ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Causal machine-learning is about predicting the net-effect (true-lift) of treatments. Given the data of a treatment group and a control group, it is similar to a standard supervised-learning problem. Unfortunately, there is no similarly well-defined loss function due to the lack of point-wise true values in the data. Many advances in modern machine-learning are not directly applicable due to the absence of such loss function. We propose a novel method to define a loss function in this context, which is equal to mean-square-error (MSE) in a standard regression problem. Our loss function is universally applicable, thus providing a general standard to evaluate the quality of any model/strategy that predicts the true-lift. We demonstrate that despite its novel definition, one can still perform gradient descent directly on this loss function to find the best fit. This leads to a new way to train any parameter-based model, such as deep neural networks, to solve causal machine-learning problems without going through the meta-learner strategy.
Machine learning models have had discernible achievements in a myriad of applications. However, most of these models are black-boxes, and it is obscure how the decisions are made by them. This makes the models unreliable and untrustworthy. To provide
Although much progress has been made towards robust deep learning, a significant gap in robustness remains between real-world perturbations and more narrowly defined sets typically studied in adversarial defenses. In this paper, we aim to bridge this
Robust loss minimization is an important strategy for handling robust learning issue on noisy labels. Current robust loss functions, however, inevitably involve hyperparameter(s) to be tuned, manually or heuristically through cross validation, which
Learning the structure of Bayesian networks and causal relationships from observations is a common goal in several areas of science and technology. We show that the prequential minimum description length principle (MDL) can be used to derive a practi
This note is a response to [7] in which it is claimed that [13, Proposition 11] is false. We demonstrate here that this assertion in [7] is false, and is based on a misreading of the notion of set membership in [13, Proposition 11]. We maintain that