mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Hypothesis Testing with Conditional Queries: Learnability and the Value of Interaction

arXiv 2608.06262 ↗First posted 6 Aug 2026cs.LG math.ST stat.THcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Model evaluations may fix all tests before observing any responses or select later tests using earlier responses. We study this choice in a conditional-query model on a finite outcome space X with |X|=N. We first ask which pairs of distribution classes can be reliably distinguished. We then ask how many additional queries are required to match an adaptive tester when all queried events must be fixed in advance. We show that learnability holds if and only if the two classes have positive separation in their pairwise conditional probabilities. When this separation is zero, the optimal worst-case error is exactly 1/2 at every finite query budget. For any T-query adaptive policy and any ρ ∈ (0,1), we construct a randomized non-adaptive procedure using O(N2(T + log(1/ρ))) pair queries chosen before any response is observed. Its simulated transcript is within ρ in total variation of the adaptive transcript, uniformly over all distributions in the model. We also construct a matching family with constant adaptive query complexity and Omega_varepsilon(N2) non-adaptive query complexity. Consequently, the worst-case fixed-error adaptivity gap is Theta_varepsilon(N2). Thus interaction can reduce the required number of tests by a quadratic factor, but the apparent exponential branching of an interactive evaluation does not yield an exponential query advantage.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2026.

Builds on

21 of 42 references.

References · 21

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  3. 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
  4. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  5. 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
  6. 2021Dynabench: Rethinking Benchmarking in NLPcited by 447
  7. 2024tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examplescited by 295
  8. 2024LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmarkcited by 242
  9. 2020DynaSent: A Dynamic Benchmark for Sentiment Analysiscited by 63
  10. 2023Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humanscited by 36
  11. 2025Reliable and Efficient Amortized Model-based Evaluationcited by 29
  12. 2021BOBCAT: Bilevel Optimization-Based Computerized Adaptive Testingcited by 22
9 more
  1. 2022Dynatask: A Framework for Creating Dynamic AI Benchmark Taskscited by 16
  2. 2026Efficient Evaluation of LLM Performance with Statistical Guaranteescited by 16
  3. 2015Faster Algorithms for Testing under Conditional Samplingcited by 7
  4. 2022Perfect Sampling from Pairwise Comparisonscited by 6
  5. 2014A Chasm Between Identity and Equivalence Testing with Conditional Queriescited by 5
  6. 2018Anaconda: A Non-Adaptive Conditional Sampling Algorithm for Distribution Testingcited by 5
  7. 2020On Distribution Testing in the Conditional Sampling Modelcited by 4
  8. 2025AutoJudger: An Agent-Driven Framework for Efficient Benchmarking of MLLMscited by 3
  9. 2024Equivalence Testing: The Power of Bounded Adaptivitycited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.