Different machine learning techniques have been proposed and used for modeling individual and group user needs, interests and preferences. In the traditional predictive modeling instances are described by observable variables, called attributes. The goal is to learn a model for predicting the target variable for unseen instances. For example, for marketing purposes a company consider profiling a new user based on her observed web browsing behavior, referral keywords or other relevant information. In many real world applications the values of some attributes are not only observable, but can be actively decided by a decision maker. Furthermore, in some of such applications the decision maker is interested not only to generate accurate predictions, but to maximize the probability of the desired outcome. For example, a direct marketing manager can choose which type of a special offer to send to a client (actionable attribute), hoping that the right choice will result in a positive response with a higher probability. We study how to learn to choose the value of an actionable attribute in order to maximize the probability of a desired outcome in predictive modeling. We emphasize that not all instances are equally sensitive to changes in actions. Accurate choice of an action is critical for those instances, which are on the borderline (e.g. users who do not have a strong opinion one way or the other). We formulate three supervised learning approaches for learning to select the value of an actionable attribute at an instance level. We also introduce a focused training procedure which puts more emphasis on the situations where varying the action is the most likely to take the effect. The proof of concept experimental validation on two real-world case studies in web analytics and e-learning domains highlights the potential of the proposed approaches.
The problem of discovering action rules is closely related to @cite_38 . One of the earliest works related to choosing actions @cite_10 builds reasoning about actions from causality perspective. A causality perspective can be considered complementary to our study in assessing the effects of actions. In relation to causality, the effects of interventions to the decision rules are explored in @cite_37 . Causality @cite_13 relates to exploratory data analysis when discovering the true cause and effect is the primary goal. In our case we may potentially find rules which are linked by correlation, but not causality. However, as we assume that the data distribution is stationary, we would not be able to perform an action on such rules that do not include causality, i.e. we would not be able to change the attribute value. Therefore, the domain experts would not indicate such attributes as actionable, as there would be no meaningful application task. For the further discussion of the variety of settings involving explanatory and predictive modeling we refer an interested reader to @cite_14 and @cite_33 .
@cite_38 @cite_37 @cite_14 @cite_33 @cite_10 @cite_13
1961009203 2588168955 1850984366 2074374546
Mining for association rules in market basket data has proved a fruitful area of research. Measures such as conditional probability (confidence) and correlation have been used to infer rules of the form “the existence of item A implies the existence of item B.” However, such rules indicate only a statistical relationship between A and B. They do not specify the nature of the relationship: whether the presence of A causes the presence of B, or the converse, or some other attribute or phenomenon causes both to appear together. In applications, knowing such causal relationships is extremely useful for enhancing understanding and effecting change. While distinguishing causality from correlation is a truly difficult problem, recent work in statistics and Bayesian learning provide some avenues of attack. In these fields, the goal has generally been to learn complete causal models, which are essentially impossible to learn in large-scale data mining applications with a large number of variables. In this paper, we consider the problem of determining casual relationships, instead of mere associations, when mining market basket data. We identify some problems with the direct application of Bayesian learning ideas to mining large databases, concerning both the scalability of algorithms and the appropriateness of the statistical techniques, and introduce some initial ideas for dealing with these problems. We present experimental results from applying our algorithms on several large, real-world data sets. The results indicate that the approach proposed here is both computationally feasible and successful in identifying interesting causal structures. An interesting outcome is that it is perhaps easier to infer the lack of causality than to infer causality, information that is useful in preventing erroneous decision making. From doctors diagnosing patients to judges setting bail, experts often base their decisions on experience and intuition rather than on statistical models. While understandable, relying on intuition over models has often been found to result in inferior outcomes. Here we present a new method, select-regress-and-round, for constructing simple rules that perform well for complex decisions. These rules take the form of a weighted checklist, can be applied mentally, and nonetheless rival the performance of modern machine learning algorithms. Our method for creating these rules is itself simple, and can be carried out by practitioners with basic statistics knowledge. We demonstrate this technique with a detailed case study of judicial decisions to release or detain defendants while they await trial. In this application, as in many policy settings, the effects of proposed decision rules cannot be directly observed from historical data: if a rule recommends releasing a defendant that the judge in reality detained, we do not observe what would have happened under the proposed action. We address this key counterfactual estimation problem by drawing on tools from causal inference. We find that simple rules significantly outperform judges and are on par with decisions derived from random forests trained on all available features. Generalizing to 22 varied decision-making domains, we find this basic result replicates. We conclude with an analytical framework that helps explain why these simple decision rules perform as well as they do. The discovery of causal relationships from purely observational data is a fundamental problem in science. The most elementary form of such a causal discovery problem is to decide whether X causes Y or, alternatively, Y causes X, given joint observations of two variables X,Y. An example is to decide whether altitude causes temperature, or vice versa, given only joint measurements of both variables. Even under the simplifying assumptions of no confounding, no feedback loops, and no selection bias, such bivariate causal discovery problems are challenging. Nevertheless, several approaches for addressing those problems have been proposed in recent years. We review two families of such methods: methods based on Additive Noise Models (ANMs) and Information Geometric Causal Inference (IGCI). We present the benchmark CAUSEEFFECTPAIRS that consists of data for 100 different causee ffect pairs selected from 37 data sets from various domains (e.g., meteorology, biology, medicine, engineering, economy, etc.) and motivate our decisions regarding the "ground truth" causal directions of all pairs. We evaluate the performance of several bivariate causal discovery methods on these real-world benchmark data and in addition on artificially simulated data. Our empirical results on real-world data indicate that certain methods are indeed able to distinguish cause from effect using only purely observational data, although more benchmark data would be needed to obtain statistically significant conclusions. One of the best performing methods overall is the method based on Additive Noise Models that has originally been proposed by (2009), which obtains an accuracy of 63 ± 10 and an AUC of 0.74 ± 0.05 on the real-world benchmark. As the main theoretical contribution of this work we prove the consistency of that method. Decision rules induced from a data set represent knowledge patterns relating premises and decisions in ‘if … , then …’ statements. Premise is a conjunction of elementary conditions relative to independent variables and decision is a conclusion relative to dependent variables. Given a set of decision rules induced from a data set, it is useful to estimate possible effects on the dependent variables caused by an intervention on some independent variables. The authors introduce a methodology for quantifying the impact of a strategy of intervention based on a decision rule induced from data. While the usual interestingness measures of decision rules are taking into account only characteristics of universe U where they come from, the measures of efficiency of intervention depend also on characteristics of universe U′ where intervention takes place. The authors are considering the intervention on a single independent variable and on a combination of these variables.