Empirically Calibrated Conditional Independence Tests
Organizations: Computational Oncology Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Abstract
Conditional independence tests (CIT) are widely used for causal discovery and feature selection. Even with false discovery rate (FDR) control procedures, they often fail to provide frequentist guarantees in practice. We highlight two common failure modes: (i) in small samples, asymptotic guarantees for many CITs can be inaccurate and even correctly specified models fail to estimate the noise levels and control the error, and (ii) when sample sizes are large but models are misspecified, unaccounted dependencies skew the test's behavior and fail to return uniform p-values under the null. We propose Empirically Calibrated Conditional Independence Tests (ECCIT), a method that measures and corrects for miscalibration. For a chosen base CIT (e.g., GCM, HRT), ECCIT optimizes an adversary that selects features and response functions to maximize a miscalibration metric. ECCIT then fits a monotone calibration map that adjusts the base-test p-values in proportion to the observed miscalibration. Across empirical benchmarks on synthetic and real data, ECCIT achieves valid FDR with higher power than existing calibration strategies while remaining test agnostic.
Figures & tables
| Input: Dataset ; test ; adversary class with and ; calibration metric . |
| Fit the worst-case adversary as in Equation 2 . |
| Let denote the null features under . |
| for do |
| Bootstrap by resampling rows of . |
| Sample . |
| Compute . |
| Method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCM | 0.165 / 0.086 | 0.127 / 0.141 | 0.125 / 0.181 | 0.145 / 0.227 |
| Calibrated GCM | 0.166 / 0.058 | 0.179 / 0.070 | 0.177 / 0.075 | 0.177 / 0.082 |
| HRT | 0.109 / 0.220 | 0.074 / 0.321 | 0.053 / 0.388 | 0.057 / 0.444 |
| Calibrated HRT | 0.161 / 0.093 | 0.146 / 0.137 | 0.137 / 0.159 | 0.150 / 0.176 |
| CONTRA-HRT | 0.010 / 0.489 | 0.010 / 0.497 | 0.010 / 0.502 | 0.027 / 0.520 |
| CONTRA-FASTCRT | 0.012 / 0.539 | 0.012 / 0.548 | 0.008 / 0.562 | 0.017 / 0.572 |
| Method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCM | 0.372 / 0.132 | 0.292 / 0.203 | 0.255 / 0.244 | 0.207 / 0.281 |
| Calibrated GCM | 0.432 / 0.043 | 0.407 / 0.085 | 0.333 / 0.158 | 0.292 / 0.204 |
| HRT | 0.400 / 0.030 | 0.388 / 0.050 | 0.370 / 0.076 | 0.347 / 0.103 |
| Calibrated HRT | 0.400 / 0.030 | 0.388 / 0.050 | 0.370 / 0.076 | 0.347 / 0.103 |
| CONTRA-HRT | 0.122 / 0.324 | 0.122 / 0.333 | 0.092 / 0.375 | 0.087 / 0.388 |
| CONTRA-FASTCRT | 0.133 / 0.335 | 0.125 / 0.352 | 0.068 / 0.405 | 0.068 / 0.425 |
Conditional Independence Testing
Conditional independence testing asks whether two variables remain independent after accounting for other variables, supporting causal discovery and valid inference.
See all 19 papersFast Nonparametric Conditional Independence Testing via Two-Stage Regression
Meta-Dependence in Conditional Independence Testing
meta-dependence'' between conditional independence properties using the following geometric intuition: satisfying each conditional independence property constrains the space of possible joint distributions to a manifold. The meta-dependence'' of multiple conditional independences in a probability distribution is informed by its position relative to these manifolds. We provide a simple-to-compute measure of this meta-dependence using moment projections, with a closed-form expression for multivariate Gaussian distributions, and consolidate our findings empirically using both synthetic and real-world data. Our measure of meta-dependence does not rely on graphical properties of the distribution and can be computed directly from summary statistics such as a covariance matrix, allowing for various applications. We demonstrate one use case of meta-dependence, using a simple redundancy metric to tune significance thresholds and improve causal discovery.