Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userDecision-Making Algorithms for Learning and Adaptation with Application to COVID-19 Data
59
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
This work focuses on the development of a new family of decision-making algorithms for adaptation and learning, which are specifically tailored to decision problems and are constructed by building up on first principles from decision theory. A key observation is that estimation and decision problems are structurally different and, therefore, algorithms that have proven successful for the former need not perform well when adjusted for decision problems. We propose a new scheme, referred to as BLLR (barrier log-likelihood ratio algorithm) and demonstrate its applicability to real-data from the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. The results illustrate the ability of the design tool to track the different phases of the outbreak.
rate research
Read More
There have been more than 850,000 confirmed cases and over 48,000 deaths from the human coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), in the United States alone. However, there are currently no proven effective medications against COVID-19. Drug repurposing offers a promising way for the development of prevention and treatment strategies for COVID-19. This study reports an integrative, network-based deep learning methodology to identify repurposable drugs for COVID-19 (termed CoV-KGE). Specifically, we built a comprehensive knowledge graph that includes 15 million edges across 39 types of relationships connecting drugs, diseases, genes, pathways, and expressions, from a large scientific corpus of 24 million PubMed publications. Using Amazon AWS computing resources, we identified 41 repurposable drugs (including indomethacin, toremifene and niclosamide) whose therapeutic association with COVID-19 were validated by transcriptomic and proteomic data in SARS-CoV-2 infected human cells and data from ongoing clinical trials. While this study, by no means recommends specific drugs, it demonstrates a powerful deep learning methodology to prioritize existing drugs for further investigation, which holds the potential of accelerating therapeutic development for COVID-19.
People are rated and ranked, towards algorithmic decision making in an increasing number of applications, typically based on machine learning. Research on how to incorporate fairness into such tasks has prevalently pursued the paradigm of group fairness: giving adequate success rates to specifically protected groups. In contrast, the alternative paradigm of individual fairness has received relatively little attention, and this paper advances this less explored direction. The paper introduces a method for probabilistically mapping user records into a low-rank representation that reconciles individual fairness and the utility of classifiers and rankings in downstream applications. Our notion of individual fairness requires that users who are similar in all task-relevant attributes such as job qualification, and disregarding all potentially discriminating attributes such as gender, should have similar outcomes. We demonstrate the versatility of our method by applying it to classification and learning-to-rank tasks on a variety of real-world datasets. Our experiments show substantial improvements over the best prior work for this setting.
Across a growing number of domains, human experts are expected to learn from and adapt to AI with superior decision making abilities. But how can we quantify such human adaptation to AI? We develop a simple measure of human adaptation to AI and test its usefulness in two case studies. In Study 1, we analyze 1.3 million move decisions made by professional Go players and find that a positive form of adaptation to AI (learning) occurred after the players could observe the reasoning processes of AI, rather than mere actions of AI. These findings based on our measure highlight the importance of explainability for human learning from AI. In Study 2, we test whether our measure is sufficiently sensitive to capture a negative form of adaptation to AI (cheating aided by AI), which occurred in a match between professional Go players. We discuss our measures applications in domains other than Go, especially in domains in which AIs decision making ability will likely surpass that of human experts.
Using the concept of principal stratification from the causal inference literature, we introduce a new notion of fairness, called principal fairness, for human and algorithmic decision-making. The key idea is that one should not discriminate among individuals who would be similarly affected by the decision. Unlike the existing statistical definitions of fairness, principal fairness explicitly accounts for the fact that individuals can be impacted by the decision. We propose an axiomatic assumption that all groups are created equal. This assumption is motivated by a belief that protected attributes such as race and gender should have no direct causal effects on potential outcomes. Under this assumption, we show that principal fairness implies all three existing statistical fairness criteria once we account for relevant covariates. This result also highlights the essential role of conditioning covariates in resolving the previously recognized tradeoffs between the existing statistical fairness criteria. Finally, we discuss how to empirically choose conditioning covariates and then evaluate the principal fairness of a particular decision.
Thompson sampling and other Bayesian sequential decision-making algorithms are among the most popular approaches to tackle explore/exploit trade-offs in (contextual) bandits. The choice of prior in these algorithms offers flexibility to encode domain knowledge but can also lead to poor performance when misspecified. In this paper, we demonstrate that performance degrades gracefully with misspecification. We prove that the expected reward accrued by Thompson sampling (TS) with a misspecified prior differs by at most $tilde{mathcal{O}}(H^2 epsilon)$ from TS with a well specified prior, where $epsilon$ is the total-variation distance between priors and $H$ is the learning horizon. Our bound does not require the prior to have any parametric form. For priors with bounded support, our bound is independent of the cardinality or structure of the action space, and we show that it is tight up to universal constants in the worst case. Building on our sensitivity analysis, we establish generic PAC guarantees for algorithms in the recently studied Bayesian meta-learning setting and derive corollaries for various families of priors. Our results generalize along two axes: (1) they apply to a broader family of Bayesian decision-making algorithms, including a Monte-Carlo implementation of the knowledge gradient algorithm (KG), and (2) they apply to Bayesian POMDPs, the most general Bayesian decision-making setting, encompassing contextual bandits as a special case. Through numerical simulations, we illustrate how prior misspecification and the deployment of one-step look-ahead (as in KG) can impact the convergence of meta-learning in multi-armed and contextual bandits with structured and correlated priors.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
