Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Hidden Representation Clustering with Multi-Task Representation Learning towards Robust Online Budget Allocation

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that online budget allocation is more robust and faster when optimized over clusters of similar users rather than over individuals, and supports the claim with Meituan offline experiments and live A/B tests.

desk verdict Plausible industrial method with a real bug in the reported gains and a flawed robustness proof; the core cluster-based idea deserves a revision, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00959 v1 pith:CXPKSFVR submitted 2025-06-01 cs.LG

Xiaohan Wang , Yu Zhang , Guibin Jiang , Bing Cheng , Wei Lin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords onlinebudgetallocationmarketingoptimizationrepresentationlearningtreatmenteffectestimationclusteringstochasticprogrammingdecision-focusedupliftmodeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to make online marketing budget allocation robust to noisy, large-scale data by switching the unit of optimization from individual users to clusters of users with similar hidden representations. It claims that predicting and optimizing over clusters, whose revenue and cost statistics are fed into a stochastic program, avoids the compounding errors of individual-level counterfactual prediction. The authors support this with offline comparisons on five weeks of Meituan data and online A/B tests reporting that the cluster-based approach outperforms a decision-focused baseline by 0.53% in order volume and 0.65% in gross merchandise volume, and an S-learner heuristic baseline by 0.13% and 0.23%.

What carries the argument

Hidden representation clustering (HRC) is the pipeline that carries the argument: it trains a multi-task network with a Dragonnet-style representation module and separate revenue and propensity heads, projects original features into hidden representations from the first two layers, clusters these representations with K-means, and solves a K-cluster integer stochastic program whose objective uses cluster mean and variance statistics with risk-aversion coefficients. A monotonic revenue head built with a hypernetwork is used when training on observational data, enforcing that predicted revenue increases with treatment value. The paper justifies clustering in representation space rather than output space with a proof that hidden representations are less sensitive to input noise when the Jacobian of the representation mapping satisfies a low-sensitivity condition, so cluster assignments are more stable than individual predictions.

What would settle it

On a held-out randomized dataset, compute the cluster-level optimal treatment assignment from HRC's clusters and compare its achieved revenue with the individual-level optimal assignment under the same budget; if within-cluster response variance is high, for example each cluster contains both users who do best under the smallest discount and users who do best under the largest discount, the cluster-level assignment will perform measurably worse, contradicting the claim that cluster statistics preserve near-optimality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the online budget allocation problem can be reformulated from the perspective of clusters rather than individuals without losing solution quality, while gaining robustness to noise and drastically cutting solve time. Individuals are mapped by a multi-task representation network to hidden representations, clustered with K-means, and cluster-level revenue and cost means and variances are used as the parameters of an integer stochastic program. In this program the objective subtracts risk-aversion terms from each cluster's expected revenue, so uncertainty in cluster statistics is explicitly penalized. The paper further claims that this cluster-level formulation outperforms six individual-level marketing optimization algorithms in offline EOM evaluations and beats deployed baselines in online A/B tests.

Load-bearing premise

The cluster-level revenue and cost statistics, computed from historical training data, must remain representative of future traffic, and the paper does not verify that users within a cluster respond homogeneously to treatments, so if a cluster mixes users with opposite treatment responses the cluster-level optimal strategy can be systematically wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If cluster-level statistics remain representative, allocation strategies can be recomputed in seconds for any budget, enabling a library of strategies stored as mapping tables for online requests.
  • Distilling the representation module and clustering model into a K-classification model makes online serving fast enough for millions of requests per day.
  • With RCT training data, the paper argues that hidden representations are independent of the treatment assignment, so clusters capture inherent user attributes rather than treatment-conditioned responses.
  • The variance-penalized objective gives a direct robustness knob: adjusting the risk-aversion coefficients trades expected revenue against uncertainty in the cluster statistics.
  • The approach extends to multi-valued treatments, demonstrated with six discount rates, and the monotonic revenue head adapts it to biased observational data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The cluster-then-optimize idea could transfer to other resource allocation problems where individual-level counterfactuals are unstable, such as ad bidding, coupon targeting, or dynamic pricing, as long as cluster statistics can be estimated credibly from historical data.
  • A testable extension is to measure within-cluster homogeneity: on held-out RCT data, compare the cluster-level optimal assignment against the individual-level optimal assignment under the same budget; the revenue gap quantifies the information lost by clustering.
  • The robustness claim depends on cluster composition remaining stable over time, so a practical improvement would be periodically re-estimating cluster statistics or monitoring cluster drift rather than assuming the historical clusters persist indefinitely.
  • Because the objective is a mean-variance trade-off, the risk coefficients could be tuned per budget segment using online feedback, turning the current static setting into a closed-loop allocation policy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HRC (Hidden Representation Clustering), an industrial pipeline for online budget allocation. A multi-task representation network is trained to predict revenue and propensity, its hidden representations are clustered with K-means, cluster-level mean/variance statistics are used to solve a variance-penalized stochastic integer program, and the representation plus clustering is distilled into a K-class classification model for online serving. The method is evaluated on five weeks of Meituan data with EOM-based offline comparisons against six baselines and with online A/B tests against two deployed algorithms, reporting OV/GMV gains.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper offers a practically useful and deployable alternative to individual-level predict-then-optimize and decision-focused learning: it reduces the optimization scale from tens of millions of individuals to K clusters, avoids large-scale counterfactual prediction, and replaces a heavy online pipeline with a distilled classifier. The manuscript's strengths are the large-scale industrial dataset (44M samples), the inclusion of two online A/B deployments, and the explicit treatment of observation-data training via a monotonic network. However, the central quantitative claims are currently undermined by an internal inconsistency in the reported online gains, an invalid proof in the theoretical appendix, and missing uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope, so the contribution is potentially strong but not yet ready in its present form.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.3, Table 2] The text states that 'HRC outperforms Slearner-HEU by 11% and 22%, respectively' and 'surpasses DFL-PL by 22% and 33%', while Table 2 reports 0.13%/0.23% and 0.53%/0.65%, and the abstract reports 0.53%/0.65% for the comparison with DFL-PL. These numbers differ by two orders of magnitude. Since the online A/B result is the central claim, please reconcile the text with the table and report test statistics or confidence intervals for the daily gaps.
  2. [Appendix A.1, Eq. (14)] The proof of Theorem 1 is invalid as written. The 'low sensitivity condition' is stated as ||∂y/∂g||²_F >> 1, which is a high-sensitivity condition on the output map, not a low-sensitivity condition on g. From Eq. (13), E||y~ - y||²_F ≤ σ²_Δ ||∂y/∂g||²_F ||J_g||²_F; comparing with Eq. (11) gives E||z~ - z||²_F << E||y~ - y||²_F only if ||∂y/∂g||_F ≥ 1, which is not implied by low sensitivity of g. The theorem and its proof should be corrected, or the theoretical claim should be removed or substantially weakened.
  3. [Sections 4.3-4.4, Eqs. (6)-(7)] The replacement of the individual-level problem (1) with the cluster-level stochastic program (7) assumes that each cluster is approximately homogeneous in treatment response and that the historical cluster statistics remain representative at serving time. K-means on the representation trained via (2) provides no such guarantee, and the paper offers no diagnostic for within-cluster heterogeneity, cluster stability across time, or distribution shift. Please provide such diagnostics or a formal bound on the approximation error. In addition, the variance penalty in (7) uses ω_i σ_r and ω_i σ_c; for cluster totals, the standard deviation under within-cluster independence would scale as sqrt(ω_i)σ, so the current penalty over-penalizes large clusters and can distort the allocation.
  4. [Section 5.1 and Table 3] Several key hyperparameters are not reported anywhere: K in Eq. (5), λ and κ in Eq. (7), and α in Eq. (2). Table 3 lists network and training hyperparameters but omits these, even though the clustering granularity and the risk-aversion terms directly determine the solved allocation. Without these values the experiments are not reproducible; please report them and, ideally, a sensitivity analysis over K, λ, and κ.
  5. [Section 5.2, Figures 3-5] The offline EOM results are reported as single curves without error bars, confidence intervals, or the number of repeated runs. Given the high variance visible in the data statistics in Table 1 and the small apparent differences in some budget ranges, the claimed offline superiority of HRC is not statistically supported. Please add pointwise confidence intervals or at least report standard errors over seeds or bootstrap resamples for the EOM estimates.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.2, Generalization paragraph] The sentence '?? indicates the EOM results under five budget points, where HRC outperforms the second-best approach for {0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1} under budgets of {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}' contains a missing reference and an unclear tuple; please rewrite it and supply the missing caption or table reference.
  2. [Figure 3] The label on the right panel reads 'GMV label', which appears to be a typo for 'GMV'.
  3. [Table 2] The columns ΔOV/OV_B, ΔGMV/GMV_B, and ΔCost/Cost_B mix percentage changes and percentage-point changes; please clarify the units and define the baseline subscript B explicitly.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract states that HRC 'outperforms the online algorithm by 0.53% and 0.65%' but does not identify the baseline; the corresponding Table 2 comparison is with DFL-PL, so please name the baseline in the abstract.
  5. [References] The reference 'Mandi and Guns [2010]' is cited in the text as 2020, and the URL field in the bibliography entry appears malformed; please correct the citation year and reference entry.
  6. [Appendix A.2, Theorem 2] The proof states I(Z; T | X) → 0 for RCT data, but Z is a deterministic function of X, so the conditional independence of T and Z given X should be justified rather than assumed; as written the step is not immediate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: cluster statistics feed a stochastic program as standard fitted inputs, and the central claim is backed by out-of-sample EOM and online A/B evidence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The cluster statistics in Eq. (6) (revenue/cost means and variances per cluster per treatment) are estimated from historical training data and then used as parameters in the stochastic program (7); this is ordinary fit-then-optimize, and the paper does not rename these fitted statistics as a prediction. The representation network is trained with a revenue loss and propensity loss in Eq. (2), and the clustering in Eq. (5) is performed on the learned hidden representations; no step defines the clustering objective in terms of the final allocation. The two theorems in Appendix A are derived in-paper from stated assumptions (low-sensitivity Jacobian, RCT treatment independence) and are not used to set any constant in Eq. (7), so they are not circular even if their proofs have gaps. Self-citations to Zhou et al. 2023 and Zhou et al. 2024 appear only in related work and as comparison baselines; they are not load-bearing for the cluster-level reformulation. The offline EOM evaluation on a held-out week and the online A/B test are external evidence relative to the fitted cluster statistics. The risk-term scaling in Eq. (7) (using omega_i*sigma instead of sqrt(omega_i)*sigma for the variance of a cluster total) is a modeling or correctness concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on fitted hyperparameters (K, lambda, kappa, alpha) that are not disclosed, and on two appendices whose theoretical claims rest on unverified assumptions. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the 'hidden representations' are learned features, not invented quantities.

free parameters (4)
  • K (number of clusters) = not reported
    Controls the granularity of the cluster-level optimization; must be chosen by hand or validation, and its value is not disclosed in the paper (Section 4.3).
  • lambda (risk aversion on revenue variance) = not reported
    Weight in the stochastic programming objective (Eq. 7) that trades off expected revenue against variance; no value or sensitivity analysis given (Section 4.4).
  • kappa (risk aversion on cost variance) = not reported
    Weight on the cost variance term in Eq. (7); not reported or ablated (Section 4.4).
  • alpha (propensity loss weight) = not reported
    Weight on the propensity head in the multi-task loss (Eq. 2); not reported (Section 4.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption In RCT data, X is independent of T, so I(X;T)=0 and I(Z;T|X)=0.
    Assumed for Theorem 2 (Appendix A.2); holds only if treatment assignment is randomized, which is stated for the RCT datasets.
  • standard math The neural network outputs are well-approximated by their first-order Taylor expansion around x.
    Used in Theorem 1 (Appendix A.1) to propagate Gaussian input noise; ignores higher-order terms.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'low sensitivity condition' on the hidden mapping g is satisfied by batch normalization and weight regularization.
    The paper asserts this to conclude ||dy/dg||^2_F >> 1 (Eq. 14), but the condition as written concerns ||J_g|| and is not established by BN or regularization (Appendix A.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The parameterization of Eq. (3) enforces monotonicity dR/dt > 0 for OBS data.
    By construction using absolute values; this is a modeling choice rather than an empirical finding (Section 4.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hidden Representation Clustering with Multi-Task Representation Learning towards Robust Online Budget Allocation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CXPKSFVR

@misc{pith2026250600959,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hidden Representation Clustering with Multi-Task Representation Learning towards Robust Online Budget Allocation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CXPKSFVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00959}
}
abstract

Marketing optimization, commonly formulated as an online budget allocation problem, has emerged as a pivotal factor in driving user growth. Most existing research addresses this problem by following the principle of 'first predict then optimize' for each individual, which presents challenges related to large-scale counterfactual prediction and solving complexity trade-offs. Note that the practical data quality is uncontrollable, and the solving scale tends to be tens of millions. Therefore, the existing approaches make the robust budget allocation non-trivial, especially in industrial scenarios with considerable data noise. To this end, this paper proposes a novel approach that solves the problem from the cluster perspective. Specifically, we propose a multi-task representation network to learn the inherent attributes of individuals and project the original features into high-dimension hidden representations through the first two layers of the trained network. Then, we divide these hidden representations into $K$ groups through partitioning-based clustering, thus reformulating the problem as an integer stochastic programming problem under different total budgets. Finally, we distill the representation module and clustering model into a multi-category model to facilitate online deployment. Offline experiments validate the effectiveness and superiority of our approach compared to six state-of-the-art marketing optimization algorithms. Online A/B tests on the Meituan platform indicate that the approach outperforms the online algorithm by 0.53% and 0.65%, considering order volume (OV) and gross merchandise volume (GMV), respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00959 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall framework of the proposed HRC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The model structure of the multi-task representation network. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. EOM curves of OV and GMV under different budgets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: EOM boxlines of OV and GMV under different budgets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: EOM curves of OV and GMV. The models are trained under observation data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Daily online A/B results data noise in practical scenarios. A multi-task representation network is proposed to project original individuals’ features into hidden representations for the following clustering. The stochastic programming based on K clusters ensures the ro…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Backdoor adjustment via group adaptation for debiased coupon recommendations

    Junpeng Fang, Gongduo Zhang, Qing Cui, Caizhi Tang, Lihong Gu, Longfei Li, Jinjie Gu, and Jun Zhou. Backdoor adjustment via group adaptation for debiased coupon recommendations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 11944--11952, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    E-commerce promotions personalization via online multiple-choice knapsack with uplift modeling

    Javier Albert and Dmitri Goldenberg. E-commerce promotions personalization via online multiple-choice knapsack with uplift modeling. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 2863--2872, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Metalearners for ranking treatment effects

    Toon Vanderschueren, Wouter Verbeke, Felipe Moraes, and Hugo Manuel Proen c a. Metalearners for ranking treatment effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02183, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Uplift modeling with continuous treatments: A predict-then-optimize approach

    Simon De Vos, Christopher Bockel-Rickermann, Stefan Lessmann, and Wouter Verbeke. Uplift modeling with continuous treatments: A predict-then-optimize approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09232, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Direct heterogeneous causal learning for resource allocation problems in marketing

    Hao Zhou, Shaoming Li, Guibin Jiang, Jiaqi Zheng, and Dong Wang. Direct heterogeneous causal learning for resource allocation problems in marketing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 5446--5454, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Melding the data-decisions pipeline: Decision-focused learning for combinatorial optimization

    Bryan Wilder, Bistra Dilkina, and Milind Tambe. Melding the data-decisions pipeline: Decision-focused learning for combinatorial optimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 1658--1665, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Decision focused causal learning for direct counterfactual marketing optimization

    Hao Zhou, Rongxiao Huang, Shaoming Li, Guibin Jiang, Jiaqi Zheng, Bing Cheng, and Wei Lin. Decision focused causal learning for direct counterfactual marketing optimization. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 6368--6379, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Decision-focused learning: Through the lens of learning to rank

    Jayanta Mandi, V ctor Bucarey, Maxime Mulamba Ke Tchomba, and Tias Guns. Decision-focused learning: Through the lens of learning to rank. In International conference on machine learning, pages 14935--14947. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Benchmarking pto and pno methods in the predictive combinatorial optimization regime

    Haoyu Geng, Hang Ruan, Runzhong Wang, Yang Li, Yang Wang, Lei Chen, and Junchi Yan. Benchmarking pto and pno methods in the predictive combinatorial optimization regime. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37: 0 65944--65971, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    End-to-end cost-effective incentive recommendation under budget constraint with uplift modeling

    Zexu Sun, Hao Yang, Dugang Liu, Yunpeng Weng, Xing Tang, and Xiuqiang He. End-to-end cost-effective incentive recommendation under budget constraint with uplift modeling. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 560--569, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Rankability-enhanced revenue uplift modeling framework for online marketing

    Bowei He, Yunpeng Weng, Xing Tang, Ziqiang Cui, Zexu Sun, Liang Chen, Xiuqiang He, and Chen Ma. Rankability-enhanced revenue uplift modeling framework for online marketing. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 5093--5104, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Maximizing the success probability of policy allocations in online systems

    Artem Betlei, Mariia Vladimirova, Mehdi Sebbar, Nicolas Urien, Thibaud Rahier, and Benjamin Heymann. Maximizing the success probability of policy allocations in online systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 11061--11068, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Lbcf: A large-scale budget-constrained causal forest algorithm

    Meng Ai, Biao Li, Heyang Gong, Qingwei Yu, Shengjie Xue, Yuan Zhang, Yunzhou Zhang, and Peng Jiang. Lbcf: A large-scale budget-constrained causal forest algorithm. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pages 2310--2319, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Practical marketplace optimization at uber using causally-informed machine learning

    Bobby Chen, Siyu Chen, Jason Dowlatabadi, Yu Xuan Hong, Vinayak Iyer, Uday Mantripragada, Rishabh Narang, Apoorv Pandey, Zijun Qin, Abrar Sheikh, et al. Practical marketplace optimization at uber using causally-informed machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19078, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Adapting neural networks for the estimation of treatment effects

    Claudia Shi, David Blei, and Victor Veitch. Adapting neural networks for the estimation of treatment effects. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Vcnet and functional targeted regularization for learning causal effects of continuous treatments

    Lizhen Nie, Mao Ye, Qiang Liu, and Dan Nicolae. Vcnet and functional targeted regularization for learning causal effects of continuous treatments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.07861, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Learning to rank for optimal treatment allocation under resource constraints

    Fahad Kamran, Maggie Makar, and Jenna Wiens. Learning to rank for optimal treatment allocation under resource constraints. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 3727--3735. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Improve roi with causal learning and conformal prediction

    Meng Ai, Zhuo Chen, Jibin Wang, Jing Shang, Tao Tao, and Zhen Li. Improve roi with causal learning and conformal prediction. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pages 598--610. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    A multi-stage framework for online bonus allocation based on constrained user intent detection

    Chao Wang, Xiaowei Shi, Shuai Xu, Zhe Wang, Zhiqiang Fan, Yan Feng, An You, and Yu Chen. A multi-stage framework for online bonus allocation based on constrained user intent detection. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pag...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Interior point solving for lp-based prediction+ optimisation, 2020

    Jayanta Mandi and Tias Guns. Interior point solving for lp-based prediction+ optimisation, 2020. URL http://arxiv. org/abs, 2010

    2020

  13. [21]

    Implicit mle: backpropagating through discrete exponential family distributions

    Mathias Niepert, Pasquale Minervini, and Luca Franceschi. Implicit mle: backpropagating through discrete exponential family distributions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 14567--14579, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Learning with differentiable pertubed optimizers

    Quentin Berthet, Mathieu Blondel, Olivier Teboul, Marco Cuturi, Jean-Philippe Vert, and Francis Bach. Learning with differentiable pertubed optimizers. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 0 9508--9519, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Differentiation of blackbox combinatorial solvers

    Marin Vlastelica, Anselm Paulus, V \' t Musil, Georg Martius, and Michal Rol \' nek. Differentiation of blackbox combinatorial solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02175, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Decision-focused learning without decision-making: Learning locally optimized decision losses

    Sanket Shah, Kai Wang, Bryan Wilder, Andrew Perrault, and Milind Tambe. Decision-focused learning without decision-making: Learning locally optimized decision losses. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 1320--1332, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Task-based end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization

    Priya Donti, Brandon Amos, and J Zico Kolter. Task-based end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Uplift modeling with multiple treatments and general response types

    Yan Zhao, Xiao Fang, and David Simchi-Levi. Uplift modeling with multiple treatments and general response types. In Proceedings of the 2017 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pages 588--596. SIAM, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Robust learning with jacobian regularization

    Judy Hoffman, Daniel A Roberts, and Sho Yaida. Robust learning with jacobian regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.02729, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift

    Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In International conference on machine learning, pages 448--456. pmlr, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.