跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要以因果推断和因果学习算法的任务、数据与评价标准为核心,直接对应因果推断方法的评估方向。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Lu Cheng
Ruocheng Guo
Raha Moraffah
Paras Sheth
K. Selcuk Candan
Huan Liu

因果学习算法的评价方法与指标

研究问题
在缺乏因果真值数据的情况下,如何评价因果学习算法,并建立能连接传统因果推断与大数据机器学习的基准和评价标准?
方法与思路
作者采用类似常规机器学习的评价流程,综述因果学习的数据集、评价方法和指标,讨论任务、工具包及现有评价程序的局限。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要提供因果学习评价的综述框架,梳理基准建设的挑战与机会,并倡议为观察数据开发公开基准及形成共识性标准。
阅读关注点
阅读时应核对不同任务的真值来源、指标衡量的对象、模拟和真实数据的可比性,以及工具包比较是否控制了评价条件。
阅读边界
所用版本为 arXiv 预印本,同行评审及期刊接收未核验;摘要未列出具体数据集、指标和比较结果,不能据此判断算法优劣。

原文摘要

The convenient access to copious multi-faceted data has encouraged machine learning researchers to reconsider correlation-based learning and embrace the opportunity of causality-based learning, i.e., causal machine learning (causal learning). Recent years have therefore witnessed great effort in developing causal learning algorithms aiming to help AI achieve human-level intelligence. Due to the lack-of ground-truth data, one of the biggest challenges in current causal learning research is algorithm evaluations. This largely impedes the cross-pollination of AI and causal inference, and hinders the two fields to benefit from the advances of the other. To bridge from conventional causal inference (i.e., based on statistical methods) to causal learning with big data (i.e., the intersection of causal inference and machine learning), in this survey, we review commonly-used datasets, evaluation methods, and measures for causal learning using an evaluation pipeline similar to conventional machine learning. We focus on the two fundamental causal-inference tasks and causality-aware machine learning tasks. Limitations of current evaluation procedures are also discussed. We then examine popular causal inference tools/packages and conclude with primary challenges and opportunities for benchmarking causal learning algorithms in the era of big data. The survey seeks to bring to the forefront the urgency of developing publicly available benchmarks and consensus-building standards for causal learning evaluation with observational data. In doing so, we hope to broaden the discussions and facilitate collaboration to advance the innovation and application of causal learning.

笔记与分组