Attribution of climate change to causal factors has been based predominantly on simulations using physical climate models, which have inherent limitations in describing such a complex and chaotic system. We propose an alternative, data centric, approach that relies on actual measurements of climate observations and human and natural forcing factors. Specifically, we develop a novel method to infer causality from spatial-temporal data, as well as a procedure to incorporate extreme value modeling into our method in order to address the attribution of extreme climate events, such as heatwaves. Our experimental results on a real world dataset indicate that changes in temperature are not solely accounted for by solar radiance, but attributed more significantly to CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Combined with extreme value modeling, we also show that there has been a significant increase in the intensity of extreme temperatures, and that such changes in extreme temperature are also attributable to greenhouse gases. These preliminary results suggest that our approach can offer a useful alternative to the simulation-based approach to climate modeling and attribution, and provide valuable insights from a fresh perspective.

We develop a new concept for aggregating items of evidence for class probability estimation. In Naive Bayes, each feature contributes an independent multiplicative factor to the estimated class probability. We modify this model to include an exponent in each factor in order to introduce feature importance. These exponents are chosen to maximize the accuracy of estimated class probabilities on the training data. For Naive Bayes, this modification accomplishes more than what feature selection can. More generally, since the individual features can be the outputs of separate probability models, this yields a new ensemble modeling approach, which we call APM (Adjusted Probability Model), along with a regularized version called APMR.

In some classification problems the feature space is heterogeneous in that the best features on which to base the classification are different in different parts of the feature space. In some other problems the classes can be divided into subsets such that distinguishing one subset of classes from another and classifying examples within the subsets require very different decision rules, involving different sets of features. In such heterogeneous problems, many modeling techniques (including decision trees, rules, and neural networks) evaluate the performance of alternative decision rules by averaging over the entire problem space, and are prone to generating a model that is suboptimal in any of the regions or subproblems. Better overall models can be obtained by splitting the problem appropriately and modeling each subproblem separately. This paper presents a new measure to determine the degree of dissimilarity between the decision surfaces of two given problems, and suggests a way to search for a strategic splitting of the feature space that identifies regions with different characteristics. We illustrate the concept using a multiplexor problem, and apply the method to a DNA classification problem.