In partial multi-label learning (PML), each training example is associated with a set of candidate labels, among which only some labels are valid. As a common strategy to tackle PML problem, disambiguation aims to recover the ground-truth labeling information from such inaccurate annotations. However, existing approaches mainly rely on heuristics or ad-hoc rules to disambiguate candidate labels, which may not be universal enough in complicated real-world scenarios. To provide a principled way for disambiguation, we make a first attempt to explore the probabilistic graphical model for PML problem, where a directed graph is tailored to infer latent ground-truth labeling information from the generative process of partial multi-label data. Under the framework of stochastic gradient variational Bayes, a unified variational lower bound is derived for this graphical model, which is further relaxed probabilistically so that the desired prediction model can be induced with simultaneously identified ground-truth labeling information. Comprehensive experiments on multiple synthetic and real-world data sets show that our approach outperforms the state-of-the-art counterparts.

Background: Determining an adequate sample size is essential for developing reliable and generalisable clinical prediction models, yet practical guidance on selecting appropriate methods remains limited. Existing analytical and simulation-based approaches often rely on restrictive assumptions and focus on mean-based criteria. We present and validate pmsims, an R package that uses Gaussian process surrogate modelling to provide a flexible and computationally efficient simulation-based framework for sample size determination across diverse prediction settings. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive simulation study with two aims. First, we compared three search engines implemented in pmsims: a Gaussian process-based adaptive method, a deterministic bisection method, and a hybrid approach, across binary, continuous, and survival outcomes. Second, we benchmarked the best-performing pmsims engine against existing analytical (pmsampsize) and simulation-based (samplesizedev) methods, evaluating recommended sample sizes, computational time, and achieved performance on large independent validation datasets. Results: The Gaussian process-based method consistently produced the most stable sample size estimates, particularly in low-signal, high-dimensional settings. In benchmarking, pmsims achieved performance close to prespecified targets across all outcome types, matching simulation-based approaches and outperforming analytical methods in more challenging scenarios. Conclusions: pmsims provides an efficient and flexible framework for principled sample size planning in clinical prediction modelling, requiring fewer model evaluations than non-adaptive simulation approaches.

Developing fair automated machine learning algorithms is critical in making safe and trustworthy decisions. Many causality-based fairness notions have been proposed to address the above issues by quantifying the causal connections between sensitive attributes and decisions, and when the true causal graph is fully known, certain algorithms that achieve interventional fairness have been proposed. However, when the true causal graph is unknown, it is still challenging to effectively and efficiently exploit partially directed acyclic graphs (PDAGs) to achieve interventional fairness. To exploit the PDAGs for achieving interventional fairness, previous methods have been built on variable selection or causal effect identification, but limited to reduced prediction accuracy or strong assumptions. In this paper, we propose a general min-max optimization framework that can achieve interventional fairness with promising prediction accuracy and can be extended to maximally oriented PDAGs (MPDAGs) with added background knowledge. Specifically, we first estimate all possible treatment effects of sensitive attributes on a given prediction model from all possible adjustment sets of sensitive attributes via an efficient local approach. Next, we propose to alternatively update the prediction model and possible estimated causal effects, where the prediction model is trained via a min-max loss to control the worst-case fairness violations. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets verify the superiority of our methods.

In this paper, we consider the uncertainty quantification problem for regression models. Specifically, we consider an individual calibration objective for characterizing the quantiles of the prediction model. While such an objective is well-motivated from downstream tasks such as newsvendor cost, the existing methods have been largely heuristic and lack of statistical guarantee in terms of individual calibration. We show via simple examples that the existing methods focusing on population-level calibration guarantees such as average calibration or sharpness can lead to harmful and unexpected results. We propose simple nonparametric calibration methods that are agnostic of the underlying prediction model and enjoy both computational efficiency and statistical consistency.

Their primary objective is to efficiently support the insertion of new elements with assigned priorities and the extraction of the highest priorityelement.