-
Auditing Fairness under Unobserved Confounding
Authors:
Yewon Byun,
Dylan Sam,
Michael Oberst,
Zachary C. Lipton,
Bryan Wilder
Abstract:
The presence of inequity is a fundamental problem in the outcomes of decision-making systems, especially when human lives are at stake. Yet, estimating notions of unfairness or inequity is difficult, particularly if they rely on hard-to-measure concepts such as risk. Such measurements of risk can be accurately obtained when no unobserved confounders have jointly influenced past decisions and outco…
▽ More
The presence of inequity is a fundamental problem in the outcomes of decision-making systems, especially when human lives are at stake. Yet, estimating notions of unfairness or inequity is difficult, particularly if they rely on hard-to-measure concepts such as risk. Such measurements of risk can be accurately obtained when no unobserved confounders have jointly influenced past decisions and outcomes. However, in the real world, this assumption rarely holds. In this paper, we show a surprising result that one can still give meaningful bounds on treatment rates to high-risk individuals, even when entirely eliminating or relaxing the assumption that all relevant risk factors are observed. We use the fact that in many real-world settings (e.g., the release of a new treatment) we have data from prior to any allocation to derive unbiased estimates of risk. This result is of immediate practical interest: we can audit unfair outcomes of existing decision-making systems in a principled manner. For instance, in a real-world study of Paxlovid allocation, our framework provably identifies that observed racial inequity cannot be explained by unobserved confounders of the same strength as important observed covariates.
△ Less
Submitted 24 April, 2024; v1 submitted 18 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Recent Advances, Applications, and Open Challenges in Machine Learning for Health: Reflections from Research Roundtables at ML4H 2023 Symposium
Authors:
Hyewon Jeong,
Sarah Jabbour,
Yuzhe Yang,
Rahul Thapta,
Hussein Mozannar,
William Jongwon Han,
Nikita Mehandru,
Michael Wornow,
Vladislav Lialin,
Xin Liu,
Alejandro Lozano,
Jiacheng Zhu,
Rafal Dariusz Kocielnik,
Keith Harrigian,
Haoran Zhang,
Edward Lee,
Milos Vukadinovic,
Aparna Balagopalan,
Vincent Jeanselme,
Katherine Matton,
Ilker Demirel,
Jason Fries,
Parisa Rashidi,
Brett Beaulieu-Jones,
Xuhai Orson Xu
, et al. (18 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
The third ML4H symposium was held in person on December 10, 2023, in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. The symposium included research roundtable sessions to foster discussions between participants and senior researchers on timely and relevant topics for the \ac{ML4H} community. Encouraged by the successful virtual roundtables in the previous year, we organized eleven in-person roundtables and four vir…
▽ More
The third ML4H symposium was held in person on December 10, 2023, in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. The symposium included research roundtable sessions to foster discussions between participants and senior researchers on timely and relevant topics for the \ac{ML4H} community. Encouraged by the successful virtual roundtables in the previous year, we organized eleven in-person roundtables and four virtual roundtables at ML4H 2022. The organization of the research roundtables at the conference involved 17 Senior Chairs and 19 Junior Chairs across 11 tables. Each roundtable session included invited senior chairs (with substantial experience in the field), junior chairs (responsible for facilitating the discussion), and attendees from diverse backgrounds with interest in the session's topic. Herein we detail the organization process and compile takeaways from these roundtable discussions, including recent advances, applications, and open challenges for each topic. We conclude with a summary and lessons learned across all roundtables. This document serves as a comprehensive review paper, summarizing the recent advancements in machine learning for healthcare as contributed by foremost researchers in the field.
△ Less
Submitted 5 April, 2024; v1 submitted 3 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Benchmarking Observational Studies with Experimental Data under Right-Censoring
Authors:
Ilker Demirel,
Edward De Brouwer,
Zeshan Hussain,
Michael Oberst,
Anthony Philippakis,
David Sontag
Abstract:
Drawing causal inferences from observational studies (OS) requires unverifiable validity assumptions; however, one can falsify those assumptions by benchmarking the OS with experimental data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A major limitation of existing procedures is not accounting for censoring, despite the abundance of RCTs and OSes that report right-censored time-to-event outcomes. We…
▽ More
Drawing causal inferences from observational studies (OS) requires unverifiable validity assumptions; however, one can falsify those assumptions by benchmarking the OS with experimental data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A major limitation of existing procedures is not accounting for censoring, despite the abundance of RCTs and OSes that report right-censored time-to-event outcomes. We consider two cases where censoring time (1) is independent of time-to-event and (2) depends on time-to-event the same way in OS and RCT. For the former, we adopt a censoring-doubly-robust signal for the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) to facilitate an equivalence test of CATEs in OS and RCT, which serves as a proxy for testing if the validity assumptions hold. For the latter, we show that the same test can still be used even though unbiased CATE estimation may not be possible. We verify the effectiveness of our censoring-aware tests via semi-synthetic experiments and analyze RCT and OS data from the Women's Health Initiative study.
△ Less
Submitted 23 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Falsification of Internal and External Validity in Observational Studies via Conditional Moment Restrictions
Authors:
Zeshan Hussain,
Ming-Chieh Shih,
Michael Oberst,
Ilker Demirel,
David Sontag
Abstract:
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT)s are relied upon to assess new treatments, but suffer from limited power to guide personalized treatment decisions. On the other hand, observational (i.e., non-experimental) studies have large and diverse populations, but are prone to various biases (e.g. residual confounding). To safely leverage the strengths of observational studies, we focus on the problem of…
▽ More
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT)s are relied upon to assess new treatments, but suffer from limited power to guide personalized treatment decisions. On the other hand, observational (i.e., non-experimental) studies have large and diverse populations, but are prone to various biases (e.g. residual confounding). To safely leverage the strengths of observational studies, we focus on the problem of falsification, whereby RCTs are used to validate causal effect estimates learned from observational data. In particular, we show that, given data from both an RCT and an observational study, assumptions on internal and external validity have an observable, testable implication in the form of a set of Conditional Moment Restrictions (CMRs). Further, we show that expressing these CMRs with respect to the causal effect, or "causal contrast", as opposed to individual counterfactual means, provides a more reliable falsification test. In addition to giving guarantees on the asymptotic properties of our test, we demonstrate superior power and type I error of our approach on semi-synthetic and real world datasets. Our approach is interpretable, allowing a practitioner to visualize which subgroups in the population lead to falsification of an observational study.
△ Less
Submitted 6 March, 2023; v1 submitted 30 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
Falsification before Extrapolation in Causal Effect Estimation
Authors:
Zeshan Hussain,
Michael Oberst,
Ming-Chieh Shih,
David Sontag
Abstract:
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard when develo** policy guidelines. However, RCTs are often narrow, and lack data on broader populations of interest. Causal effects in these populations are often estimated using observational datasets, which may suffer from unobserved confounding and selection bias. Given a set of observational estimates (e.g. from multiple studies), w…
▽ More
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard when develo** policy guidelines. However, RCTs are often narrow, and lack data on broader populations of interest. Causal effects in these populations are often estimated using observational datasets, which may suffer from unobserved confounding and selection bias. Given a set of observational estimates (e.g. from multiple studies), we propose a meta-algorithm that attempts to reject observational estimates that are biased. We do so using validation effects, causal effects that can be inferred from both RCT and observational data. After rejecting estimators that do not pass this test, we generate conservative confidence intervals on the extrapolated causal effects for subgroups not observed in the RCT. Under the assumption that at least one observational estimator is asymptotically normal and consistent for both the validation and extrapolated effects, we provide guarantees on the coverage probability of the intervals output by our algorithm. To facilitate hypothesis testing in settings where causal effect transportation across datasets is necessary, we give conditions under which a doubly-robust estimator of group average treatment effects is asymptotically normal, even when flexible machine learning methods are used for estimation of nuisance parameters. We illustrate the properties of our approach on semi-synthetic and real world datasets, and show that it compares favorably to standard meta-analysis techniques.
△ Less
Submitted 6 March, 2023; v1 submitted 27 September, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
-
Evaluating Robustness to Dataset Shift via Parametric Robustness Sets
Authors:
Nikolaj Thams,
Michael Oberst,
David Sontag
Abstract:
We give a method for proactively identifying small, plausible shifts in distribution which lead to large differences in model performance. These shifts are defined via parametric changes in the causal mechanisms of observed variables, where constraints on parameters yield a "robustness set" of plausible distributions and a corresponding worst-case loss over the set. While the loss under an individ…
▽ More
We give a method for proactively identifying small, plausible shifts in distribution which lead to large differences in model performance. These shifts are defined via parametric changes in the causal mechanisms of observed variables, where constraints on parameters yield a "robustness set" of plausible distributions and a corresponding worst-case loss over the set. While the loss under an individual parametric shift can be estimated via reweighting techniques such as importance sampling, the resulting worst-case optimization problem is non-convex, and the estimate may suffer from large variance. For small shifts, however, we can construct a local second-order approximation to the loss under shift and cast the problem of finding a worst-case shift as a particular non-convex quadratic optimization problem, for which efficient algorithms are available. We demonstrate that this second-order approximation can be estimated directly for shifts in conditional exponential family models, and we bound the approximation error. We apply our approach to a computer vision task (classifying gender from images), revealing sensitivity to shifts in non-causal attributes.
△ Less
Submitted 15 January, 2023; v1 submitted 31 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Understanding the Risks and Rewards of Combining Unbiased and Possibly Biased Estimators, with Applications to Causal Inference
Authors:
Michael Oberst,
Alexander D'Amour,
Minmin Chen,
Yuyan Wang,
David Sontag,
Steve Yadlowsky
Abstract:
Several problems in statistics involve the combination of high-variance unbiased estimators with low-variance estimators that are only unbiased under strong assumptions. A notable example is the estimation of causal effects while combining small experimental datasets with larger observational datasets. There exist a series of recent proposals on how to perform such a combination, even when the bia…
▽ More
Several problems in statistics involve the combination of high-variance unbiased estimators with low-variance estimators that are only unbiased under strong assumptions. A notable example is the estimation of causal effects while combining small experimental datasets with larger observational datasets. There exist a series of recent proposals on how to perform such a combination, even when the bias of the low-variance estimator is unknown.
To build intuition for the differing trade-offs of competing approaches, we argue for examining the finite-sample estimation error of each approach as a function of the unknown bias. This includes understanding the bias threshold -- the largest bias for which a given approach improves over using the unbiased estimator alone. Though this lens, we review several recent proposals, and observe in simulation that different approaches exhibits qualitatively different behavior.
We also introduce a simple alternative approach, which compares favorably in simulation to recent alternatives, having a higher bias threshold and generally making a more conservative trade-off between best-case performance (when the bias is zero) and worst-case performance (when the bias is adversarially chosen). More broadly, we prove that for any amount of (unknown) bias, the MSE of this estimator can be bounded in a transparent way that depends on the variance / covariance of the underlying estimators that are being combined.
△ Less
Submitted 24 May, 2023; v1 submitted 20 May, 2022;
originally announced May 2022.
-
Finding Regions of Heterogeneity in Decision-Making via Expected Conditional Covariance
Authors:
Justin Lim,
Christina X Ji,
Michael Oberst,
Saul Blecker,
Leora Horwitz,
David Sontag
Abstract:
Individuals often make different decisions when faced with the same context, due to personal preferences and background. For instance, judges may vary in their leniency towards certain drug-related offenses, and doctors may vary in their preference for how to start treatment for certain types of patients. With these examples in mind, we present an algorithm for identifying types of contexts (e.g.,…
▽ More
Individuals often make different decisions when faced with the same context, due to personal preferences and background. For instance, judges may vary in their leniency towards certain drug-related offenses, and doctors may vary in their preference for how to start treatment for certain types of patients. With these examples in mind, we present an algorithm for identifying types of contexts (e.g., types of cases or patients) with high inter-decision-maker disagreement. We formalize this as a causal inference problem, seeking a region where the assignment of decision-maker has a large causal effect on the decision. Our algorithm finds such a region by maximizing an empirical objective, and we give a generalization bound for its performance. In a semi-synthetic experiment, we show that our algorithm recovers the correct region of heterogeneity accurately compared to baselines. Finally, we apply our algorithm to real-world healthcare datasets, recovering variation that aligns with existing clinical knowledge.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
-
Regularizing towards Causal Invariance: Linear Models with Proxies
Authors:
Michael Oberst,
Nikolaj Thams,
Jonas Peters,
David Sontag
Abstract:
We propose a method for learning linear models whose predictive performance is robust to causal interventions on unobserved variables, when noisy proxies of those variables are available. Our approach takes the form of a regularization term that trades off between in-distribution performance and robustness to interventions. Under the assumption of a linear structural causal model, we show that a s…
▽ More
We propose a method for learning linear models whose predictive performance is robust to causal interventions on unobserved variables, when noisy proxies of those variables are available. Our approach takes the form of a regularization term that trades off between in-distribution performance and robustness to interventions. Under the assumption of a linear structural causal model, we show that a single proxy can be used to create estimators that are prediction optimal under interventions of bounded strength. This strength depends on the magnitude of the measurement noise in the proxy, which is, in general, not identifiable. In the case of two proxy variables, we propose a modified estimator that is prediction optimal under interventions up to a known strength. We further show how to extend these estimators to scenarios where additional information about the "test time" intervention is available during training. We evaluate our theoretical findings in synthetic experiments and using real data of hourly pollution levels across several cities in China.
△ Less
Submitted 27 June, 2021; v1 submitted 3 March, 2021;
originally announced March 2021.
-
Trajectory Inspection: A Method for Iterative Clinician-Driven Design of Reinforcement Learning Studies
Authors:
Christina X. Ji,
Michael Oberst,
Sanjat Kanjilal,
David Sontag
Abstract:
Reinforcement learning (RL) has the potential to significantly improve clinical decision making. However, treatment policies learned via RL from observational data are sensitive to subtle choices in study design. We highlight a simple approach, trajectory inspection, to bring clinicians into an iterative design process for model-based RL studies. We identify where the model recommends unexpectedly…
▽ More
Reinforcement learning (RL) has the potential to significantly improve clinical decision making. However, treatment policies learned via RL from observational data are sensitive to subtle choices in study design. We highlight a simple approach, trajectory inspection, to bring clinicians into an iterative design process for model-based RL studies. We identify where the model recommends unexpectedly aggressive treatments or expects surprisingly positive outcomes from its recommendations. Then, we examine clinical trajectories simulated with the learned model and policy alongside the actual hospital course. Applying this approach to recent work on RL for sepsis management, we uncover a model bias towards discharge, a preference for high vasopressor doses that may be linked to small sample sizes, and clinically implausible expectations of discharge without weaning off vasopressors. We hope that iterations of detecting and addressing the issues unearthed by our method will result in RL policies that inspire more confidence in deployment.
△ Less
Submitted 21 December, 2020; v1 submitted 8 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
-
Treatment Policy Learning in Multiobjective Settings with Fully Observed Outcomes
Authors:
Soorajnath Boominathan,
Michael Oberst,
Helen Zhou,
Sanjat Kanjilal,
David Sontag
Abstract:
In several medical decision-making problems, such as antibiotic prescription, laboratory testing can provide precise indications for how a patient will respond to different treatment options. This enables us to "fully observe" all potential treatment outcomes, but while present in historical data, these results are infeasible to produce in real-time at the point of the initial treatment decision.…
▽ More
In several medical decision-making problems, such as antibiotic prescription, laboratory testing can provide precise indications for how a patient will respond to different treatment options. This enables us to "fully observe" all potential treatment outcomes, but while present in historical data, these results are infeasible to produce in real-time at the point of the initial treatment decision. Moreover, treatment policies in these settings often need to trade off between multiple competing objectives, such as effectiveness of treatment and harmful side effects. We present, compare, and evaluate three approaches for learning individualized treatment policies in this setting: First, we consider two indirect approaches, which use predictive models of treatment response to construct policies optimal for different trade-offs between objectives. Second, we consider a direct approach that constructs such a set of policies without intermediate models of outcomes. Using a medical dataset of Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) patients, we show that all approaches learn policies that achieve strictly better performance on all outcomes than clinicians, while also trading off between different objectives. We demonstrate additional benefits of the direct approach, including flexibly incorporating other goals such as deferral to physicians on simple cases.
△ Less
Submitted 12 August, 2020; v1 submitted 1 June, 2020;
originally announced June 2020.
-
ML4H Abstract Track 2019
Authors:
Matthew B. A. McDermott,
Emily Alsentzer,
Sam Finlayson,
Michael Oberst,
Fabian Falck,
Tristan Naumann,
Brett K. Beaulieu-Jones,
Adrian V. Dalca
Abstract:
A collection of the accepted abstracts for the Machine Learning for Health (ML4H) workshop at NeurIPS 2019. This index is not complete, as some accepted abstracts chose to opt-out of inclusion.
A collection of the accepted abstracts for the Machine Learning for Health (ML4H) workshop at NeurIPS 2019. This index is not complete, as some accepted abstracts chose to opt-out of inclusion.
△ Less
Submitted 4 February, 2020;
originally announced February 2020.
-
Characterization of Overlap in Observational Studies
Authors:
Michael Oberst,
Fredrik D. Johansson,
Dennis Wei,
Tian Gao,
Gabriel Brat,
David Sontag,
Kush R. Varshney
Abstract:
Overlap between treatment groups is required for non-parametric estimation of causal effects. If a subgroup of subjects always receives the same intervention, we cannot estimate the effect of intervention changes on that subgroup without further assumptions. When overlap does not hold globally, characterizing local regions of overlap can inform the relevance of causal conclusions for new subjects,…
▽ More
Overlap between treatment groups is required for non-parametric estimation of causal effects. If a subgroup of subjects always receives the same intervention, we cannot estimate the effect of intervention changes on that subgroup without further assumptions. When overlap does not hold globally, characterizing local regions of overlap can inform the relevance of causal conclusions for new subjects, and can help guide additional data collection. To have impact, these descriptions must be interpretable for downstream users who are not machine learning experts, such as policy makers. We formalize overlap estimation as a problem of finding minimum volume sets subject to coverage constraints and reduce this problem to binary classification with Boolean rule classifiers. We then generalize this method to estimate overlap in off-policy policy evaluation. In several real-world applications, we demonstrate that these rules have comparable accuracy to black-box estimators and provide intuitive and informative explanations that can inform policy making.
△ Less
Submitted 3 June, 2020; v1 submitted 9 July, 2019;
originally announced July 2019.
-
Counterfactual Off-Policy Evaluation with Gumbel-Max Structural Causal Models
Authors:
Michael Oberst,
David Sontag
Abstract:
We introduce an off-policy evaluation procedure for highlighting episodes where applying a reinforcement learned (RL) policy is likely to have produced a substantially different outcome than the observed policy. In particular, we introduce a class of structural causal models (SCMs) for generating counterfactual trajectories in finite partially observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs). We see…
▽ More
We introduce an off-policy evaluation procedure for highlighting episodes where applying a reinforcement learned (RL) policy is likely to have produced a substantially different outcome than the observed policy. In particular, we introduce a class of structural causal models (SCMs) for generating counterfactual trajectories in finite partially observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs). We see this as a useful procedure for off-policy "debugging" in high-risk settings (e.g., healthcare); by decomposing the expected difference in reward between the RL and observed policy into specific episodes, we can identify episodes where the counterfactual difference in reward is most dramatic. This in turn can be used to facilitate review of specific episodes by domain experts. We demonstrate the utility of this procedure with a synthetic environment of sepsis management.
△ Less
Submitted 6 June, 2019; v1 submitted 14 May, 2019;
originally announced May 2019.
-
Preparation and probing of the ground state coherence in Rubidium
Authors:
Martin Oberst,
Frank Vewinger,
A. I. Lvovsky
Abstract:
We demonstrate the preparation and probing of the coherence between the hyperfine ground states |5S_{1/2}, F=1> and |5S_{1/2}, F=2> of the Rubidium 87 isotope. The effect of various coherence control techniques, i.e. fractional Stimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage and Coherent Population Return on the coherence are investigated. These techniques are implemented using nearly degenerate pump and Sto…
▽ More
We demonstrate the preparation and probing of the coherence between the hyperfine ground states |5S_{1/2}, F=1> and |5S_{1/2}, F=2> of the Rubidium 87 isotope. The effect of various coherence control techniques, i.e. fractional Stimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage and Coherent Population Return on the coherence are investigated. These techniques are implemented using nearly degenerate pump and Stokes lasers at 795nm (Rubidium D1 transition) which couple the two hyperfine ground states via the excited state |5P_{1/2}, F=1> through a resonant two-photon process, in which a coherent superposition of the two hyperfine ground states is established. The medium is probed by an additional weak laser, which generates a four-wave mixing signal proportional to the ground state coherence, and allows us to monitor its evolution in time. The experimental data are compared with numerical simulations.
△ Less
Submitted 31 January, 2007;
originally announced February 2007.
