Papers for

statistical inference teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Gaussian behavior emerges in SGD despite infinite stationary moments

Gaussian Limits for SGD Without Stationary Moments

Abstract: Temporal dependence can separate the Gaussian approximation of stochastic gradient descent from its stationary moments. For unmodified least-squares SGD, we construct a design with standard Gaussian marginals whose stationary error has every positive moment infinite. Independent observations with the same marginals instead give finite stationary variance. Both regimes retain a Gaussian small-step limit. Our general theory establishes pathwise contraction from a finite second design moment, then uses score cancellation and localization to obtain stationary Gaussian and Ornstein--Uhlenbeck limits. Independent Gaussian regression errors yield an exact conditional Gaussian law and total-variation convergence under the same design integrability. Stronger design conditions identify a positive first-order total-variation constant and a deterministic covariance correction with $o(a)$ error. A scalar coverage expansion translates this correction into its inference consequence. Experiments examine distributional error, coverage, and calibration with dependent scores. Together, these results establish precise probability-law approximation beyond moment-based stationary analysis.

Sun 4 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) is a common method to train models, but understanding its long-term error distribution can be tricky when errors do not settle down nicely. The authors show that even when usual measures of error size become infinite due to dependencies in data, the overall SGD error still behaves like a Gaussian (bell curve) under certain conditions. They develop a mathematical theory explaining when and how this Gaussian behavior appears, helping us better approximate and understand the error distributions beyond standard assumptions. This improved understanding is supported by experiments checking how well these approximations work.
Open → 2610.05599v1

Finite-sample hypothesis testing bounds quantify privacy tradeoffs

Finite-Sample Binary Hypothesis Testing via Rényi Divergences: Strong Converse and Local Privacy

Abstract: We study asymmetric simple binary hypothesis testing between $H_0:P_0^{n}$ and $H_1:P_1^{n}$, based on $n$ independent and identically distributed observations. Leveraging a variational representation of Rényi divergence of order $α$, we derive our main result: a finite-sample converse with $α>1$. The bound uses both directions of the divergence $D_α(P_1\|P_0)$ and $D_α(P_0\|P_1)$, tensorises under product measures, and contains familiar data-processing converses as boundary cases. For comparison, we apply the same variational approach to general $f$-divergences and specialise it to total variation, $E_γ$, Hellinger, and Kullback Leibler divergences, thereby recovering familiar converses within a unified framework. Together with an achievability bound involving Rényi divergence with $α\in (0,1)$, the main converse recovers the phase transition of the optimal Type II error under the exponentially decaying Type I error constraint $\varepsilon_n=e^{-nr}$. Under regularity conditions, the optimal Type II error vanishes exponentially when $r<D(P_1\|P_0)$ and converges exponentially fast to one when $r>D(P_1\|P_0)$. We also derive sample-complexity bounds and extend both the converse and achievability analyses to locally differentially private observations, quantifying the cost of privacy and recovering the non-private achievability bound as the privacy constraint vanishes.

Wed 23 SeptInformation Theory
The gist
This paper studies deciding between two simple possibilities using a limited number of data points. The authors find precise mathematical limits on how well you can tell the difference with finite samples, based on a tool called Rényi divergence. They also show how these limits change when the data is subject to local privacy restrictions, explaining the cost of keeping data private. Their results unify and extend several known testing bounds into one framework.
Open → 2609.27617v1