Showing 1–6 of 6 results for author: Mateen, B

Faking feature importance: A cautionary tale on the use of differentially-private synthetic data

Authors: Oscar Giles, Kasra Hosseini, Grigorios Mingas, Oliver Strickson, Louise Bowler, Camila Rangel Smith, Harrison Wilde, Jen Ning Lim, Bilal Mateen, Kasun Amarasinghe, Rayid Ghani, Alison Heppenstall, Nik Lomax, Nick Malleson, Martin O'Reilly, Sebastian Vollmerteke

Abstract: Synthetic datasets are often presented as a silver-bullet solution to the problem of privacy-preserving data publishing. However, for many applications, synthetic data has been shown to have limited utility when used to train predictive models. One promising potential application of these data is in the exploratory phase of the machine learning workflow, which involves understanding, engineering a… ▽ More Synthetic datasets are often presented as a silver-bullet solution to the problem of privacy-preserving data publishing. However, for many applications, synthetic data has been shown to have limited utility when used to train predictive models. One promising potential application of these data is in the exploratory phase of the machine learning workflow, which involves understanding, engineering and selecting features. This phase often involves considerable time, and depends on the availability of data. There would be substantial value in synthetic data that permitted these steps to be carried out while, for example, data access was being negotiated, or with fewer information governance restrictions. This paper presents an empirical analysis of the agreement between the feature importance obtained from raw and from synthetic data, on a range of artificially generated and real-world datasets (where feature importance represents how useful each feature is when predicting a the outcome). We employ two differentially-private methods to produce synthetic data, and apply various utility measures to quantify the agreement in feature importance as this varies with the level of privacy. Our results indicate that synthetic data can sometimes preserve several representations of the ranking of feature importance in simple settings but their performance is not consistent and depends upon a number of factors. Particular caution should be exercised in more nuanced real-world settings, where synthetic data can lead to differences in ranked feature importance that could alter key modelling decisions. This work has important implications for develo** synthetic versions of highly sensitive data sets in fields such as finance and healthcare. △ Less

Submitted 2 March, 2022; originally announced March 2022.

Comments: 27 pages, 8 figures

Model updating after interventions paradoxically introduces bias

Authors: James Liley, Samuel R Emerson, Bilal A Mateen, Catalina A Vallejos, Louis J M Aslett, Sebastian J Vollmer

Abstract: Machine learning is increasingly being used to generate prediction models for use in a number of real-world settings, from credit risk assessment to clinical decision support. Recent discussions have highlighted potential problems in the updating of a predictive score for a binary outcome when an existing predictive score forms part of the standard workflow, driving interventions. In this setting,… ▽ More Machine learning is increasingly being used to generate prediction models for use in a number of real-world settings, from credit risk assessment to clinical decision support. Recent discussions have highlighted potential problems in the updating of a predictive score for a binary outcome when an existing predictive score forms part of the standard workflow, driving interventions. In this setting, the existing score induces an additional causative pathway which leads to miscalibration when the original score is replaced. We propose a general causal framework to describe and address this problem, and demonstrate an equivalent formulation as a partially observed Markov decision process. We use this model to demonstrate the impact of such `naive updating' when performed repeatedly. Namely, we show that successive predictive scores may converge to a point where they predict their own effect, or may eventually tend toward a stable oscillation between two values, and we argue that neither outcome is desirable. Furthermore, we demonstrate that even if model-fitting procedures improve, actual performance may worsen. We complement these findings with a discussion of several potential routes to overcome these issues. △ Less

Submitted 22 February, 2021; v1 submitted 22 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Comments: Sections of this preprint on 'Successive adjuvancy' (section 4, theorem 2, figures 4,5, and associated discussions) were not included in the originally submitted version of this paper due to length. This material does not appear in the published version of this manuscript, and the reader should be aware that these sections did not undergo peer review

Machine learning and AI research for Patient Benefit: 20 Critical Questions on Transparency, Replicability, Ethics and Effectiveness

Authors: Sebastian Vollmer, Bilal A. Mateen, Gergo Bohner, Franz J Király, Rayid Ghani, Pall Jonsson, Sarah Cumbers, Adrian Jonas, Katherine S. L. McAllister, Puja Myles, David Granger, Mark Birse, Richard Branson, Karel GM Moons, Gary S Collins, John P. A. Ioannidis, Chris Holmes, Harry Hemingway

Abstract: Machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI) and other modern statistical methods are providing new opportunities to operationalize previously untapped and rapidly growing sources of data for patient benefit. Whilst there is a lot of promising research currently being undertaken, the literature as a whole lacks: transparency; clear reporting to facilitate replicability; exploration for pote… ▽ More Machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI) and other modern statistical methods are providing new opportunities to operationalize previously untapped and rapidly growing sources of data for patient benefit. Whilst there is a lot of promising research currently being undertaken, the literature as a whole lacks: transparency; clear reporting to facilitate replicability; exploration for potential ethical concerns; and, clear demonstrations of effectiveness. There are many reasons for why these issues exist, but one of the most important that we provide a preliminary solution for here is the current lack of ML/AI- specific best practice guidance. Although there is no consensus on what best practice looks in this field, we believe that interdisciplinary groups pursuing research and impact projects in the ML/AI for health domain would benefit from answering a series of questions based on the important issues that exist when undertaking work of this nature. Here we present 20 questions that span the entire project life cycle, from inception, data analysis, and model evaluation, to implementation, as a means to facilitate project planning and post-hoc (structured) independent evaluation. By beginning to answer these questions in different settings, we can start to understand what constitutes a good answer, and we expect that the resulting discussion will be central to develo** an international consensus framework for transparent, replicable, ethical and effective research in artificial intelligence (AI-TREE) for health. △ Less

Submitted 21 December, 2018; originally announced December 2018.

Comments: 25 pages, 2 boxes, 1 figure

MSC Class: 68T01

NIPS - Not Even Wrong? A Systematic Review of Empirically Complete Demonstrations of Algorithmic Effectiveness in the Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Literature

Authors: Franz J Király, Bilal Mateen, Raphael Sonabend

Abstract: Objective: To determine the completeness of argumentative steps necessary to conclude effectiveness of an algorithm in a sample of current ML/AI supervised learning literature. Data Sources: Papers published in the Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS, née NIPS) journal where the official record showed a 2017 year of publication. Eligibility Criteria: Studies reporting a (semi-)super… ▽ More Objective: To determine the completeness of argumentative steps necessary to conclude effectiveness of an algorithm in a sample of current ML/AI supervised learning literature. Data Sources: Papers published in the Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS, née NIPS) journal where the official record showed a 2017 year of publication. Eligibility Criteria: Studies reporting a (semi-)supervised model, or pre-processing fused with (semi-)supervised models for tabular data. Study Appraisal: Three reviewers applied the assessment criteria to determine argumentative completeness. The criteria were split into three groups, including: experiments (e.g real and/or synthetic data), baselines (e.g uninformed and/or state-of-art) and quantitative comparison (e.g. performance quantifiers with confidence intervals and formal comparison of the algorithm against baselines). Results: Of the 121 eligible manuscripts (from the sample of 679 abstracts), 99\% used real-world data and 29\% used synthetic data. 91\% of manuscripts did not report an uninformed baseline and 55\% reported a state-of-art baseline. 32\% reported confidence intervals for performance but none provided references or exposition for how these were calculated. 3\% reported formal comparisons. Limitations: The use of one journal as the primary information source may not be representative of all ML/AI literature. However, the NeurIPS conference is recognised to be amongst the top tier concerning ML/AI studies, so it is reasonable to consider its corpus to be representative of high-quality research. Conclusion: Using the 2017 sample of the NeurIPS supervised learning corpus as an indicator for the quality and trustworthiness of current ML/AI research, it appears that complete argumentative chains in demonstrations of algorithmic effectiveness are rare. △ Less

Submitted 18 December, 2018; originally announced December 2018.

Probabilistic supervised learning

Authors: Frithjof Gressmann, Franz J. Király, Bilal Mateen, Harald Oberhauser

Abstract: Predictive modelling and supervised learning are central to modern data science. With predictions from an ever-expanding number of supervised black-box strategies - e.g., kernel methods, random forests, deep learning aka neural networks - being employed as a basis for decision making processes, it is crucial to understand the statistical uncertainty associated with these predictions. As a genera… ▽ More Predictive modelling and supervised learning are central to modern data science. With predictions from an ever-expanding number of supervised black-box strategies - e.g., kernel methods, random forests, deep learning aka neural networks - being employed as a basis for decision making processes, it is crucial to understand the statistical uncertainty associated with these predictions. As a general means to approach the issue, we present an overarching framework for black-box prediction strategies that not only predict the target but also their own predictions' uncertainty. Moreover, the framework allows for fair assessment and comparison of disparate prediction strategies. For this, we formally consider strategies capable of predicting full distributions from feature variables, so-called probabilistic supervised learning strategies. Our work draws from prior work including Bayesian statistics, information theory, and modern supervised machine learning, and in a novel synthesis leads to (a) new theoretical insights such as a probabilistic bias-variance decomposition and an entropic formulation of prediction, as well as to (b) new algorithms and meta-algorithms, such as composite prediction strategies, probabilistic boosting and bagging, and a probabilistic predictive independence test. Our black-box formulation also leads (c) to a new modular interface view on probabilistic supervised learning and a modelling workflow API design, which we have implemented in the newly released skpro machine learning toolbox, extending the familiar modelling interface and meta-modelling functionality of sklearn. The skpro package provides interfaces for construction, composition, and tuning of probabilistic supervised learning strategies, together with orchestration features for validation and comparison of any such strategy - be it frequentist, Bayesian, or other. △ Less

Submitted 7 May, 2019; v1 submitted 2 January, 2018; originally announced January 2018.

Machine Learning in Falls Prediction; A cognition-based predictor of falls for the acute neurological in-patient population

Authors: Bilal A. Mateen, Matthias Bussas, Catherine Doogan, Denise Waller, Alessia Saverino, Franz J Király, E Diane Playford

Abstract: Background Information: Falls are associated with high direct and indirect costs, and significant morbidity and mortality for patients. Pathological falls are usually a result of a compromised motor system, and/or cognition. Very little research has been conducted on predicting falls based on this premise. Aims: To demonstrate that cognitive and motor tests can be used to create a robust predict… ▽ More Background Information: Falls are associated with high direct and indirect costs, and significant morbidity and mortality for patients. Pathological falls are usually a result of a compromised motor system, and/or cognition. Very little research has been conducted on predicting falls based on this premise. Aims: To demonstrate that cognitive and motor tests can be used to create a robust predictive tool for falls. Methods: Three tests of attention and executive function (Stroop, Trail Making, and Semantic Fluency), a measure of physical function (Walk-12), a series of questions (concerning recent falls, surgery and physical function) and demographic information were collected from a cohort of 323 patients at a tertiary neurological center. The principal outcome was a fall during the in-patient stay (n = 54). Data-driven, predictive modelling was employed to identify the statistical modelling strategies which are most accurate in predicting falls, and which yield the most parsimonious models of clinical relevance. Results: The Trail test was identified as the best predictor of falls. Moreover, addition of any others variables, to the results of the Trail test did not improve the prediction (Wilcoxon signed-rank p < .001). The best statistical strategy for predicting falls was the random forest (Wilcoxon signed-rank p < .001), based solely on results of the Trail test. Tuning of the model results in the following optimized values: 68% (+- 7.7) sensitivity, 90% (+- 2.3) specificity, with a positive predictive value of 60%, when the relevant data is available. Conclusion: Predictive modelling has identified a simple yet powerful machine learning prediction strategy based on a single clinical test, the Trail test. Predictive evaluation shows this strategy to be robust, suggesting predictive modelling and machine learning as the standard for future predictive tools. △ Less

Submitted 5 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.