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
2496518686 2074374546 1973969044 2044230810 99297125
This chapter reviews techniques for learning causal relationships from data, in application to the problem of feature selection. Most feature selection methods do not attempt to uncover causal relationships between feature and target and focus instead on making best predictions. We examine situations in which the knowledge of causal relationships benefits feature selection. Such benefits may include: explaining relevance in terms of causal mechanisms, distinguishing between actual features and experimental artifacts, predicting the consequences of actions performed by external agents, and making predictions in non-stationary environments. Conversely, we highlight the benefits that causal discovery may draw from recent developments in feature selection theory and algorithms. 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. Statistical modeling is a powerful tool for developing and testing theories by way of causal explanation, prediction, and description. In many disciplines there is near-exclusive use of statistical modeling for causal ex- planation and the assumption that models with high explanatory power are inherently of high predictive power. Conflation between explanation and pre- diction is common, yet the distinction must be understood for progressing scientific knowledge. While this distinction has been recognized in the phi- losophy of science, the statistical literature lacks a thorough discussion of the many differences that arise in the process of modeling for an explanatory ver- sus a predictive goal. The purpose of this article is to clarify the distinction between explanatory and predictive modeling, to discuss its sources, and to reveal the practical implications of the distinction to each step in the model- ing process. Market response models based on field-generated data need to address potential endogeneity in the regressors to obtain consistent parameter estimates. Another requirement is that market response models predict well in a holdout sample. With both requirements combined, it may seem reasonable to subject an endogeneity-corrected model to a holdout prediction task, and this is quite common in the academic marketing literature. One may be inclined to expect that the consistent parameter estimates obtained via instrumental variables IV estimation predict better than the biased ordinary least squares OLS estimates. This paper shows that this expectation is incorrect. That is, if the holdout sample is similar to the estimation sample so that the regressors are endogenous in both samples, holdout sample validation favors regression estimates that are not corrected for endogeneity i.e., OLS over estimates that are corrected for endogeneity i.e., IV estimation. We also discuss ways in which holdout samples may be used sensibly in the presence of endogeneity. A key takeaway is that if consistent parameter estimates are the primary model objective, the model should be validated with an exogenous rather than endogenous holdout sample.