Score As You Lift (SAYL): A Statistical Relational Learning Approach to Uplift Modeling

We introduce Score As You Lift (SAYL), a novel Statistical Relational Learning (SRL) algorithm, and apply it to an important task in the diagnosis of breast cancer. SAYL combines SRL with the marketing concept of uplift modeling, uses the area under the uplift curve to direct clause construction and final theory evaluation, integrates rule learning and probability assignment, and conditions the addition of each new theory rule to existing ones. Breast cancer, the most common type of cancer among women, is categorized into two subtypes: an earlier in situ stage where cancer cells are still confined, and a subsequent invasive stage. Currently older women with in situ cancer are treated to prevent cancer progression, regardless of the fact that treatment may generate undesirable side-effects, and the woman may die of other causes. Younger women tend to have more aggressive cancers, while older women tend to have more indolent tumors. Therefore older women whose in situ tumors show significant dissimilarity with in situ cancer in younger women are less likely to progress, and can thus be considered for watchful waiting. Motivated by this important problem, this work makes two main contributions. First, we present the first multi-relational uplift modeling system, and introduce, implement and evaluate a novel method to guide search in an SRL framework. Second, we compare our algorithm to previous approaches, and demonstrate that the system can indeed obtain differential rules of interest to an expert on real data, while significantly improving the data uplift.

[1]  Patrick D. Surry,et al.  Differential Response Analysis: Modeling True Responses by Isolating the Effect of a Single Action , 1999 .

[2]  David Page,et al.  Relational Differential Prediction , 2012, ECML/PKDD.

[3]  Yueh-Hsia Chiu,et al.  Mammographic tumor features can predict long‐term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14‐mm invasive breast carcinoma , 2004, Cancer.

[4]  Patrick D. Surry,et al.  Real-World Uplift Modelling with Significance-Based Uplift Trees , 2012 .

[5]  Luc De Raedt,et al.  Top-down induction of logical decision trees , 1997 .

[6]  Richard J. K. Taylor,et al.  Is age at diagnosis an independent prognostic factor for survival following breast cancer? , 2005, ANZ journal of surgery.

[7]  Saso Dzeroski,et al.  Inductive Logic Programming: Techniques and Applications , 1993 .

[8]  David Page,et al.  Uncovering age-specific invasive and DCIS breast cancer rules using inductive logic programming , 2010, IHI.

[9]  John W. Young,et al.  Differential Validity, Differential Prediction,and College Admission Testing: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis , 2001 .

[10]  Peter A. Flach,et al.  Evaluation Measures for Multi-class Subgroup Discovery , 2009, ECML/PKDD.

[11]  Ben Taskar,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning (Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning) , 2007 .

[12]  Stéphane Tufféry,et al.  Data Mining and Statistics for Decision Making: Tufféry/Data Mining and Statistics for Decision Making , 2011 .

[13]  Behram Hansotia,et al.  Incremental value modeling , 2002 .

[14]  Szymon Jaroszewicz,et al.  Decision trees for uplift modeling with single and multiple treatments , 2011, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[15]  J. Hornaday,et al.  Cancer Facts & Figures 2004 , 2004 .

[16]  David Page,et al.  Logical Differential Prediction Bayes Net, improving breast cancer diagnosis for older women , 2012, AMIA.

[17]  Hendrik Blockeel,et al.  Top-Down Induction of First Order Logical Decision Trees , 1998, AI Commun..

[18]  Deutsche Version BREAST IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM (BI-RADS TM ) , 2001 .

[19]  E. Thurfjell,et al.  Nonpalpable breast cancer: mammographic appearance as predictor of histologic type. , 2002, Radiology.

[20]  S. Jaroszewicz,et al.  Uplift modeling for clinical trial data , 2012 .

[21]  D. Schultz,et al.  The influence of young age on outcome in early stage breast cancer. , 1994, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  Stephen Muggleton,et al.  Inverse entailment and progol , 1995, New Generation Computing.

[23]  R. Linn Single-group validity, differential validity, and differential prediction. , 1978 .

[24]  David Page,et al.  Information Extraction for Clinical Data Mining: A Mammography Case Study , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops.

[25]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  An Introduction to Statistical Learning , 2013, Springer Texts in Statistics.

[26]  Stefan Schaal,et al.  Natural Actor-Critic , 2003, Neurocomputing.

[27]  Stphane Tuffry,et al.  Data Mining and Statistics for Decision Making , 2011 .

[28]  S. Schnitt,et al.  Local outcomes in ductal carcinoma in situ based on patient and tumor characteristics. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[29]  Victor S. Y. Lo The true lift model: a novel data mining approach to response modeling in database marketing , 2002, SKDD.

[30]  Jesse Davis,et al.  Unachievable Region in Precision-Recall Space and Its Effect on Empirical Evaluation , 2012, ICML.

[31]  Ben Taskar,et al.  Introduction to statistical relational learning , 2007 .

[32]  Jesse Davis,et al.  An Integrated Approach to Learning Bayesian Networks of Rules , 2005, ECML.

[33]  Sriraam Natarajan,et al.  Identifying Adverse Drug Events by Relational Learning , 2012, AAAI.

[34]  T. Cleary TEST BIAS: PREDICTION OF GRADES OF NEGRO AND WHITE STUDENTS IN INTEGRATED COLLEGES , 1968 .

[35]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Relational Learning , 2007 .

[36]  Nir Friedman,et al.  Bayesian Network Classifiers , 1997, Machine Learning.

[37]  Nada Lavrac,et al.  Propositionalization-based relational subgroup discovery with RSD , 2006, Machine Learning.