Task-specific experimental design for treatment effect estimation
Authors:
Bethany Connolly,
Kim Moore,
Tobias Schwedes,
Alexander Adam,
Gary Willis,
Ilya Feige,
Christopher Frye
Abstract:
Understanding causality should be a core requirement of any attempt to build real impact through AI. Due to the inherent unobservability of counterfactuals, large randomised trials (RCTs) are the standard for causal inference. But large experiments are generically expensive, and randomisation carries its own costs, e.g. when suboptimal decisions are trialed. Recent work has proposed more sample-ef…
▽ More
Understanding causality should be a core requirement of any attempt to build real impact through AI. Due to the inherent unobservability of counterfactuals, large randomised trials (RCTs) are the standard for causal inference. But large experiments are generically expensive, and randomisation carries its own costs, e.g. when suboptimal decisions are trialed. Recent work has proposed more sample-efficient alternatives to RCTs, but these are not adaptable to the downstream application for which the causal effect is sought. In this work, we develop a task-specific approach to experimental design and derive sampling strategies customised to particular downstream applications. Across a range of important tasks, real-world datasets, and sample sizes, our method outperforms other benchmarks, e.g. requiring an order-of-magnitude less data to match RCT performance on targeted marketing tasks.
△ Less
Submitted 8 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
Explainability for fair machine learning
Authors:
Tom Begley,
Tobias Schwedes,
Christopher Frye,
Ilya Feige
Abstract:
As the decisions made or influenced by machine learning models increasingly impact our lives, it is crucial to detect, understand, and mitigate unfairness. But even simply determining what "unfairness" should mean in a given context is non-trivial: there are many competing definitions, and choosing between them often requires a deep understanding of the underlying task. It is thus tempting to use…
▽ More
As the decisions made or influenced by machine learning models increasingly impact our lives, it is crucial to detect, understand, and mitigate unfairness. But even simply determining what "unfairness" should mean in a given context is non-trivial: there are many competing definitions, and choosing between them often requires a deep understanding of the underlying task. It is thus tempting to use model explainability to gain insights into model fairness, however existing explainability tools do not reliably indicate whether a model is indeed fair. In this work we present a new approach to explaining fairness in machine learning, based on the Shapley value paradigm. Our fairness explanations attribute a model's overall unfairness to individual input features, even in cases where the model does not operate on sensitive attributes directly. Moreover, motivated by the linearity of Shapley explainability, we propose a meta algorithm for applying existing training-time fairness interventions, wherein one trains a perturbation to the original model, rather than a new model entirely. By explaining the original model, the perturbation, and the fair-corrected model, we gain insight into the accuracy-fairness trade-off that is being made by the intervention. We further show that this meta algorithm enjoys both flexibility and stability benefits with no loss in performance.
△ Less
Submitted 14 October, 2020;
originally announced October 2020.
