Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Cyrill Scheidegger
dblp:348/7007
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mathematical optimization
conditional independence testing |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | The Weighted Generalised Covariance Measure · J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022 |
Information theory
hypothesis testing |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | The Weighted Generalised Covariance MeasureabstractWe 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 |