Kernel-based External Validity of Experimental Studies

The Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) is a cornerstone statistic for nonparametric two-sample testing, but its test power is dictated entirely by the chosen kernel. Because any fixed kernel inherently fails to distinguish certain distributions, the kernel must be dynamically optimized. However, data-driven optimization violates the foundational i.i.d. assumption, forcing a strict trade-off in existing frameworks. Ratio criteria ignore this dependence, inducing overfitting and variance collapse on rich kernel classes. Conversely, aggregation methods bypass the dependence using finite grids, but this strategy cannot scale to continuous search spaces like deep kernels. To break this dichotomy, we establish data-driven kernel selection as a model selection problem. We propose Complexity-Penalized MMD (CP-MMD), a criterion derived by applying the two-sample uniform concentration inequality of preceding works to the post-optimization MMD problem. The resulting penalty bounds the empirical MMD by the complexity of the kernel search space, mathematically absorbing the cost of optimization, so that CP-MMD enables direct, grid-free maximization over continuous parametric classes, including scalar bandwidths, polynomial feature bandwidths, and deep network parameters. By formally accounting for optimization complexity, we prove that CP-MMD maximizes true test power while ensuring unconditional Type-I validity. Consequently, CP-MMD enables grid-free kernel selection across linear, polynomial-feature, and deep regimes, matching or exceeding state-of-the-art test power.

Controlled experiments are the backbone of machine learning research, but at the scale of modern foundation models, they have become prohibitively expensive. Instead, the community increasingly relies on research strategies that approximate the ideal experiment at a fraction of the cost: proxy experiments and scaling laws, observational studies with publicly available models, and single-run designs that leverage variation within individual training runs. In this work, we argue that there is no free lunch when approximating large-scale experiments on a compute budget. Specifically, savings in compute come at the cost of validity threats -- hidden and sometimes untestable assumptions that, when violated, can invalidate research claims. To help navigate such threats, we propose an evaluation framework that casts foundation model research as a causal inference problem. Within this framework, we evaluate different research strategies through four types of validity adapted from the empirical social sciences -- statistical, internal, external, and construct validity. We find that each strategy comes with a characteristic validity profile: proxy experiments trade external and construct validity for statistical and internal validity; observational studies face confounding and effect heterogeneity; and single-run designs are strained by interference between treated units. This analysis reveals several validity threats that have received insufficient attention in the literature. Overall, our evaluation framework provides researchers with a practical toolkit for scrutinizing validity threats in foundation model research~designs.

Existing two-sample testing techniques, particularly those based on choosing a kernel for the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD), often assume equal sample sizes from the two distributions. Applying these methods in practice can require discarding valuable data, unnecessarily reducing test power. We address this long-standing limitation by extending the theory of generalized U-statistics and applying it to the usual MMD estimator, resulting in new characterization of the asymptotic distributions of the MMD estimator with unequal sample sizes (particularly outside the proportional regimes required by previous partial results). This generalization also provides a new criterion for optimizing the power of an MMD test with unequal sample sizes. Our approach preserves all available data, enhancing test accuracy and applicability in realistic settings. Along the way, we give much cleaner characterizations of the variance of MMD estimators, revealing something that might be surprising to those in the area: while zero MMD implies a degenerate estimator, it is sometimes possible to have a degenerate estimator with nonzero MMD as well; we give a construction and a proof that it does not happen in common situations.