If you have been in machine learning for quite some time then you must be developing models to attain high accuracy, as accuracy is the prime metric to compare models, but what if I tell you that model evaluation does not always consider accuracy only. When we have to evaluate a model we do consider accuracy but what we majorly focus on is how much robust our model is, how will it perform on a different dataset and how much flexibility it has to offer. Accuracy, no doubt, is an important metric to consider but it does not always give the full picture. What we mean when we say that the model is robust is that it has realized and learned about the data in a correct and desirable manner, hence the predictions made by it are close to the actual values. Due to the enormous mathematical techniques involved and uncertain nature of data, it may happen that the model results in better accuracy but fails to realize the data properly and hence performs poorly when the data is varied.

CLTV is a customer relationship management (CRM) issue with an enterprise approach to understanding and influencing customer behavior through meaningful communication to improve customer acquisition, customer retention, customer loyalty, and customer profitability. The whole idea is that, business wants to predict the average amount of $$ customers will spend on the business over the entire life of relationship. Although statistical methods can be very powerful, but these methods make several stringent assumptions on the types of data and their distribution, and typically can only handle a limited number of variables. Regression-based methods are usually based on a fixed-form equation, and assume a single best solution, which means that we can compare only a few alternative solutions manually. Further, when the models are applied to real data, the key assumptions of the methods are often violated.

In the majority of molecular optimization tasks, predictive machine learning (ML) models are limited due to the unavailability and cost of generating big experimental datasets on the specific task. To circumvent this limitation, ML models are trained on big theoretical datasets or experimental indicators of molecular suitability that are either publicly available or inexpensive to acquire. These approaches produce a set of candidate molecules which have to be ranked using limited experimental data or expert knowledge. Under the assumption that structure is related to functionality, here we use a molecular fragment-based graphical autoencoder to generate unique structural fingerprints to efficiently search through the candidate set. We demonstrate that fragment-based graphical autoencoding reduces the error in predicting physical characteristics such as the solubility and partition coefficient in the small data regime compared to other extended circular fingerprints and string based approaches. We further demonstrate that this approach is capable of providing insight into real world molecular optimization problems, such as searching for stabilization additives in organic semiconductors by accurately predicting 92% of test molecules given 69 training examples. This task is a model example of black box molecular optimization as there is minimal theoretical and experimental knowledge to accurately predict the suitability of the additives.

Emotion recognition based on EEG has become an active research area. As one of the machine learning models, CNN has been utilized to solve diverse problems including issues in this domain. In this work, a study of CNN and its spatiotemporal feature extraction has been conducted in order to explore capabilities of the model in varied window sizes and electrode orders. Our investigation was conducted in subject-independent fashion. Results have shown that temporal information in distinct window sizes significantly affects recognition performance in both 10-fold and leave-one-subject-out cross validation. Spatial information from varying electrode order has modicum effect on classification. SVM classifier depending on spatiotemporal knowledge on the same dataset was previously employed and compared to these empirical results. Even though CNN and SVM have a homologous trend in window size effect, CNN outperformed SVM using leave-one-subject-out cross validation. This could be caused by different extracted features in the elicitation process.

We consider the task of learning a causal graph in the presence of latent confounders given i.i.d.~samples from the model. While current algorithms for causal structure discovery in the presence of latent confounders are constraint-based, we here propose a score-based approach. We prove that under assumptions weaker than faithfulness, any sparsest independence map (IMAP) of the distribution belongs to the Markov equivalence class of the true model. This motivates the \emph{Sparsest Poset} formulation - that posets can be mapped to minimal IMAPs of the true model such that the sparsest of these IMAPs is Markov equivalent to the true model. Motivated by this result, we propose a greedy algorithm over the space of posets for causal structure discovery in the presence of latent confounders and compare its performance to the current state-of-the-art algorithms FCI and FCI+ on synthetic data.

From two unlabeled (U) datasets with different class priors, we can train a binary classifier by empirical risk minimization, which is called UU classification. It is promising since UU methods are compatible with any neural network (NN) architecture and optimizer as if it is standard supervised classification. In this paper, however, we find that UU methods may suffer severe overfitting, and there is a high co-occurrence between the overfitting and the negative empirical risk regardless of datasets, NN architectures, and optimizers. Hence, to mitigate the overfitting problem of UU methods, we propose to keep two parts of the empirical risk (i.e., false positive and false negative) non-negative by wrapping them in a family of correction functions. We theoretically show that the corrected risk estimator is still asymptotically unbiased and consistent; furthermore we establish an estimation error bound for the corrected risk minimizer. Experiments with feedforward/residual NNs on standard benchmarks demonstrate that our proposed correction can successfully mitigate the overfitting of UU methods and significantly improve the classification accuracy.

This note corrects a mistake in the paper "consistent cross-validatory model-selection for dependent data: $hv$-block cross-validation" by Racine (2000). In his paper, he implied that the therein proposed $hv$-block cross-validation is consistent in the sense of Shao (1993). To get this intuition, he relied on the speculation that $hv$-block is a balanced incomplete block design (BIBD). This note demonstrates that this is not the case, and thus the theoretical consistency of $hv$-block remains an open question. In addition, I also provide a Python program counting the number of occurrences of each sample and each pair of samples.

What do we want to optimize for? Most of the businesses fail to answer this simple question. Every business problem is a little different, and it should be optimized differently. We all have created classification models. A lot of time we try to increase evaluate our models on accuracy. But do we really want accuracy as a metric of our model performance?

Observations of traffic participants and their environment enable humans to drive road vehicles safely. However, when being driven, there is a notable difference between having a non-experienced vs. an experienced driver. One may get the feeling, that the latter one anticipates what may happen in the next few moments and considers these foresights in his driving behavior. To make the driving style of automated vehicles comparable to a human driver in the sense of comfort and perceived safety, the aforementioned anticipation skills need to become a built-in feature of self-driving vehicles. This article provides a systematic comparison of methods and strategies to generate this intention for self-driving cars using machine learning techniques.

Sometimes rather than aim for the grand plan, make something simple and fun to show it works first. Anyone starting a data science project is often excited about the potential and will reach for the stars, before you know it you've a horrendously ambitious and complicated project and you don't know where to start. The result is you never start it because you never get sufficient of the "hooks" done. Note: If you want to get straight to the machine learning project then feel free to skip ahead. Just as you need a fish to bite the hook so you can be a successful fisher, these are things you need to get a bite on before you think you can make a success of something.