REVIEW 2 cited by
Preventing Failures Due to Dataset Shift: Learning Predictive Models That Transport
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Classical supervised learning produces unreliable models when training and target distributions differ, with most existing solutions requiring samples from the target domain. We propose a proactive approach which learns a relationship in the training domain that will generalize to the target domain by incorporating prior knowledge of aspects of the data generating process that are expected to differ as expressed in a causal selection diagram. Specifically, we remove variables generated by unstable mechanisms from the joint factorization to yield the Surgery Estimator---an interventional distribution that is invariant to the differences across environments. We prove that the surgery estimator finds stable relationships in strictly more scenarios than previous approaches which only consider conditional relationships, and demonstrate this in simulated experiments. We also evaluate on real world data for which the true causal diagram is unknown, performing competitively against entirely data-driven approaches.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Aligning Evaluation with Clinical Priorities: Calibration, Label Shift, and Error Costs
A new evaluation metric, the DCA log score, averages cost-weighted accuracy over a bounded, logit-uniform range of class prevalences, linking calibration, label shift, and error costs in one closed-form score.
-
Signal Fidelity Index-Aware Calibration for Dementia Predictions Across Heterogeneous Real-World Data
A multiplicative calibration using a six-component diagnostic fidelity score improved simulated dementia predictions by 10 to 33 percent, but only on synthetic data where the score is derived from labels.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.