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

Jan Seyfried

dblp:409/6012 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 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.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Learning theory · 79% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 21%
Theoretical computer science
2 papers
Information theory · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Learning theory › computational learning theory
property testing
1.922026
Optimal Sample Complexity Lower Bounds on Conditional Independence Testing · COLT 2026
Testing (Conditional) Mutual Information - Extended Abstract · COLT 2025
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › structured models › graphical models › conditional independence
conditional independence testing
1.012026
Optimal Sample Complexity Lower Bounds on Conditional Independence Testing · COLT 2026
Machine learning › Learning theory › sample complexity
sample complexity lower bounds
1.012026
Optimal Sample Complexity Lower Bounds on Conditional Independence Testing · COLT 2026
Information theory › information measures
mutual information
1.012026
Optimal Sample Complexity Lower Bounds on Conditional Independence Testing · COLT 2026
Machine learning › Learning theory
sample complexity
0.912025
Testing (Conditional) Mutual Information - Extended Abstract · COLT 2025
Information theory › information measures › mutual information
conditional mutual information
0.912025
Testing (Conditional) Mutual Information - Extended Abstract · COLT 2025

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

sample complexity analysis · 2.0KL divergence · 2.0equivalence testing · 1.7correlated sample simulation · 1.7l1-distance · 1.0l1 distance · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Optimal Sample Complexity Lower Bounds on Conditional Independence Testing
abstract
We study the sample complexity of conditional independence testing. In this problem, given i.i.d. samples from a discrete distribution $P_{ABC}$, the goal is to distinguish whether $A$ and $C$ are conditionally independent with respect to $B$, i.e., $P_{ABC}=P_{A|B}P_BP_{C|B}$, or whether $A$ and $C$ are conditionally dependent, $\Delta(P_{ABC},P_{A|B}P_BP_{C|B})\geq \varepsilon$ for some fixed threshold $\varepsilon$ and distance measure $\Delta$. We are interested in the cases where $\Delta$ is either the $\ell_1$ distance or the KL-divergence. The study for the case of $\ell_1$ distance was initiated by (Canonne et al., STOC 2018), and the KL-divergence was recently studied by (Seyfried et al., COLT 2025). Both works design algorithms whose sample complexities scale sublinearly in the dimensions of the subsystems, and showed tight lower bounds in some parameter regimes. While Canonne et al. derived partial lower bounds for the remaining regimes as well, the problem of fully resolving the sample complexity in all parameters remained open. In this work, we settle these open questions and prove optimal sample complexity lower bounds for both of these problems, thereby completely settling the sample complexities up to polylogarithmic factors.
Jan Seyfried, Neelkanth Mishra, Sayantan Sen, Marco Tomamichel
COLT1
2025 Testing (Conditional) Mutual Information - Extended Abstract
abstract
We investigate the sample complexity of mutual information and conditional mutual information testing. For conditional mutual information testing, given access to independent samples of a triple of random variables $(A, B, C)$ with unknown distribution, we want to distinguish between two cases: (i) $A$ and $C$ are conditionally independent, i.e., $I(A:C|B) = 0$, and (ii) $A$ and $C$ are conditionally dependent, i.e., $I(A:C|B) \geq \varepsilon$ for some threshold $\varepsilon$. We establish an upper bound on the number of samples required to distinguish between the two cases with high confidence, as a function of $\varepsilon$ and the three alphabet sizes. We conjecture that our bound is tight and show that this is indeed the case in several parameter regimes. For the special case of mutual information testing (when $B$ is trivial), we establish the necessary and sufficient number of samples required up to polylogarithmic terms. Our technical contributions include a novel method to efficiently simulate weakly correlated samples from the conditionally independent distribution $P_{A|B} P_{C|B} P_B$ given access to samples from an unknown distribution $P_{ABC}$, and a new estimator for equivalence testing that can handle such correlated samples, which might be of independent interest.
Jan Seyfried, Sayantan Sen, Marco Tomamichel
COLT1