target population
- North America > United States > Tennessee (0.05)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > California (0.04)
- (4 more...)
- Research Report > Strength High (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Education (1.00)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area (0.46)
- North America > United States > Maine (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston (0.04)
- North America > United States > Nebraska (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Research Report > Strength High (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.93)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Sweden > Uppsala County > Uppsala (0.04)
- North America > United States > Maryland > Prince George's County > Hyattsville (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Oxfordshire > Oxford (0.04)
- Research Report > Strength High (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- North America > United States > Tennessee (0.05)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > California (0.04)
- (4 more...)
- Research Report > Strength High (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Education (1.00)
- Health & Medicine > Therapeutic Area (0.46)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.93)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Sweden > Uppsala County > Uppsala (0.04)
- North America > United States > Maryland > Prince George's County > Hyattsville (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Oxfordshire > Oxford (0.04)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Research Report > Strength High (0.93)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.68)
- North America > United States > Maine (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston (0.04)
- North America > United States > Nebraska (0.04)
- (2 more...)
- Research Report > Strength High (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
Target Population Synthesis using CT-GAN
Rastogi, Tanay, Jonsson, Daniel
Agent-based models used in scenario planning for transportation and urban planning usually require detailed population information from the base as well as target scenarios. These populations are usually provided by synthesizing fake agents through deterministic population synthesis methods. However, these deterministic population synthesis methods face several challenges, such as handling high-dimensional data, scalability, and zero-cell issues, particularly when generating populations for target scenarios. This research looks into how a deep generative model called Conditional Tabular Generative Adversarial Network (CT-GAN) can be used to create target populations either directly from a collection of marginal constraints or through a hybrid method that combines CT-GAN with Fitness-based Synthesis Combinatorial Optimization (FBS-CO). The research evaluates the proposed population synthesis models against travel survey and zonal-level aggregated population data. Results indicate that the stand-alone CT-GAN model performs the best when compared with FBS-CO and the hybrid model. CT-GAN by itself can create realistic-looking groups that match single-variable distributions, but it struggles to maintain relationships between multiple variables. However, the hybrid model demonstrates improved performance compared to FBS-CO by leveraging CT-GAN ability to generate a descriptive base population, which is then refined using FBS-CO to align with target-year marginals. This study demonstrates that CT-GAN represents an effective methodology for target populations and highlights how deep generative models can be successfully integrated with conventional synthesis techniques to enhance their performance.
Causal-EPIG: A Prediction-Oriented Active Learning Framework for CATE Estimation
Gao, Erdun, Fawkes, Jake, Sejdinovic, Dino
Estimating the Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) is often constrained by the high cost of obtaining outcome measurements, making active learning essential. However, conventional active learning strategies suffer from a fundamental objective mismatch. They are designed to reduce uncertainty in model parameters or in observable factual outcomes, failing to directly target the unobservable causal quantities that are the true objects of interest. To address this misalignment, we introduce the principle of causal objective alignment, which posits that acquisition functions should target unobservable causal quantities, such as the potential outcomes and the CATE, rather than indirect proxies. We operationalize this principle through the Causal-EPIG framework, which adapts the information-theoretic criterion of Expected Predictive Information Gain (EPIG) to explicitly quantify the value of a query in terms of reducing uncertainty about unobservable causal quantities. From this unified framework, we derive two distinct strategies that embody a fundamental trade-off: a comprehensive approach that robustly models the full causal mechanisms via the joint potential outcomes, and a focused approach that directly targets the CATE estimand for maximum sample efficiency. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our strategies consistently outperform standard baselines, and crucially, reveal that the optimal strategy is context-dependent, contingent on the base estimator and data complexity. Our framework thus provides a principled guide for sample-efficient CATE estimation in practice.
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > California (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Oxfordshire > Oxford (0.04)
- Europe > Switzerland (0.04)
- Research Report > Strength High (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)