mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

When Are Trade-Off Functions Testable from Finite Samples?

arXiv 2605.10774 ↗First posted 11 May 2026math.ST stat.ML stat.THcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We study finite-sample inference for the trade-off function of two unknown probability distributions, the function that traces the optimal type I/type II error frontier in binary testing. Given samples from distributions P and Q, we consider the problem of testing whether their trade-off function lies above a benchmark curve f0 or falls below a weaker benchmark f1. Without structural restrictions, this problem is impossible uniformly over nonparametric classes. We identify a sharp condition under which it becomes possible. The key structural assumption is that the Neyman--Pearson rejection regions for (P,Q) are attainable, up to null sets, by a prescribed class S of measurable sets. Within this exact attainability framework, finite Vapnik--Chervonenkis dimension of S is both sufficient and necessary for nontrivial finite-sample testing. We construct a test with nonasymptotic error guarantees: type I error control is valid without assuming attainability, while power holds uniformly over attainable alternatives satisfying an explicit separation condition. By inverting the test, we also obtain simultaneous confidence bands for the whole trade-off curve. Finally, we study the sharpness and robustness of the procedure. In the monotone likelihood-ratio model, we derive local separation rates and prove matching lower bounds up to logarithmic factors. We also allow approximate, rather than exact, attainability; this extension yields finite-sample guarantees for univariate log-concave distributions by approximating their rejection regions with unions of intervals.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.

Builds on

12 of 23 references.

References · 12

  1. 2023Privacy Auditing with One (1) Training Runcited by 123
  2. 2018Detecting Violations of Differential Privacycited by 39
  3. 2013Optimal Algorithms for Testing Closeness of Discrete Distributionscited by 37
  4. 2024Auditing f-Differential Privacy in One Runcited by 30
  5. 2018Property Testing for Differential Privacycited by 16
  6. 2016Collision-based Testers are Optimal for Uniformity and Closenesscited by 15
  7. 2021The Price of Tolerance in Distribution Testingcited by 14
  8. 2015Optimal Algorithms and Lower Bounds for Testing Closeness of Structured Distributionscited by 11
  9. 2023A Randomized Approach for Tight Privacy Accountingcited by 11
  10. 2025General-Purpose f-DP Estimation and Auditing in a Black-Box Settingcited by 4
  11. 2021Exploring the Gap between Tolerant and Non-tolerant Distribution Testingcited by 2
  12. 2025Testing Imprecise Hypothesescited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.