Estimating arbitrary quantities of interest (QoIs) that are non-linear operators of complex, expensive-to-evaluate, black-box functions is a challenging problem due to missing domain knowledge and finite budgets. Bayesian optimal design of experiments (BODE) is a family of methods that identify an optimal design of experiments (DOE) under different contexts, using only in a limited number of function evaluations. Under BODE methods, sequential design of experiments (SDOE) accomplishes this task by selecting an optimal sequence of experiments while using data-driven probabilistic surrogate models instead of the expensive black-box function. Probabilistic predictions from the surrogate model are used to define an information acquisition function (IAF) which quantifies the marginal value contributed or the expected information gained by a hypothetical experiment. The next experiment is selected by maximizing the IAF. A generally applicable IAF is the expected information gain (EIG) about a QoI as captured by the expectation of the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the predictive distribution of the QoI after doing a hypothetical experiment and the current predictive distribution about the same QoI. We model the underlying information source as a fully-Bayesian, non-stationary Gaussian process (FBNSGP), and derive an approximation of the information gain of a hypothetical experiment about an arbitrary QoI conditional on the hyper-parameters The EIG about the same QoI is estimated by sample averages to integrate over the posterior of the hyper-parameters and the potential experimental outcomes. We demonstrate the performance of our method in four numerical examples and a practical engineering problem of steel wire manufacturing. The method is compared to two classic SDOE methods: random sampling and uncertainty sampling.

The method of covariate adjustment is often used for estimation of population average treatment effects in observational studies. Graphical rules for determining all valid covariate adjustment sets from an assumed causal graphical model are well known. Restricting attention to causal linear models, a recent article derived two novel graphical criteria: one to compare the asymptotic variance of linear regression treatment effect estimators that control for certain distinct adjustment sets and another to identify the optimal adjustment set that yields the least squares treatment effect estimator with the smallest asymptotic variance among consistent adjusted least squares estimators. In this paper we show that the same graphical criteria can be used in non-parametric causal graphical models when treatment effects are estimated by contrasts involving non-parametrically adjusted estimators of the interventional means. We also provide a graphical criterion for determining the optimal adjustment set among the minimal adjustment sets, which is valid for both linear and non-parametric estimators. We provide a new graphical criterion for comparing time dependent adjustment sets, that is, sets comprised by covariates that adjust for future treatments and that are themselves affected by earlier treatments. We show by example that uniformly optimal time dependent adjustment sets do not always exist. In addition, for point interventions, we provide a sound and complete graphical criterion for determining when a non-parametric optimally adjusted estimator of an interventional mean, or of a contrast of interventional means, is as efficient as an efficient estimator of the same parameter that exploits the information in the conditional independencies encoded in the non-parametric causal graphical model.

Detecting biases in artificial intelligence has become difficult because of the impenetrable nature of deep learning. The central difficulty is in relating unobservable phenomena deep inside models with observable, outside quantities that we can measure from inputs and outputs. For example, can we detect gendered perceptions of occupations (e.g., female librarian, male electrician) using questions to and answers from a word embedding-based system? Current techniques for detecting biases are often customized for a task, dataset, or method, affecting their generalization. In this work, we draw from Psychophysics in Experimental Psychology---meant to relate quantities from the real world (i.e., "Physics") into subjective measures in the mind (i.e., "Psyche")---to propose an intellectually coherent and generalizable framework to detect biases in AI. Specifically, we adapt the two-alternative forced choice task (2AFC) to estimate potential biases and the strength of those biases in black-box models. We successfully reproduce previously-known biased perceptions in word embeddings and sentiment analysis predictions. We discuss how concepts in experimental psychology can be naturally applied to understanding artificial mental phenomena, and how psychophysics can form a useful methodological foundation to study fairness in AI.

A two-layer neural network model that systematically includes correlations among input variables to arbitrary order and is designed to implement Bayes inference has been adapted to classify breast cancer tumors as malignant or benign, assigning a probability for either outcome. The inputs to the network represent measured characteristics of cell nuclei imaged in Fine Needle Aspiration biopsies. The present machine-learning approach to diagnosis (known as HOPP, for higher-order probabilistic perceptron) is tested on the much-studied, open-access Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnosis) Data Set of Wolberg et al. This set lists, for each tumor, measured physical parameters of the cell nuclei of each sample. The HOPP model can identify the key factors -- input features and their combinations -- most relevant for reliable diagnosis. HOPP networks were trained on 90\% of the examples in the Wisconsin database, and tested on the remaining 10\%. Referred to ensembles of 300 networks, selected randomly for cross-validation, accuracy of classification for the test sets of up to 97\% was readily achieved, with standard deviation around 2\%, together with average Matthews correlation coefficients reaching 0.94 indicating excellent predictive performance. Demonstrably, the HOPP is capable of matching the predictive power attained by other advanced machine-learning algorithms applied to this much-studied database, over several decades. Analysis shows that in this special problem, which is almost linearly separable, the effects of irreducible correlations among the measured features of the Wisconsin database are of relatively minor importance, as the Naive Bayes approximation can itself yield predictive accuracy approaching 95\%. The advantages of the HOPP algorithm will be more clearly revealed in application to more challenging machine-learning problems.

This paper proposes a tentative and original survey of meeting points between Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR) and Machine Learning (ML), two areas which have been developing quite separately in the last three decades. Some common concerns are identified and discussed such as the types of used representation, the roles of knowledge and data, the lack or the excess of information, or the need for explanations and causal understanding. Then some methodologies combining reasoning and learning are reviewed (such as inductive logic programming, neuro-symbolic reasoning, formal concept analysis, rule-based representations and ML, uncertainty in ML, or case-based reasoning and analogical reasoning), before discussing examples of synergies between KRR and ML (including topics such as belief functions on regression, EM algorithm versus revision, the semantic description of vector representations, the combination of deep learning with high level inference, knowledge graph completion, declarative frameworks for data mining, or preferences and recommendation). This paper is the first step of a work in progress aiming at a better mutual understanding of research in KRR and ML, and how they could cooperate.

The main goal of this paper is to describe an axiomatic utility theory for Dempster-Shafer belief function lotteries. The axiomatic framework used is analogous to von Neumann-Morgenstern's utility theory for probabilistic lotteries as described by Luce and Raiffa. Unlike the probabilistic case, our axiomatic framework leads to interval-valued utilities, and therefore, to a partial (incomplete) preference order on the set of all belief function lotteries. If the belief function reference lotteries we use are Bayesian belief functions, then our representation theorem coincides with Jaffray's representation theorem for his linear utility theory for belief functions. We illustrate our framework using some examples discussed in the literature, and we propose a simple model based on an interval-valued pessimism index representing a decision-maker's attitude to ambiguity and indeterminacy. Finally, we compare our decision theory with those proposed by Jaffray, Smets, Dubois et al., Giang and Shenoy, and Shafer.

In this paper, we introduce the increasing belief criterion in association rule mining. The criterion uses a recursive application of Bayes' theorem to compute a rule's belief. Extracted rules are required to have their belief increase with their last observation. We extend the taxonomy of association rule mining algorithms with a new branch for Bayesian rule mining~(BRM), which uses increasing belief as the rule selection criterion. In contrast, the well-established frequent association rule mining~(FRM) branch relies on the minimum-support concept to extract rules. We derive properties of the increasing belief criterion, such as the increasing belief boundary, no-prior-worries, and conjunctive premises. Subsequently, we implement a BRM algorithm using the increasing belief criterion, and illustrate its functionality in three experiments: (1)~a proof-of-concept to illustrate BRM properties, (2)~an analysis relating socioeconomic information and chemical exposure data, and (3)~mining behaviour routines in patients undergoing neurological rehabilitation. We illustrate how BRM is capable of extracting rare rules and does not suffer from support dilution. Furthermore, we show that BRM focuses on the individual event generating processes, while FRM focuses on their commonalities. We consider BRM's increasing belief as an alternative criterion to thresholds on rule support, as often applied in FRM, to determine rule usefulness.

This Machine Learning Tutorial is ideal for both beginners as well as professionals who want to master Machine Learning Algorithms. Below are the topics covered in this Machine Learning Tutorial for Beginners video: 2:47 What is Machine Learning? Please share it in the comment section below and our experts will answer it for you. For more information, please write back to us at sales@edureka.in or call us at IND: 9606058406 / US: 18338555775 (toll-free).

Bayesian hybrid models fuse physics-based insights with machine learning constructs to correct for systematic bias. In this paper, we compare Bayesian hybrid models against physics-based glass-box and Gaussian process black-box surrogate models. We consider ballistic firing as an illustrative case study for a Bayesian decision-making workflow. First, Bayesian calibration is performed to estimate model parameters. We then use the posterior distribution from Bayesian analysis to compute optimal firing conditions to hit a target via a single-stage stochastic program. The case study demonstrates the ability of Bayesian hybrid models to overcome systematic bias from missing physics with less data than the pure machine learning approach. Ultimately, we argue Bayesian hybrid models are an emerging paradigm for data-informed decision-making under parametric and epistemic uncertainty.

We study the problem of off-policy evaluation (OPE) in Reinforcement Learning (RL), where the aim is to estimate the performance of a new policy given historical data that may have been generated by a different policy, or policies. In particular, we introduce a novel doubly-robust estimator for the OPE problem in RL, based on the Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation principle from the statistical causal inference literature. We also introduce several variance reduction techniques that lead to impressive performance gains in off-policy evaluation. We show empirically that our estimator uniformly wins over existing off-policy evaluation methods across multiple RL environments and various levels of model misspecification. Finally, we further the existing theoretical analysis of estimators for the RL off-policy estimation problem by showing their $O_P(1/\sqrt{n})$ rate of convergence and characterizing their asymptotic distribution.