Acquisition of labeled training samples for affective computing is usually costly and time-consuming, as affects are intrinsically subjective, subtle and uncertain, and hence multiple human assessors are needed to evaluate each affective sample. Particularly, for affect estimation in the 3D space of valence, arousal and dominance, each assessor has to perform the evaluations in three dimensions, which makes the labeling problem even more challenging. Many sophisticated machine learning approaches have been proposed to reduce the data labeling requirement in various other domains, but so far few have considered affective computing. This paper proposes two multi-task active learning for regression approaches, which select the most beneficial samples to label, by considering the three affect primitives simultaneously. Experimental results on the VAM corpus demonstrated that our optimal sample selection approaches can result in better estimation performance than random selection and several traditional single-task active learning approaches. Thus, they can help alleviate the data labeling problem in affective computing, i.e., better estimation performance can be obtained from fewer labeling queries.

In this note we propose a new approach towards solving numerically optimal stopping problems via boosted regression based Monte Carlo algorithms. The main idea of the method is to boost standard linear regression algorithms in each backward induction step by adding new basis functions based on previously estimated continuation values. The proposed methodology is illustrated by several numerical examples from finance.

We develop unbiased implicit variational inference (UIVI), a method that expands the applicability of variational inference by defining an expressive variational family. UIVI considers an implicit variational distribution obtained in a hierarchical manner using a simple reparameterizable distribution whose variational parameters are defined by arbitrarily flexible deep neural networks. Unlike previous works, UIVI directly optimizes the evidence lower bound (ELBO) rather than an approximation to the ELBO. We demonstrate UIVI on several models, including Bayesian multinomial logistic regression and variational autoencoders, and show that UIVI achieves both tighter ELBO and better predictive performance than existing approaches at a similar computational cost.

Over the past decades, both critical care and cancer care have improved substantially. Due to increased cancer-specific survival, we hypothesized that both the number of cancer patients admitted to the ICU and overall survival have increased since the millennium change. MIMIC-III, a freely accessible critical care database of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA was used to retrospectively study trends and outcomes of cancer patients admitted to the ICU between 2002 and 2011. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for confounders of 28-day and 1-year mortality. Out of 41,468 unique ICU admissions, 1,100 hemato-oncologic, 3,953 oncologic and 49 patients with both a hematological and solid malignancy were analyzed. Hematological patients had higher critical illness scores than non-cancer patients, while oncologic patients had similar APACHE-III and SOFA-scores compared to non-cancer patients. In the univariate analysis, cancer was strongly associated with mortality (OR= 2.74, 95%CI: 2.56, 2.94). Over the 10-year study period, 28-day mortality of cancer patients decreased by 30%. This trend persisted after adjustment for covariates, with cancer patients having significantly higher mortality (OR=2.63, 95%CI: 2.38, 2.88). Between 2002 and 2011, both the adjusted odds of 28-day mortality and the adjusted odds of 1-year mortality for cancer patients decreased by 6% (95%CI: 4%, 9%). Having cancer was the strongest single predictor of 1-year mortality in the multivariate model (OR=4.47, 95%CI: 4.11, 4.84).

We consider the problem of learning Relational Logistic Regression (RLR). Unlike standard logistic regression, the features of RLRs are first-order formulae with associated weight vectors instead of scalar weights. We turn the problem of learning RLR to learning these vector-weighted formulae and develop a learning algorithm based on the recently successful functional-gradient boosting methods for probabilistic logic models. We derive the functional gradients and show how weights can be learned simultaneously in an efficient manner. Our empirical evaluation on standard and novel data sets demonstrates the superiority of our approach over other methods for learning RLR.

I am happy to introduce the package HCmodelSets, which is now available on CRAN. This package implements the methods proposed by Cox, D.R. and Battey, H.S. (2017). In particular it performs the reduction, exploratory and model selection phases given in the aforementioned reference. The software supports linear regression, likelihood-based fitting of generalized linear regression models and the proportional hazards model fitted by partial likelihood. The standard method described in the literature to deal with sparse regression is the LASSO proposed by Tibshirani (1996), which assumes sparsity of the effects.

Given the number of people interested in my first post for visualizing Classification Models Results, I've decided to create and share some new function to visualize and compare whole Linear Regression Models with one line of code. These plots will help us with our time invested in model selection and a general understanding of our results. Where are we going with this post? Let's take a quick look at the final output: a quick nice dashboard with everything you'd need to compare and evaluate if your regression model is looking good, compare with others, or get working on further improvements. Interesting to say that, the exact same function mplot_full used before in the Part 1 – Classification Models post, will work on Regressions too lares::updateLares().

In supervised machine learning for author name disambiguation, negative training data are often dominantly larger than positive training data. This paper examines how the ratios of negative to positive training data can affect the performance of machine learning algorithms to disambiguate author names in bibliographic records. On multiple labeled datasets, three classifiers - Logistic Regression, Na\"ive Bayes, and Random Forest - are trained through representative features such as coauthor names, and title words extracted from the same training data but with various positive-negative training data ratios. Results show that increasing negative training data can improve disambiguation performance but with a few percent of performance gains and sometimes degrade it. Logistic Regression and Na\"ive Bayes learn optimal disambiguation models even with a base ratio (1:1) of positive and negative training data. Also, the performance improvement by Random Forest tends to quickly saturate roughly after 1:10 ~ 1:15. These findings imply that contrary to the common practice using all training data, name disambiguation algorithms can be trained using part of negative training data without degrading much disambiguation performance while increasing computational efficiency. This study calls for more attention from author name disambiguation scholars to methods for machine learning from imbalanced data.

The purpose of this post is to unpack to the layman the basic concepts of applied machine learning and to document how data scientists or data analysts would generally answer a question or solve a problem with data and machine learning algorithms. Hopefully, by the end, you would have a more solid understanding of the steps your data scientist or business intelligence officers should be going through when attempting to apply the power of machine learning to data. Machine learning is a method of data analysis that automates analytical model building. The steps illustrated here are written as a'practical guide' of that method. It covers the broad strokes of the process one would go through when implementing any other similar machine learning algorithms or ideas.

This is the 3rd article of series "Coding Deep Learning for Beginners". Here, you will be able to find links to all articles, agenda, and general information about an estimated release date of next articles on the bottom of the 1st article. They are also available in my open source portfolio -- MyRoadToAI, along with some mini-projects, presentations, tutorials and links. You can also read the article on my personal website, hosted with Jekyll in order to improve readability (supporting code syntax highlighting, LaTeX equations and more. Some of you may wonder, why the article series about explaining and coding Neural Networks starts with basic Machine Learning algorithm such as Linear Regression.