\caption{Comparison of mean absolute error w.r.t true evaluation between contraction and the counterfactual-based method we have presented. The table shows that our method can perform welll despite violations of the assumptions (eg. having decision-maker \human giving random and non-informative decisions). }
\caption{Comparison of mean absolute error w.r.t true evaluation between contraction and the counterfactual-based method we have presented. The table shows that our method can perform welll despite violations of the assumptions (eg. having decision-maker \human giving random and non-informative decisions). Here $\max(\leniencyValue)=0.9$.}
Taking into account that we need to learn parameters from the data we integrate this expression over the posterior of the parameters. Note that since $Z$ is unobserved, it is not straightforwardly clear that we can estimate parameters associated to it. However, since $Z$ is not observed we can assume it has zero mean and unit variance. Furthermore we can assume positivity of parameters, since $Z$ increases risk of failure and induces $T=0$ decisions.
\subsection{Model definition}
To make inference we obviously have to learn the parametric model from the data instead of fixed functions of the previous section. We can define the model as a probabilistic due to the simplification of the counterfactual expression in the previous section.
We assume feature vectors $\obsFeaturesValue$ and $\unobservableValue$ representing risk can be consensed to unidimension risk values, for example by ... . Furthermore we assume their distribution as Gaussian. Since $Z$ is unobserved we can assume its variance to be 1.
$\parameters=\{\alpha_\outcomeValue, \alpha_j, \beta_\obsFeaturesValue, \beta_\unobservableValue, \gamma_\obsFeaturesValue, \gamma_\unobservableValue\}$. \acomment{Where are the variance parameters?} Our estimate is simply integrating over the posterior of these variables.