Elias Bareinboim
Judea Pearl
- Acid, S., and de Campos, L. 1996. An algorithm for finding minimum d-separating sets in belief networks. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 3–10. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Angrist, J. D. 1997. Conditional independence in sample selection models. Economics Letters 54(2):103–112.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bareinboim, E., and Pearl, J. 2012. Controlling selection bias in causal inference. In Girolami, M., and Lawrence, N., eds., Proceedings of The Fifteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS 2012), 100–108. JMLR (22).Google Scholar
- Bareinboim, E., and Pearl, J. 2013a. Meta-transportability of causal effects: A formal approach. In Proceedings of The Sixteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS 2013), 135–143. JMLR (31).Google Scholar
- Bareinboim, E., and Pearl, J. 2013b. Causal transportability with limited experiments. In desJardins, M., and Littman, M. L., eds., Proceedings of The Twenty-Seventh Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2013), 95–101.Google Scholar
- Bareinboim, E.; Tian, J.; and Pearl, J. 2014. Recovering from selection bias in causal and statistical inference. Technical Report R-425, Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, UCLA. Also in Carla E. Brodley and Peter Stone (Eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press, 2410–2416, 2014, “Best Paper Award.”Google Scholar
- Cooper, G. 1995. Causal discovery from data in the presence of selection bias. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics 140–150.Google Scholar
- Cornfield, J. 1951. A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data; applications to cancer of the lung, breast, and cervix. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 11:1269–1275.Google Scholar
- Cortes, C.; Mohri, M.; Riley, M.; and Rostamizadeh, A. 2008. Sample selection bias correction theory. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory, ALT ’08, 38–53. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Didelez, V.; Kreiner, S.; and Keiding, N. 2010. Graphical models for inference under outcome-dependent sampling. Statistical Science 25(3):368–387.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Elkan, C. 2001. The foundations of cost-sensitive learning. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2, IJCAI’01, 973–978. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
- Geng, Z. 1992. Collapsibility of relative risk in contingency tables with a response variable. Journal Royal Statistical Society 54(2):585–593.Google Scholar
- Glymour, M., and Greenland, S. 2008. Causal diagrams. In Rothman, K.; Greenland, S.; and Lash, T., eds., Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 3rd edition. 183–209.Google Scholar
- Greenland, S., and Pearl, J. 2011. Adjustments and their consequences – collapsibility analysis using graphical models. International Statistical Review 79(3):401–426.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heckman, J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–161.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hein, M. 2009. Binary classification under sample selection bias. In Candela, J.; Sugiyama, M.; Schwaighofer, A.; and Lawrence, N., eds., Dataset Shift in Machine Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 41–64.Google Scholar
- Jewell, N. P. 1991. Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression models. International Statistical Review 59(2):227–240.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Koller, D., and Friedman, N. 2009. Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques. MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Kuroki, M., and Cai, Z. 2006. On recovering a population covariance matrix in the presence of selection bias. Biometrika 93(3):601–611.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Little, R. J. A., and Rubin, D. B. 1986. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mefford, J., and Witte, J. S. 2012. The covariate’s dilemma. PLoS Genet 8(11):e1003096.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pearl, J., and Paz, A. 2013. Confounding equivalence in causal equivalence. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2010), 433–441. Corvallis, OR: AUAI. Also: Technical Report R-343w, Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, UCLA.Google Scholar
- Pearl, J. 1988. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Pearl, J. 1993. Aspects of graphical models connected with causality. In Proceedings of the 49th Session of the International Statistical Institute, 391–401.Google Scholar
- Pearl, J. 1995. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika 82(4):669–710.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pearl, J. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. New York: Cambridge University Press. Second ed., 2009.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pearl, J. 2013. Linear models: A useful “microscope” for causal analysis. Journal of Causal Inference 1:155–170.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pirinen, M.; Donnelly, P.; and Spencer, C. 2012. Including known covariates can reduce power to detect genetic effects in case-control studies. Nature Genetics 44:848–851.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robins, J. 2001. Data, design, and background knowledge in etiologic inference. Epidemiology 12(3):313–320.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Smith, A. T., and Elkan, C. 2007. Making generative classifiers robust to selection bias. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’07, 657–666. New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
- Spirtes, P.; Glymour, C.; and Scheines, R. 2000. Causation, Prediction, and Search. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
- Storkey, A. 2009. When training and test sets are different: characterising learning transfer. In Candela, J.; Sugiyama, M.; Schwaighofer, A.; and Lawrence, N., eds., Dataset Shift in Machine Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 3–28.Google Scholar
- Textor, J., and Liskiewicz, M. 2011. Adjustment criteria in causal diagrams: An algorithmic perspective. In Pfeffer, A., and Cozman, F., eds., Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2011), 681–688. AUAI Press.Google Scholar
- Tian, J.; Paz, A.; and Pearl, J. 1998. Finding minimal separating sets. Technical Report R-254, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
- Whittemore, A. 1978. Collapsibility of multidimensional contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 40(3):328–340.Google Scholar
- Zadrozny, B. 2004. Learning and evaluating classifiers under sample selection bias. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’04, 114–. New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhang, J. 2008. On the completeness of orientation rules for causal discovery in the presence of latent confounders and selection bias. Artificial Intelligence 172:1873–1896.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Recovering from Selection Bias in Causal and Statistical Inference
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Recovering from selection bias in causal and statistical inference
AAAI'14: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSelection bias is caused by preferential exclusion of units from the samples and represents a major obstacle to valid causal and statistical inferences; it cannot be removed by randomized experiments and can rarely be detected in either experimental or ...
Controlling selection bias in causal inference
AAAI'11: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSelection bias, caused by preferential exclusion of units (or samples) from the data, is a major obstacle to valid causal inferences, for it cannot be removed or even detected by randomized experiments. This paper highlights several graphical and ...
Recovering causal effects from selection bias
AAAI'15: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceControlling for selection and confounding biases are two of the most challenging problems that appear in data analysis in the empirical sciences as well as in artificial intelligence tasks. The combination of previously studied methods for each of these ...
Comments