Source author record

Thijs van Ommen

Thijs van Ommen appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Machine Learning Methodology Computer Science and Game Theory math.ST Statistics Theory

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

5topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

Graphical Representations for Algebraic Constraints of Linear Structural Equations Models

The observational characteristics of a linear structural equation model can be effectively described by polynomial constraints on the observed covariance matrix. However, these polynomials can be exponentially large, making them impractical for many purposes. In this paper, we present a graphical notation for many of these polynomial constraints. The expressive power of this notation is investigated both theoretically and empirically.

preprint2018arXiv

Domain Adaptation by Using Causal Inference to Predict Invariant Conditional Distributions

An important goal common to domain adaptation and causal inference is to make accurate predictions when the distributions for the source (or training) domain(s) and target (or test) domain(s) differ. In many cases, these different distributions can be modeled as different contexts of a single underlying system, in which each distribution corresponds to a different perturbation of the system, or in causal terms, an intervention. We focus on a class of such causal domain adaptation problems, where data for one or more source domains are given, and the task is to predict the distribution of a certain target variable from measurements of other variables in one or more target domains. We propose an approach for solving these problems that exploits causal inference and does not rely on prior knowledge of the causal graph, the type of interventions or the intervention targets. We demonstrate our approach by evaluating a possible implementation on simulated and real world data.

preprint2016arXiv

Robust Probability Updating

This paper discusses an alternative to conditioning that may be used when the probability distribution is not fully specified. It does not require any assumptions (such as CAR: coarsening at random) on the unknown distribution. The well-known Monty Hall problem is the simplest scenario where neither naive conditioning nor the CAR assumption suffice to determine an updated probability distribution. This paper thus addresses a generalization of that problem to arbitrary distributions on finite outcome spaces, arbitrary sets of `messages', and (almost) arbitrary loss functions, and provides existence and characterization theorems for robust probability updating strategies. We find that for logarithmic loss, optimality is characterized by an elegant condition, which we call RCAR (reverse coarsening at random). Under certain conditions, the same condition also characterizes optimality for a much larger class of loss functions, and we obtain an objective and general answer to how one should update probabilities in the light of new information.

preprint2014arXiv

Combining predictions from linear models when training and test inputs differ

Methods for combining predictions from different models in a supervised learning setting must somehow estimate/predict the quality of a model's predictions at unknown future inputs. Many of these methods (often implicitly) make the assumption that the test inputs are identical to the training inputs, which is seldom reasonable. By failing to take into account that prediction will generally be harder for test inputs that did not occur in the training set, this leads to the selection of too complex models. Based on a novel, unbiased expression for KL divergence, we propose XAIC and its special case FAIC as versions of AIC intended for prediction that use different degrees of knowledge of the test inputs. Both methods substantially differ from and may outperform all the known versions of AIC even when the training and test inputs are iid, and are especially useful for deterministic inputs and under covariate shift. Our experiments on linear models suggest that if the test and training inputs differ substantially, then XAIC and FAIC predictively outperform AIC, BIC and several other methods including Bayesian model averaging.