-
Learning the Covariance of Treatment Effects Across Many Weak Experiments
Authors:
Aurélien Bibaut,
Winston Chou,
Simon Ejdemyr,
Nathan Kallus
Abstract:
When primary objectives are insensitive or delayed, experimenters may instead focus on proxy metrics derived from secondary outcomes. For example, technology companies often infer long-term impacts of product interventions from their effects on weighted indices of short-term user engagement signals. We consider meta-analysis of many historical experiments to learn the covariance of treatment effec…
▽ More
When primary objectives are insensitive or delayed, experimenters may instead focus on proxy metrics derived from secondary outcomes. For example, technology companies often infer long-term impacts of product interventions from their effects on weighted indices of short-term user engagement signals. We consider meta-analysis of many historical experiments to learn the covariance of treatment effects on different outcomes, which can support the construction of such proxies. Even when experiments are plentiful and large, if treatment effects are weak, the sample covariance of estimated treatment effects across experiments can be highly biased and remains inconsistent even as more experiments are considered. We overcome this by using techniques inspired by weak instrumental variable analysis, which we show can reliably estimate parameters of interest, even without a structural model. We show the Limited Information Maximum Likelihood (LIML) estimator learns a parameter that is equivalent to fitting total least squares to a transformation of the scatterplot of estimated treatment effects, and that Jackknife Instrumental Variables Estimation (JIVE) learns another parameter that can be computed from the average of Jackknifed covariance matrices across experiments. We also present a total-covariance-based estimator for the latter estimand under homoskedasticity, which we show is equivalent to a $k$-class estimator. We show how these parameters relate to causal quantities and can be used to construct unbiased proxy metrics under a structural model with both direct and indirect effects subject to the INstrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect (INSIDE) assumption of Mendelian randomization. Lastly, we discuss the application of our methods at Netflix.
△ Less
Submitted 27 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Randomized Controlled Trials without Data Retention
Authors:
Winston Chou
Abstract:
Amidst rising appreciation for privacy and data usage rights, researchers have increasingly acknowledged the principle of data minimization, which holds that the accessibility, collection, and retention of subjects' data should be kept to the bare amount needed to answer focused research questions. Applying this principle to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this paper presents algorithms for m…
▽ More
Amidst rising appreciation for privacy and data usage rights, researchers have increasingly acknowledged the principle of data minimization, which holds that the accessibility, collection, and retention of subjects' data should be kept to the bare amount needed to answer focused research questions. Applying this principle to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this paper presents algorithms for making accurate inferences from RCTs under stringent data retention and anonymization policies. In particular, we show how to use recursive algorithms to construct running estimates of treatment effects in RCTs, which allow individualized records to be deleted or anonymized shortly after collection. Devoting special attention to non-i.i.d. data, we further show how to draw robust inferences from RCTs by combining recursive algorithms with bootstrap and federated strategies.
△ Less
Submitted 20 October, 2021; v1 submitted 5 February, 2021;
originally announced February 2021.
-
MLPerf Inference Benchmark
Authors:
Vijay Janapa Reddi,
Christine Cheng,
David Kanter,
Peter Mattson,
Guenther Schmuelling,
Carole-Jean Wu,
Brian Anderson,
Maximilien Breughe,
Mark Charlebois,
William Chou,
Ramesh Chukka,
Cody Coleman,
Sam Davis,
Pan Deng,
Greg Diamos,
Jared Duke,
Dave Fick,
J. Scott Gardner,
Itay Hubara,
Sachin Idgunji,
Thomas B. Jablin,
Jeff Jiao,
Tom St. John,
Pankaj Kanwar,
David Lee
, et al. (22 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devic…
▽ More
Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devices to data-center solutions. Fueling the hardware are a dozen or more software frameworks and libraries. The myriad combinations of ML hardware and ML software make assessing ML-system performance in an architecture-neutral, representative, and reproducible manner challenging. There is a clear need for industry-wide standard ML benchmarking and evaluation criteria. MLPerf Inference answers that call. In this paper, we present our benchmarking method for evaluating ML inference systems. Driven by more than 30 organizations as well as more than 200 ML engineers and practitioners, MLPerf prescribes a set of rules and best practices to ensure comparability across systems with wildly differing architectures. The first call for submissions garnered more than 600 reproducible inference-performance measurements from 14 organizations, representing over 30 systems that showcase a wide range of capabilities. The submissions attest to the benchmark's flexibility and adaptability.
△ Less
Submitted 9 May, 2020; v1 submitted 6 November, 2019;
originally announced November 2019.
