亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

Deep models trained through maximum likelihood have achieved state-of-the-art results for survival analysis. Despite this training scheme, practitioners evaluate models under other criteria, such as binary classification losses at a chosen set of time horizons, e.g. Brier score (BS) and Bernoulli log likelihood (BLL). Models trained with maximum likelihood may have poor BS or BLL since maximum likelihood does not directly optimize these criteria. Directly optimizing criteria like BS requires inverse-weighting by the censoring distribution. However, estimating the censoring model under these metrics requires inverse-weighting by the failure distribution. The objective for each model requires the other, but neither are known. To resolve this dilemma, we introduce Inverse-Weighted Survival Games. In these games, objectives for each model are built from re-weighted estimates featuring the other model, where the latter is held fixed during training. When the loss is proper, we show that the games always have the true failure and censoring distributions as a stationary point. This means models in the game do not leave the correct distributions once reached. We construct one case where this stationary point is unique. We show that these games optimize BS on simulations and then apply these principles on real world cancer and critically-ill patient data.

We study regression adjustments with additional covariates in randomized experiments under covariate-adaptive randomizations (CARs) when subject compliance is imperfect. We develop a regression-adjusted local average treatment effect (LATE) estimator that is proven to improve efficiency in the estimation of LATEs under CARs. Our adjustments can be parametric in linear and nonlinear forms, nonparametric, and high-dimensional. Even when the adjustments are misspecified, our proposed estimator is still consistent and asymptotically normal, and their inference method still achieves the exact asymptotic size under the null. When the adjustments are correctly specified, our estimator achieves the minimum asymptotic variance. When the adjustments are parametrically misspecified, we construct a new estimator which is weakly more efficient than linearly and nonlinearly adjusted estimators, as well as the one without any adjustments. Simulation evidence and empirical application confirm efficiency gains achieved by regression adjustments relative to both the estimator without adjustment and the standard two-stage least squares estimator.

Population adjustment methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) are increasingly used to compare marginal treatment effects when there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers and limited patient-level data. MAIC is based on propensity score weighting, which is sensitive to poor covariate overlap and cannot extrapolate beyond the observed covariate space. Current outcome regression-based alternatives can extrapolate but target a conditional treatment effect that is incompatible in the indirect comparison. When adjusting for covariates, one must integrate or average the conditional estimate over the relevant population to recover a compatible marginal treatment effect. We propose a marginalization method based on parametric G-computation that can be easily applied where the outcome regression is a generalized linear model or a Cox model. The approach views the covariate adjustment regression as a nuisance model and separates its estimation from the evaluation of the marginal treatment effect of interest. The method can accommodate a Bayesian statistical framework, which naturally integrates the analysis into a probabilistic framework. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle and benchmarks the method's performance against MAIC and the conventional outcome regression. Parametric G-computation achieves more precise and more accurate estimates than MAIC, particularly when covariate overlap is poor, and yields unbiased marginal treatment effect estimates under no failures of assumptions. Furthermore, the marginalized regression-adjusted estimates provide greater precision and accuracy than the conditional estimates produced by the conventional outcome regression, which are systematically biased because the measure of effect is non-collapsible.

Population adjustment methods such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) are increasingly used to compare marginal treatment effects when there are cross-trial differences in effect modifiers and limited patient-level data. MAIC is sensitive to poor covariate overlap and cannot extrapolate beyond the observed covariate space. Current outcome regression-based alternatives can extrapolate but target a conditional treatment effect that is incompatible in the indirect comparison. When adjusting for covariates, one must integrate or average the conditional estimate over the population of interest to recover a compatible marginal treatment effect. We propose a marginalization method based on parametric G-computation that can be easily applied where the outcome regression is a generalized linear model or a Cox model. In addition, we introduce a novel general-purpose method based on multiple imputation, which we term multiple imputation marginalization (MIM) and is applicable to a wide range of models. Both methods can accommodate a Bayesian statistical framework, which naturally integrates the analysis into a probabilistic framework. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle for the methods and benchmarks their performance against MAIC and the conventional outcome regression. The marginalized outcome regression approaches achieve more precise and more accurate estimates than MAIC, particularly when covariate overlap is poor, and yield unbiased marginal treatment effect estimates under no failures of assumptions. Furthermore, the marginalized regression-adjusted estimates provide greater precision and accuracy than the conditional estimates produced by the conventional outcome regression, which are systematically biased because the measure of effect is non-collapsible.

Prediction of the future position of a target road user given its current position, velocity and type is formulated as a weighted average. Weights are determined from data of previously observed road users, specifically from those that are most similar to the target. This formulation results in an interpretable model with few parameters. The model is validated on a dataset of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians in real-world traffic situations. The model outperforms the baseline constant velocity model, wheras a baseline neural network model shows comparable performance, but this model lacks the same level of interpretability. A comparison is made with state-of-the-arts, where these show superior performance on a sparse dataset, for which it is expected that the weighted average model works less well. With some further refinements a weighted average formulation could yield a reliable and interpretable model, in constrast to one which is difficult to analyze and has a huge number of uninterpretable parameters.

In order for humans to confidently decide where to employ RL agents for real-world tasks, a human developer must validate that the agent will perform well at test-time. Some policy interpretability methods facilitate this by capturing the policy's decision making in a set of agent rollouts. However, even the most informative trajectories of training time behavior may give little insight into the agent's behavior out of distribution. In contrast, our method conveys how the agent performs under distribution shifts by showing the agent's behavior across a wider trajectory distribution. We generate these trajectories by guiding the agent to more diverse unseen states and showing the agent's behavior there. In a user study, we demonstrate that our method enables users to score better than baseline methods on one of two agent validation tasks.

Reviewers in peer review are often miscalibrated: they may be strict, lenient, extreme, moderate, etc. A number of algorithms have previously been proposed to calibrate reviews. Such attempts of calibration can however leak sensitive information about which reviewer reviewed which paper. In this paper, we identify this problem of calibration with privacy, and provide a foundational building block to address it. Specifically, we present a theoretical study of this problem under a simplified-yet-challenging model involving two reviewers, two papers, and an MAP-computing adversary. Our main results establish the Pareto frontier of the tradeoff between privacy (preventing the adversary from inferring reviewer identity) and utility (accepting better papers), and design explicit computationally-efficient algorithms that we prove are Pareto optimal.

Several queries and scores have recently been proposed to explain individual predictions over ML models. Given the need for flexible, reliable, and easy-to-apply interpretability methods for ML models, we foresee the need for developing declarative languages to naturally specify different explainability queries. We do this in a principled way by rooting such a language in a logic, called FOIL, that allows for expressing many simple but important explainability queries, and might serve as a core for more expressive interpretability languages. We study the computational complexity of FOIL queries over two classes of ML models often deemed to be easily interpretable: decision trees and OBDDs. Since the number of possible inputs for an ML model is exponential in its dimension, the tractability of the FOIL evaluation problem is delicate but can be achieved by either restricting the structure of the models or the fragment of FOIL being evaluated. We also present a prototype implementation of FOIL wrapped in a high-level declarative language and perform experiments showing that such a language can be used in practice.

To make deliberate progress towards more intelligent and more human-like artificial systems, we need to be following an appropriate feedback signal: we need to be able to define and evaluate intelligence in a way that enables comparisons between two systems, as well as comparisons with humans. Over the past hundred years, there has been an abundance of attempts to define and measure intelligence, across both the fields of psychology and AI. We summarize and critically assess these definitions and evaluation approaches, while making apparent the two historical conceptions of intelligence that have implicitly guided them. We note that in practice, the contemporary AI community still gravitates towards benchmarking intelligence by comparing the skill exhibited by AIs and humans at specific tasks such as board games and video games. We argue that solely measuring skill at any given task falls short of measuring intelligence, because skill is heavily modulated by prior knowledge and experience: unlimited priors or unlimited training data allow experimenters to "buy" arbitrary levels of skills for a system, in a way that masks the system's own generalization power. We then articulate a new formal definition of intelligence based on Algorithmic Information Theory, describing intelligence as skill-acquisition efficiency and highlighting the concepts of scope, generalization difficulty, priors, and experience. Using this definition, we propose a set of guidelines for what a general AI benchmark should look like. Finally, we present a benchmark closely following these guidelines, the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC), built upon an explicit set of priors designed to be as close as possible to innate human priors. We argue that ARC can be used to measure a human-like form of general fluid intelligence and that it enables fair general intelligence comparisons between AI systems and humans.

Recent studies have shown the vulnerability of reinforcement learning (RL) models in noisy settings. The sources of noises differ across scenarios. For instance, in practice, the observed reward channel is often subject to noise (e.g., when observed rewards are collected through sensors), and thus observed rewards may not be credible as a result. Also, in applications such as robotics, a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) algorithm can be manipulated to produce arbitrary errors. In this paper, we consider noisy RL problems where observed rewards by RL agents are generated with a reward confusion matrix. We call such observed rewards as perturbed rewards. We develop an unbiased reward estimator aided robust RL framework that enables RL agents to learn in noisy environments while observing only perturbed rewards. Our framework draws upon approaches for supervised learning with noisy data. The core ideas of our solution include estimating a reward confusion matrix and defining a set of unbiased surrogate rewards. We prove the convergence and sample complexity of our approach. Extensive experiments on different DRL platforms show that policies based on our estimated surrogate reward can achieve higher expected rewards, and converge faster than existing baselines. For instance, the state-of-the-art PPO algorithm is able to obtain 67.5% and 46.7% improvements in average on five Atari games, when the error rates are 10% and 30% respectively.