Glasgow : Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, 2008-

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1981.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1984.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1988.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1988.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1995.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1985.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1986.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1981.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1985.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1985.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1978.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1978.

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1978.

[London] : [publisher not identified], [2019]

Rockville, Maryland : National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1977.

Springfield, Virginia. : National Technical Information Service, 1984.

Washington, D.C. : Wynne Associates, 1974.

Washington, D.C. : Wynne Associates, [1974]

Ruthy Hebard and Sabrina Ionescu have had a remarkable four years together in Eugene, rewriting the history books and pushing the Ducks into the national spotlight. Catch the debut of "Our Stories Unfinished Business: Sabrina Ionescu and Ruthy Hebard" at Wednesday, April 15 at 7 p.m. PT/ 8 p.m. MT on Pac-12 Network.

Pac-12 Networks' Ashley Adamson speaks with former Arizona State women's basketball player Michelle Tom, who is now a doctor treating COVID-19 patients Winslow Indian Health Care Center and Little Colorado Medical Center in Eastern Arizona.

Feature screening is a powerful tool in processing high-dimensional data. When the sample size N and the number of features p are both large, the implementation of classic screening methods can be numerically challenging. In this paper, we propose a distributed screening framework for big data setup. In the spirit of 'divide-and-conquer', the proposed framework expresses a correlation measure as a function of several component parameters, each of which can be distributively estimated using a natural U-statistic from data segments. With the component estimates aggregated, we obtain a final correlation estimate that can be readily used for screening features. This framework enables distributed storage and parallel computing and thus is computationally attractive. Due to the unbiased distributive estimation of the component parameters, the final aggregated estimate achieves a high accuracy that is insensitive to the number of data segments m. Under mild conditions, we show that the aggregated correlation estimator is as efficient as the centralized estimator in terms of the probability convergence bound and the mean squared error rate; the corresponding screening procedure enjoys sure screening property for a wide range of correlation measures. The promising performances of the new method are supported by extensive numerical examples.

Parametrised state space models in the form of recurrent networks are often used in machine learning to learn from data streams exhibiting temporal dependencies. To break the black box nature of such models it is important to understand the dynamical features of the input-driving time series that are formed in the state space. We propose a framework for rigorous analysis of such state representations in vanishing memory state space models such as echo state networks (ESN). In particular, we consider the state space a temporal feature space and the readout mapping from the state space a kernel machine operating in that feature space. We show that: (1) The usual ESN strategy of randomly generating input-to-state, as well as state coupling leads to shallow memory time series representations, corresponding to cross-correlation operator with fast exponentially decaying coefficients; (2) Imposing symmetry on dynamic coupling yields a constrained dynamic kernel matching the input time series with straightforward exponentially decaying motifs or exponentially decaying motifs of the highest frequency; (3) Simple ring (cycle) high-dimensional reservoir topology specified only through two free parameters can implement deep memory dynamic kernels with a rich variety of matching motifs. We quantify richness of feature representations imposed by dynamic kernels and demonstrate that for dynamic kernel associated with cycle reservoir topology, the kernel richness undergoes a phase transition close to the edge of stability.

Uttam Bandyopadhyay, Shirsendu Mukherjee, Atanu Biswas.

Source: Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics, Volume 34, Number 2, 291--303.

Abstract:
In adaptive crossover design, our goal is to allocate more patients to a promising treatment sequence. The present work contains a very simple three period crossover design for two competing treatments where the allocation in period 3 is done on the basis of the data obtained from the first two periods. Assuming normality of response variables we use a reliability functional for the choice between two treatments. We calculate the allocation proportions and their standard errors corresponding to the possible treatment combinations. We also derive some asymptotic results and provide solutions on related inferential problems. Moreover, the proposed procedure is compared with a possible competitor. Finally, we use a data set to illustrate the applicability of the proposed design.

Clément Marteau, Theofanis Sapatinas.

Source: Statistics Surveys, Volume 9, 253--297.

Abstract:
We are concerned with minimax signal detection. In this setting, we discuss non-asymptotic and asymptotic approaches through a unified treatment. In particular, we consider a Gaussian sequence model that contains classical models as special cases, such as, direct, well-posed inverse and ill-posed inverse problems. Working with certain ellipsoids in the space of squared-summable sequences of real numbers, with a ball of positive radius removed, we compare the construction of lower and upper bounds for the minimax separation radius (non-asymptotic approach) and the minimax separation rate (asymptotic approach) that have been proposed in the literature. Some additional contributions, bringing to light links between non-asymptotic and asymptotic approaches to minimax signal, are also presented. An example of a mildly ill-posed inverse problem is used for illustrative purposes. In particular, it is shown that tools used to derive ‘asymptotic’ results can be exploited to draw ‘non-asymptotic’ conclusions, and vice-versa. In order to enhance our understanding of these two minimax signal detection paradigms, we bring into light hitherto unknown similarities and links between non-asymptotic and asymptotic approaches.

A. Philip Dawid, Vanessa Didelez

Source: Statist. Surv., Volume 4, 184--231.

Abstract:
We consider the problem of learning about and comparing the consequences of dynamic treatment strategies on the basis of observational data. We formulate this within a probabilistic decision-theoretic framework. Our approach is compared with related work by Robins and others: in particular, we show how Robins’s ‘ G -computation’ algorithm arises naturally from this decision-theoretic perspective. Careful attention is paid to the mathematical and substantive conditions required to justify the use of this formula. These conditions revolve around a property we term stability , which relates the probabilistic behaviours of observational and interventional regimes. We show how an assumption of ‘sequential randomization’ (or ‘no unmeasured confounders’), or an alternative assumption of ‘sequential irrelevance’, can be used to infer stability. Probabilistic influence diagrams are used to simplify manipulations, and their power and limitations are discussed. We compare our approach with alternative formulations based on causal DAGs or potential response models. We aim to show that formulating the problem of assessing dynamic treatment strategies as a problem of decision analysis brings clarity, simplicity and generality.

References:
Arjas, E. and Parner, J. (2004). Causal reasoning from longitudinal data. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 31 171–187.

Arjas, E. and Saarela, O. (2010). Optimal dynamic regimes: Presenting a case for predictive inference. The International Journal of Biostatistics 6. http://tinyurl.com/33dfssf

Cowell, R. G., Dawid, A. P., Lauritzen, S. L. and Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1999). Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems. Springer, New York.

Dawid, A. P. (1979). Conditional independence in statistical theory (with Discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 41 1–31.

Dawid, A. P. (1992). Applications of a general propagation algorithm for probabilistic expert systems. Statistics and Computing 2 25–36.

Dawid, A. P. (1998). Conditional independence. In Encyclopedia of Statistical Science ({U}pdate Volume 2) ( S. Kotz, C. B. Read and D. L. Banks, eds.) 146–155. Wiley-Interscience, New York.

Dawid, A. P. (2000). Causal inference without counterfactuals (with Discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 95 407–448.

Dawid, A. P. (2001). Separoids: A mathematical framework for conditional independence and irrelevance. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 32 335–372.

Dawid, A. P. (2002). Influence diagrams for causal modelling and inference. International Statistical Review 70 161–189. Corrigenda, ibid ., 437.

Dawid, A. P. (2003). Causal inference using influence diagrams: The problem of partial compliance (with Discussion). In Highly Structured Stochastic Systems ( P. J. Green, N. L. Hjort and S. Richardson, eds.) 45–81. Oxford University Press.

Dawid, A. P. (2010). Beware of the DAG! In Proceedings of the NIPS 2008 Workshop on Causality. Journal of Machine Learning Research Workshop and Conference Proceedings ( D. Janzing, I. Guyon and B. Schölkopf, eds.) 6 59–86. http://tinyurl.com/33va7tm

Dawid, A. P. and Didelez, V. (2008). Identifying optimal sequential decisions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-08) ( D. McAllester and A. Nicholson, eds.). 113-120. AUAI Press, Corvallis, Oregon. http://tinyurl.com/3899qpp

Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Didelez, V., Dawid, A. P. and Geneletti, S. G. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of sequential treatments. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-06) ( R. Dechter and T. Richardson, eds.). 138-146. AUAI Press, Arlington, Virginia. http://tinyurl.com/32w3f4e

Didelez, V., Kreiner, S. and Keiding, N. (2010). Graphical models for inference under outcome dependent sampling. Statistical Science (to appear).

Didelez, V. and Sheehan, N. S. (2007). Mendelian randomisation: Why epidemiology needs a formal language for causality. In Causality and Probability in the Sciences, ( F. Russo and J. Williamson, eds.). Texts in Philosophy Series 5 263–292. College Publications, London.

Eichler, M. and Didelez, V. (2010). Granger-causality and the effect of interventions in time series. Lifetime Data Analysis 16 3–32.

Ferguson, T. S. (1967). Mathematical Statistics: A Decision Theoretic Approach. Academic Press, New York, London.

Geneletti, S. G. (2007). Identifying direct and indirect effects in a non–counterfactual framework. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 69 199–215.

Geneletti, S. G. and Dawid, A. P. (2010). Defining and identifying the effect of treatment on the treated. In Causality in the Sciences ( P. M. Illari, F. Russo and J. Williamson, eds.) Oxford University Press (to appear).

Gill, R. D. and Robins, J. M. (2001). Causal inference for complex longitudinal data: The continuous case. Annals of Statistics 29 1785–1811.

Guo, H. and Dawid, A. P. (2010). Sufficient covariates and linear propensity analysis. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, (AISTATS) 2010, Chia Laguna, Sardinia, Italy, May 13-15, 2010. Journal of Machine Learning Research Workshop and Conference Proceedings ( Y. W. Teh and D. M. Titterington, eds.) 9 281–288. http://tinyurl.com/33lmuj7

Henderson, R., Ansel, P. and Alshibani, D. (2010). Regret-regression for optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Biometrics (to appear). doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01368.x

Hernán, M. A. and Taubman, S. L. (2008). Does obesity shorten life? The importance of well defined interventions to answer causal questions. International Journal of Obesity 32 S8–S14.

Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference (with Discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 81 945–970.

Huang, Y. and Valtorta, M. (2006). Identifiability in causal Bayesian networks: A sound and complete algorithm. In AAAI’06: Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1149–1154. AAAI Press.

Kang, J. D. Y. and Schafer, J. L. (2007). Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical Science 22 523–539.

Lauritzen, S. L., Dawid, A. P., Larsen, B. N. and Leimer, H. G. (1990). Independence properties of directed Markov fields. Networks 20 491–505.

Lok, J., Gill, R., van der Vaart, A. and Robins, J. (2004). Estimating the causal effect of a time-varying treatment on time-to-event using structural nested failure time models. Statistica Neerlandica 58 271–295.

Moodie, E. M., Richardson, T. S. and Stephens, D. A. (2007). Demystifying optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Biometrics 63 447–455.

Murphy, S. A. (2003). Optimal dynamic treatment regimes (with Discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 65 331-366.

Oliver, R. M. and Smith, J. Q., eds. (1990). Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom.

Pearl, J. (1995). Causal diagrams for empirical research (with Discussion). Biometrika 82 669-710.

Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference, Second ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pearl, J. and Paz, A. (1987). Graphoids: A graph-based logic for reasoning about relevance relations. In Advances in Artificial Intelligence ( D. Hogg and L. Steels, eds.) II 357–363. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

Pearl, J. and Robins, J. (1995). Probabilistic evaluation of sequential plans from causal models with hidden variables. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence ( P. Besnard and S. Hanks, eds.) 444–453. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco.

Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

Robins, J. M. (1986). A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods—Application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical Modelling 7 1393–1512.

Robins, J. M. (1987). Addendum to “A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods—Application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect”. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 14 923–945.

Robins, J. M. (1989). The analysis of randomized and nonrandomized AIDS treatment trials using a new approach to causal inference in longitudinal studies. In Health Service Research Methodology: A Focus on AIDS ( L. Sechrest, H. Freeman and A. Mulley, eds.) 113–159. NCSHR, U.S. Public Health Service.

Robins, J. M. (1992). Estimation of the time-dependent accelerated failure time model in the presence of confounding factors. Biometrika 79 321–324.

Robins, J. M. (1997). Causal inference from complex longitudinal data. In Latent Variable Modeling and Applications to Causality, ( M. Berkane, ed.). Lecture Notes in Statistics 120 69–117. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Robins, J. M. (1998). Structural nested failure time models. In Survival Analysis, ( P. K. Andersen and N. Keiding, eds.). Encyclopedia of Biostatistics 6 4372–4389. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Robins, J. M. (2000). Robust estimation in sequentially ignorable missing data and causal inference models. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Section on Bayesian Statistical Science 1999 6–10.

Robins, J. M. (2004). Optimal structural nested models for optimal sequential decisions. In Proceedings of the Second Seattle Symposium on Biostatistics ( D. Y. Lin and P. Heagerty, eds.) 189–326. Springer, New York.

Robins, J. M., Greenland, S. and Hu, F. C. (1999). Estimation of the causal effect of a time-varying exposure on the marginal mean of a repeated binary outcome. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94 687–700.

Robins, J. M., Hernán, M. A. and Brumback, B. (2000). Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 11 550–560.

Robins, J. M. and Wasserman, L. A. (1997). Estimation of effects of sequential treatments by reparameterizing directed acyclic graphs. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence ( D. Geiger and P. Shenoy, eds.) 409-420. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco. http://tinyurl.com/33ghsas

Rosthøj, S., Fullwood, C., Henderson, R. and Stewart, S. (2006). Estimation of optimal dynamic anticoagulation regimes from observational data: A regret-based approach. Statistics in Medicine 25 4197–4215.

Shpitser, I. and Pearl, J. (2006a). Identification of conditional interventional distributions. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-06) ( R. Dechter and T. Richardson, eds.). 437–444. AUAI Press, Corvallis, Oregon. http://tinyurl.com/2um8w47

Shpitser, I. and Pearl, J. (2006b). Identification of joint interventional distributions in recursive semi-Markovian causal models. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence 1219–1226. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California.

Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. and Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, Prediction and Search, Second ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Sterne, J. A. C., May, M., Costagliola, D., de Wolf, F., Phillips, A. N., Harris, R., Funk, M. J., Geskus, R. B., Gill, J., Dabis, F., Miro, J. M., Justice, A. C., Ledergerber, B., Fatkenheuer, G., Hogg, R. S., D’Arminio-Monforte, A., Saag, M., Smith, C., Staszewski, S., Egger, M., Cole, S. R. and When To Start Consortium (2009). Timing of initiation of antiretroviral therapy in AIDS-Free HIV-1-infected patients: A collaborative analysis of 18 HIV cohort studies. Lancet 373 1352–1363.

Taubman, S. L., Robins, J. M., Mittleman, M. A. and Hernán, M. A. (2009). Intervening on risk factors for coronary heart disease: An application of the parametric g-formula. International Journal of Epidemiology 38 1599–1611.

Tian, J. (2008). Identifying dynamic sequential plans. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-08) ( D. McAllester and A. Nicholson, eds.). 554–561. AUAI Press, Corvallis, Oregon. http://tinyurl.com/36ufx2h

Verma, T. and Pearl, J. (1990). Causal networks: Semantics and expressiveness. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4 ( R. D. Shachter, T. S. Levitt, L. N. Kanal and J. F. Lemmer, eds.) 69–76. North-Holland, Amsterdam.

Official counts of COVID-19 deaths have been criticized for potentially including people who did not die of COVID-19 but merely died with COVID-19. I address that critique by fitting a generalized additive model to weekly counts of all registered deaths in England and Wales during the 2010s. The model produces baseline rates of death registrations expected in the absence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and comparing those baselines to recent counts of registered deaths exposes the emergence of excess deaths late in March 2020. Among adults aged 45+, about 38,700 excess deaths were registered in the 5 weeks comprising 21 March through 24 April (612 $pm$ 416 from 21$-$27 March, 5675 $pm$ 439 from 28 March through 3 April, then 9183 $pm$ 468, 12,712 $pm$ 589, and 10,511 $pm$ 567 in April's next 3 weeks). Both the Office for National Statistics's respective count of 26,891 death certificates which mention COVID-19, and the Department of Health and Social Care's hospital-focused count of 21,222 deaths, are appreciably less, implying that their counting methods have underestimated rather than overestimated the pandemic's true death toll. If underreporting rates have held steady, about 45,900 direct and indirect COVID-19 deaths might have been registered by April's end but not yet publicly reported in full.

The ability of intelligent agents to learn and remember multiple tasks sequentially is crucial to achieving artificial general intelligence. Many continual learning (CL) methods have been proposed to overcome catastrophic forgetting. Catastrophic forgetting notoriously impedes the sequential learning of neural networks as the data of previous tasks are unavailable. In this paper we focus on class incremental learning, a challenging CL scenario, in which classes of each task are disjoint and task identity is unknown during test. For this scenario, generative replay is an effective strategy which generates and replays pseudo data for previous tasks to alleviate catastrophic forgetting. However, it is not trivial to learn a generative model continually for relatively complex data. Based on recently proposed orthogonal weight modification (OWM) algorithm which can keep previously learned input-output mappings invariant approximately when learning new tasks, we propose to directly generate and replay feature. Empirical results on image and text datasets show our method can improve OWM consistently by a significant margin while conventional generative replay always results in a negative effect. Our method also beats a state-of-the-art generative replay method and is competitive with a strong baseline based on real data storage.

Uplift modeling is a predictive modeling technique that estimates the user-level incremental effect of a treatment using machine learning models. It is often used for targeting promotions and advertisements, as well as for the personalization of product offerings. In these applications, there are often hundreds of features available to build such models. Keeping all the features in a model can be costly and inefficient. Feature selection is an essential step in the modeling process for multiple reasons: improving the estimation accuracy by eliminating irrelevant features, accelerating model training and prediction speed, reducing the monitoring and maintenance workload for feature data pipeline, and providing better model interpretation and diagnostics capability. However, feature selection methods for uplift modeling have been rarely discussed in the literature. Although there are various feature selection methods for standard machine learning models, we will demonstrate that those methods are sub-optimal for solving the feature selection problem for uplift modeling. To address this problem, we introduce a set of feature selection methods designed specifically for uplift modeling, including both filter methods and embedded methods. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed feature selection methods, we use different uplift models and measure the accuracy of each model with a different number of selected features. We use both synthetic and real data to conduct these experiments. We also implemented the proposed filter methods in an open source Python package (CausalML).