Abstract
AbstractThis chapter looks at other aspects of the “quantification landscape” that have not been covered in the previous chapters, and discusses the evolution of quantification research, from its beginnings to the most recent quantification-based “shared tasks”; the landscape of quantification-based, publicly available software libraries; visualization tools specifically oriented to displaying the results of quantification-based experiments; and other tasks in data science that present important similarities with quantification. This chapter also presents the results of experiments, that we have carried out ourselves, in which we compare many of the methods discussed in Chapter2on a common testing infrastructure.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference165 articles.
1. Alaíz-Rodríguez, R., Guerrero-Curieses, A., and Cid-Sueiro, J. (2011). Class and subclass probability re-estimation to adapt a classifier in the presence of concept drift. Neurocomputing, 74(16):2614–2623.
2. Alexandari, A., Kundaje, A., and Shrikumar, A. (2020). Maximum likelihood with bias-corrected calibration is hard-to-beat at label shift adaptation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2020), pages 222–232, Vienna, AT.
3. Anderson, T. W. (1962). On the distribution of the two-sample Cramer-von Mises criterion. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33(3):1148–1159.
4. Andrus, M., Spitzer, E., Brown, J., and Xiang, A. (2021). What we can’t measure, we can’t understand: Challenges to demographic data procurement in the pursuit of fairness. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT 2021), pages 249–260, Toronto, CA.
5. Arribas, J. I. and Cid-Sueiro, J. (2005). A model selection algorithm for a posteriori probability estimation with neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 16(4):799–809.