Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Yeahoon Kwon

dblp:384/4187 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Reinforcement learning · 56% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 28% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 16%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Mathematical optimization · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
causal inference
1.022025
On Positivity Condition for Causal Inference · ICML 2024
Non-Stationary Structural Causal Bandits · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › multi-armed bandit › structured bandit
causal bandit
0.912025
Non-Stationary Structural Causal Bandits · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
multi-armed bandit
0.912025
Non-Stationary Structural Causal Bandits · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning › multi-armed bandit
non-stationary bandits
0.912025
Non-Stationary Structural Causal Bandits · NeurIPS 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › causal reasoning
causal graphical model
0.812024
On Positivity Condition for Causal Inference · ICML 2024
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference › causal model
structural causal model
0.312025
Non-Stationary Structural Causal Bandits · NeurIPS 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

q-decomposition · 1.5graphical analysis · 1.5do-calculus · 1.5temporal causal model · 0.9minimal intervention set · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Non-Stationary Structural Causal Bandits
abstract
We study the problem of sequential decision-making in environments governed by evolving causal mechanisms. Prior work on structural causal bandits--formulations that integrate causal graphs into multi-armed bandit problems to guide intervention selection--has shown that leveraging the causal structure can reduce unnecessary interventions by identifying possibly-optimal minimal intervention sets (POMISs). However, such formulations fall short in dynamic settings where reward distributions may vary over time, as their static, hence myopic, nature focuses on immediate rewards and overlooks the long-term effects of interventions. In this work, we propose a non-stationary structural causal bandit framework that leverages temporal structural causal models to capture evolving dynamics over time. We characterize how interventions propagate over time by developing graphical tools and assumptions, which form the basis for identifying non-myopic intervention strategies. Within this framework, we devise POMIS$^+$, which captures the existence of variables that contribute to maximizing both immediate and long-term rewards. Our framework provides a principled way to reason about temporally-aware interventions by explicitly modeling information propagation across time. Empirical results validate the effectiveness of our approach, demonstrating improved performance over myopic baselines.
Yeahoon Kwon, Yesong Choe, Soungmin Park, Neil Dhir, Sanghack Lee
NeurIPS1
2024 On Positivity Condition for Causal Inference
abstract
Identifying and estimating a causal effect is a fundamental task when researchers want to infer a causal effect using an observational study without experiments. A conventional assumption is the strict positivity of the given distribution, or so called positivity (or overlap) under the unconfounded assumption that the probabilities of treatments are positive. However, there exist many environments where neither observational data exhibits strict positivity nor unconfounded assumption holds. Against this background, we examine the graphical counterpart of the conventional positivity condition so as to license the use of identification formula without strict positivity. In particular, we explore various approaches, including analysis in a post-hoc manner, do-calculus, $Q$-decomposition, and algorithmic, to yielding a positivity condition for an identification formula, where we relate them, providing a comprehensive view. We further discuss the design of a positivity-aware identification algorithm based on the theoretical characterization of identification formulas.
Inwoo Hwang, Yesong Choe, Yeahoon Kwon, Sanghack Lee
ICML3