statistic is a weighted form of the sample covariance between the residuals of nonlinearly regressing $X$ and $Y$ on $Z$. We propose different variants of the test for both univariate and multivariate $X$ and $Y$. We give conditions under which the tests yield the correct type I error rate. Finally, we compare our novel tests to the original GCM using simulation and on real data sets. Typically, our tests have power against a wider class of alternatives compared to the GCM. This comes at the cost of having less power against alternatives for which the GCM already works well. In the special case of binary or categorical $X$ and $Y$, one of our tests has power against all alternatives.
Cyrill Scheidegger, Julia Hörrmann, Peter Bühlmann
J. Mach. Learn. Res.1