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

Prior probabilities of clinical hypotheses are not systematically used for clinical trial design yet, due to a concern that poor priors may lead to poor decisions. To address this concern, a conservative approach to Bayesian trial design is illustrated here, requiring that the operational characteristics of the primary trial outcome are stronger than the prior. This approach is complementary to current Bayesian design methods, in that it insures against prior-data conflict by defining a sample size commensurate to a fixed design prior. This approach is ethical, in that it requires designs appropriate to achieving pre-specified levels of clinical equipoise imbalance. Practical examples are discussed, illustrating design of trials with binary or time to event endpoints. Moderate increases in phase II study sample size are shown to deliver strong levels of overall evidence for go/no-go clinical development decisions. Levels of negative evidence provided by group sequential confirmatory designs are found negligible, highlighting the importance of complementing efficacy boundaries with non-binding futility criteria.

Recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in Boolean function in explaining binary classifiers in the field of explainable AI (XAI). The standard approach of Boolean function is propositional logic. We present a modal language of a ceteris paribus nature which supports reasoning about binary input classifiers and their properties. We study a family of classifier models, axiomatize it as two proof systems regarding the cardinality of the language and show completeness of our axiomatics. Moreover, we prove that satisfiability checking problem for our modal language is NEXPTIME-complete in the infinite-variable case, while it becomes polynomial in the finite-variable case. We furthermore identify an interesting NP fragment of our language in the infinite-variable case. We leverage the language to formalize counterfactual conditional as well as a variety of notions of explanation including abductive, contrastive and counterfactual explanations, and biases. Finally, we present two extensions of our language: a dynamic extension by the notion of assignment enabling classifier change and an epistemic extension in which the classifier's uncertainty about the actual input can be represented.

Robust feature selection is vital for creating reliable and interpretable Machine Learning (ML) models. When designing statistical prediction models in cases where domain knowledge is limited and underlying interactions are unknown, choosing the optimal set of features is often difficult. To mitigate this issue, we introduce a Multidata (M) causal feature selection approach that simultaneously processes an ensemble of time series datasets and produces a single set of causal drivers. This approach uses the causal discovery algorithms PC1 or PCMCI that are implemented in the Tigramite Python package. These algorithms utilize conditional independence tests to infer parts of the causal graph. Our causal feature selection approach filters out causally-spurious links before passing the remaining causal features as inputs to ML models (Multiple linear regression, Random Forest) that predict the targets. We apply our framework to the statistical intensity prediction of Western Pacific Tropical Cyclones (TC), for which it is often difficult to accurately choose drivers and their dimensionality reduction (time lags, vertical levels, and area-averaging). Using more stringent significance thresholds in the conditional independence tests helps eliminate spurious causal relationships, thus helping the ML model generalize better to unseen TC cases. M-PC1 with a reduced number of features outperforms M-PCMCI, non-causal ML, and other feature selection methods (lagged correlation, random), even slightly outperforming feature selection based on eXplainable Artificial Intelligence. The optimal causal drivers obtained from our causal feature selection help improve our understanding of underlying relationships and suggest new potential drivers of TC intensification.

From simulating galaxy formation to viral transmission in a pandemic, scientific models play a pivotal role in developing scientific theories and supporting government policy decisions that affect us all. Given these critical applications, a poor modelling assumption or bug could have far-reaching consequences. However, scientific models possess several properties that make them notoriously difficult to test, including a complex input space, long execution times, and non-determinism, rendering existing testing techniques impractical. In fields such as epidemiology, where researchers seek answers to challenging causal questions, a statistical methodology known as Causal Inference has addressed similar problems, enabling the inference of causal conclusions from noisy, biased, and sparse data instead of costly experiments. This paper introduces the Causal Testing Framework: a framework that uses Causal Inference techniques to establish causal effects from existing data, enabling users to conduct software testing activities concerning the effect of a change, such as Metamorphic Testing, a posteriori. We present three case studies covering real-world scientific models, demonstrating how the Causal Testing Framework can infer metamorphic test outcomes from reused, confounded test data to provide an efficient solution for testing scientific modelling software.

We address the computational efficiency in solving the A-optimal Bayesian design of experiments problems for which the observational model is based on partial differential equations and, consequently, is computationally expensive to evaluate. A-optimality is a widely used and easy-to-interpret criterion for the Bayesian design of experiments. The criterion seeks the optimal experiment design by minimizing the expected conditional variance, also known as the expected posterior variance. This work presents a novel likelihood-free method for seeking the A-optimal design of experiments without sampling or integrating the Bayesian posterior distribution. In our approach, the expected conditional variance is obtained via the variance of the conditional expectation using the law of total variance, while we take advantage of the orthogonal projection property to approximate the conditional expectation. Through an asymptotic error estimation, we show that the intractability of the posterior does not affect the performance of our approach. We use an artificial neural network (ANN) to approximate the nonlinear conditional expectation to implement our method. For dealing with continuous experimental design parameters, we integrate the training process of the ANN into minimizing the expected conditional variance. Specifically, we propose a non-local approximation of the conditional expectation and apply transfer learning to reduce the number of evaluations of the observation model. Through numerical experiments, we demonstrate that our method significantly reduces the number of observational model evaluations compared with common importance sampling-based approaches. This reduction is crucial, considering the computationally expensive nature of these models.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for causal inference, but they are often powered only for average effects, making estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) challenging. Conversely, large-scale observational studies (OS) offer a wealth of data but suffer from confounding bias. Our paper presents a novel framework to leverage OS data for enhancing the efficiency in estimating conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) from RCTs while mitigating common biases. We propose an innovative approach to combine RCTs and OS data, expanding the traditionally used control arms from external sources. The framework relaxes the typical assumption of CATE invariance across populations, acknowledging the often unaccounted systematic differences between RCT and OS participants. We demonstrate this through the special case of a linear outcome model, where the CATE is sparsely different between the two populations. The core of our framework relies on learning potential outcome means from OS data and using them as a nuisance parameter in CATE estimation from RCT data. We further illustrate through experiments that using OS findings reduces the variance of the estimated CATE from RCTs and can decrease the required sample size for detecting HTEs.

The widespread use of black box prediction methods has sparked an increasing interest in algorithm/model-agnostic approaches for quantifying goodness-of-fit, with direct ties to specification testing, model selection and variable importance assessment. A commonly used framework involves defining a predictiveness criterion, applying a cross-fitting procedure to estimate the predictiveness, and utilizing the difference in estimated predictiveness between two models as the test statistic. However, even after standardization, the test statistic typically fails to converge to a non-degenerate distribution under the null hypothesis of equal goodness, leading to what is known as the degeneracy issue. To addresses this degeneracy issue, we present a simple yet effective device, Zipper. It draws inspiration from the strategy of additional splitting of testing data, but encourages an overlap between two testing data splits in predictiveness evaluation. Zipper binds together the two overlapping splits using a slider parameter that controls the proportion of overlap. Our proposed test statistic follows an asymptotically normal distribution under the null hypothesis for any fixed slider value, guaranteeing valid size control while enhancing power by effective data reuse. Finite-sample experiments demonstrate that our procedure, with a simple choice of the slider, works well across a wide range of settings.

Causal discovery and causal reasoning are classically treated as separate and consecutive tasks: one first infers the causal graph, and then uses it to estimate causal effects of interventions. However, such a two-stage approach is uneconomical, especially in terms of actively collected interventional data, since the causal query of interest may not require a fully-specified causal model. From a Bayesian perspective, it is also unnatural, since a causal query (e.g., the causal graph or some causal effect) can be viewed as a latent quantity subject to posterior inference -- other unobserved quantities that are not of direct interest (e.g., the full causal model) ought to be marginalized out in this process and contribute to our epistemic uncertainty. In this work, we propose Active Bayesian Causal Inference (ABCI), a fully-Bayesian active learning framework for integrated causal discovery and reasoning, which jointly infers a posterior over causal models and queries of interest. In our approach to ABCI, we focus on the class of causally-sufficient, nonlinear additive noise models, which we model using Gaussian processes. We sequentially design experiments that are maximally informative about our target causal query, collect the corresponding interventional data, and update our beliefs to choose the next experiment. Through simulations, we demonstrate that our approach is more data-efficient than several baselines that only focus on learning the full causal graph. This allows us to accurately learn downstream causal queries from fewer samples while providing well-calibrated uncertainty estimates for the quantities of interest.

A fundamental goal of scientific research is to learn about causal relationships. However, despite its critical role in the life and social sciences, causality has not had the same importance in Natural Language Processing (NLP), which has traditionally placed more emphasis on predictive tasks. This distinction is beginning to fade, with an emerging area of interdisciplinary research at the convergence of causal inference and language processing. Still, research on causality in NLP remains scattered across domains without unified definitions, benchmark datasets and clear articulations of the remaining challenges. In this survey, we consolidate research across academic areas and situate it in the broader NLP landscape. We introduce the statistical challenge of estimating causal effects, encompassing settings where text is used as an outcome, treatment, or as a means to address confounding. In addition, we explore potential uses of causal inference to improve the performance, robustness, fairness, and interpretability of NLP models. We thus provide a unified overview of causal inference for the computational linguistics community.

Causal inference is a critical research topic across many domains, such as statistics, computer science, education, public policy and economics, for decades. Nowadays, estimating causal effect from observational data has become an appealing research direction owing to the large amount of available data and low budget requirement, compared with randomized controlled trials. Embraced with the rapidly developed machine learning area, various causal effect estimation methods for observational data have sprung up. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive review of causal inference methods under the potential outcome framework, one of the well known causal inference framework. The methods are divided into two categories depending on whether they require all three assumptions of the potential outcome framework or not. For each category, both the traditional statistical methods and the recent machine learning enhanced methods are discussed and compared. The plausible applications of these methods are also presented, including the applications in advertising, recommendation, medicine and so on. Moreover, the commonly used benchmark datasets as well as the open-source codes are also summarized, which facilitate researchers and practitioners to explore, evaluate and apply the causal inference methods.