Conditional independence and graphical models for rankings

Ranking data arise in scientific and machine learning applications, including recommendation systems, information retrieval, voting, marketing, and AI preference ranking from human feedback. Existing statistical work has primarily focused on inference tasks such as preference estimation, rank aggregation, and ranking prediction. However, generating realistic synthetic rankings from an observed population is important for privacy-preserving data sharing, benchmark construction, simulation, and uncertainty quantification. This task is challenging because rankings are high-dimensional combinatorial objects with non-Euclidean dependence structures, while ranking populations often exhibit substantial preference heterogeneity. We propose a framework for population-level generative modeling through a latent preference simplex embedding. It estimates a low-dimensional latent preference simplex through a likelihood-based ranking model, leverages flow matching to learn the population distribution of latent preferences, and generates new rankings through the fitted probabilistic ranking model. We show that ranking generation admits an oracle reduction to latent distribution learning and derive finite-sample generative guarantees that clarify how the number of items, ranking length, and latent dimension affect accuracy. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets demonstrate improved population-level fidelity and provide a statistically interpretable representation of preference heterogeneity.

Testing conditional independence is fundamental yet intrinsically difficult: without additional assumptions, Type I error control is impossible in general. The "Model-X'' paradigm addresses this difficulty by assuming exact knowledge of a relevant conditional distribution. While small deviations from this assumption can sometimes be tolerated in classical one-shot testing, existing sequential conditional independence tests typically require the Model-X conditional to be known exactly, making them fragile when it must instead be estimated. We propose a new approach that is substantially more robust to such estimation error. Our method applies testing-by-betting to an adaptively optimized Kernel Conditional Independence statistic, together with a normalization scheme and a truncate-and-shift calibration strategy. These modifications greatly reduce Type I error inflation while preserving high power across high-dimensional synthetic benchmarks and real-world fairness tasks, outperforming existing sequential Model-X approaches. Code is available at https://github.com/he-zh/SKCI.

Leaderboards rank models by their average scores on benchmark items, and they are consulted repeatedly while the evaluation is still running. Existing confidence intervals for a model's rank control their error rate only if they are computed once, after a number of items chosen in advance. If they are recomputed as results arrive, and the evaluation stops once they look decisive, their error rate exceeds its nominal level. Anytime-valid methods keep their guarantees at all sample sizes simultaneously and hence under any stopping rule. They exist for the accuracy of one model, for one pair of models and for the set of models that may be best. For pairwise battles they also give ranks. None gives ranks when all models are scored on the same items, which makes their scores dependent. We construct rank confidence sequences: for every model, a set of ranks that contains its true rank, simultaneously for all models and at all times, at a chosen error level $α$, in finite samples. The construction combines betting e-processes, one for each ordered pair of models, with closed testing over the possible orderings of the models. It allows any dependence between the models' scores on an item. The method has two advantages. A leaderboard can be inspected after every item without inflating its error rate. The evaluation of each model can stop as soon as the question asked about it is answered, which saves compute. When results are examined only once, halfway through or later, little power is lost relative to fixed-sample methods. The paper quantifies these advantages in simulations and on public leaderboard data.