Showing 1–11 of 11 results for author: Coston, A

Predictive Performance Comparison of Decision Policies Under Confounding

Authors: Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu

Abstract: Predictive models are often introduced to decision-making tasks under the rationale that they improve performance over an existing decision-making policy. However, it is challenging to compare predictive performance against an existing decision-making policy that is generally under-specified and dependent on unobservable factors. These sources of uncertainty are often addressed in practice by maki… ▽ More Predictive models are often introduced to decision-making tasks under the rationale that they improve performance over an existing decision-making policy. However, it is challenging to compare predictive performance against an existing decision-making policy that is generally under-specified and dependent on unobservable factors. These sources of uncertainty are often addressed in practice by making strong assumptions about the data-generating mechanism. In this work, we propose a method to compare the predictive performance of decision policies under a variety of modern identification approaches from the causal inference and off-policy evaluation literatures (e.g., instrumental variable, marginal sensitivity model, proximal variable). Key to our method is the insight that there are regions of uncertainty that we can safely ignore in the policy comparison. We develop a practical approach for finite-sample estimation of regret intervals under no assumptions on the parametric form of the status quo policy. We verify our framework theoretically and via synthetic data experiments. We conclude with a real-world application using our framework to support a pre-deployment evaluation of a proposed modification to a healthcare enrollment policy. △ Less

Submitted 11 June, 2024; v1 submitted 31 March, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: ICML 2024

Counterfactual Prediction Under Outcome Measurement Error

Authors: Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu

Abstract: Across domains such as medicine, employment, and criminal justice, predictive models often target labels that imperfectly reflect the outcomes of interest to experts and policymakers. For example, clinical risk assessments deployed to inform physician decision-making often predict measures of healthcare utilization (e.g., costs, hospitalization) as a proxy for patient medical need. These proxies c… ▽ More Across domains such as medicine, employment, and criminal justice, predictive models often target labels that imperfectly reflect the outcomes of interest to experts and policymakers. For example, clinical risk assessments deployed to inform physician decision-making often predict measures of healthcare utilization (e.g., costs, hospitalization) as a proxy for patient medical need. These proxies can be subject to outcome measurement error when they systematically differ from the target outcome they are intended to measure. However, prior modeling efforts to characterize and mitigate outcome measurement error overlook the fact that the decision being informed by a model often serves as a risk-mitigating intervention that impacts the target outcome of interest and its recorded proxy. Thus, in these settings, addressing measurement error requires counterfactual modeling of treatment effects on outcomes. In this work, we study intersectional threats to model reliability introduced by outcome measurement error, treatment effects, and selection bias from historical decision-making policies. We develop an unbiased risk minimization method which, given knowledge of proxy measurement error properties, corrects for the combined effects of these challenges. We also develop a method for estimating treatment-dependent measurement error parameters when these are unknown in advance. We demonstrate the utility of our approach theoretically and via experiments on real-world data from randomized controlled trials conducted in healthcare and employment domains. As importantly, we demonstrate that models correcting for outcome measurement error or treatment effects alone suffer from considerable reliability limitations. Our work underscores the importance of considering intersectional threats to model validity during the design and evaluation of predictive models for decision support. △ Less

Submitted 17 May, 2023; v1 submitted 21 February, 2023; originally announced February 2023.

Comments: FAccT 2023

Robust Design and Evaluation of Predictive Algorithms under Unobserved Confounding

Authors: Ashesh Rambachan, Amanda Coston, Edward Kennedy

Abstract: Predictive algorithms inform consequential decisions in settings where the outcome is selectively observed given choices made by human decision makers. We propose a unified framework for the robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms in selectively observed data. We impose general assumptions on how much the outcome may vary on average between unselected and selected units conditional o… ▽ More Predictive algorithms inform consequential decisions in settings where the outcome is selectively observed given choices made by human decision makers. We propose a unified framework for the robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms in selectively observed data. We impose general assumptions on how much the outcome may vary on average between unselected and selected units conditional on observed covariates and identified nuisance parameters, formalizing popular empirical strategies for imputing missing data such as proxy outcomes and instrumental variables. We develop debiased machine learning estimators for the bounds on a large class of predictive performance estimands, such as the conditional likelihood of the outcome, a predictive algorithm's mean square error, true/false positive rate, and many others, under these assumptions. In an administrative dataset from a large Australian financial institution, we illustrate how varying assumptions on unobserved confounding leads to meaningful changes in default risk predictions and evaluations of credit scores across sensitive groups. △ Less

Submitted 19 May, 2024; v1 submitted 19 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

The role of the geometric mean in case-control studies

Authors: Amanda Coston, Edward H. Kennedy

Abstract: Historically used in settings where the outcome is rare or data collection is expensive, outcome-dependent sampling is relevant to many modern settings where data is readily available for a biased sample of the target population, such as public administrative data. Under outcome-dependent sampling, common effect measures such as the average risk difference and the average risk ratio are not identi… ▽ More Historically used in settings where the outcome is rare or data collection is expensive, outcome-dependent sampling is relevant to many modern settings where data is readily available for a biased sample of the target population, such as public administrative data. Under outcome-dependent sampling, common effect measures such as the average risk difference and the average risk ratio are not identified, but the conditional odds ratio is. Aggregation of the conditional odds ratio is challenging since summary measures are generally not identified. Furthermore, the marginal odds ratio can be larger (or smaller) than all conditional odds ratios. This so-called non-collapsibility of the odds ratio is avoidable if we use an alternative aggregation to the standard arithmetic mean. We provide a new definition of collapsibility that makes this choice of aggregation method explicit, and we demonstrate that the odds ratio is collapsible under geometric aggregation. We describe how to partially identify, estimate, and do inference on the geometric odds ratio under outcome-dependent sampling. Our proposed estimator is based on the efficient influence function and therefore has doubly robust-style properties. △ Less

Submitted 18 July, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels

Authors: Amanda Coston, Ashesh Rambachan, Alexandra Chouldechova

Abstract: Algorithmic risk assessments are used to inform decisions in a wide variety of high-stakes settings. Often multiple predictive models deliver similar overall performance but differ markedly in their predictions for individual cases, an empirical phenomenon known as the "Rashomon Effect." These models may have different properties over various groups, and therefore have different predictive fairnes… ▽ More Algorithmic risk assessments are used to inform decisions in a wide variety of high-stakes settings. Often multiple predictive models deliver similar overall performance but differ markedly in their predictions for individual cases, an empirical phenomenon known as the "Rashomon Effect." These models may have different properties over various groups, and therefore have different predictive fairness properties. We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance, or "the set of good models." Our framework addresses the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data in the setting where the selection decision and outcome are unconfounded given the observed data features. Our framework can be used to 1) replace an existing model with one that has better fairness properties; or 2) audit for predictive bias. We illustrate these uses cases on a real-world credit-scoring task and a recidivism prediction task. △ Less

Submitted 30 April, 2021; v1 submitted 1 January, 2021; originally announced January 2021.

Comments: Added comparison methods to the empirical lending analysis

Leveraging Administrative Data for Bias Audits: Assessing Disparate Coverage with Mobility Data for COVID-19 Policy

Authors: Amanda Coston, Neel Guha, Derek Ouyang, Lisa Lu, Alexandra Chouldechova, Daniel E. Ho

Abstract: Anonymized smartphone-based mobility data has been widely adopted in devising and evaluating COVID-19 response strategies such as the targeting of public health resources. Yet little attention has been paid to measurement validity and demographic bias, due in part to the lack of documentation about which users are represented as well as the challenge of obtaining ground truth data on unique visits… ▽ More Anonymized smartphone-based mobility data has been widely adopted in devising and evaluating COVID-19 response strategies such as the targeting of public health resources. Yet little attention has been paid to measurement validity and demographic bias, due in part to the lack of documentation about which users are represented as well as the challenge of obtaining ground truth data on unique visits and demographics. We illustrate how linking large-scale administrative data can enable auditing mobility data for bias in the absence of demographic information and ground truth labels. More precisely, we show that linking voter roll data -- containing individual-level voter turnout for specific voting locations along with race and age -- can facilitate the construction of rigorous bias and reliability tests. These tests illuminate a sampling bias that is particularly noteworthy in the pandemic context: older and non-white voters are less likely to be captured by mobility data. We show that allocating public health resources based on such mobility data could disproportionately harm high-risk elderly and minority groups. △ Less

Submitted 15 April, 2021; v1 submitted 13 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.

Journal ref: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. pp. 173-184

Neural Topic Models with Survival Supervision: Jointly Predicting Time-to-Event Outcomes and Learning How Clinical Features Relate

Authors: George H. Chen, Linhong Li, Ren Zuo, Amanda Coston, Jeremy C. Weiss

Abstract: We present a neural network framework for learning a survival model to predict a time-to-event outcome while simultaneously learning a topic model that reveals feature relationships. In particular, we model each subject as a distribution over "topics", where a topic could, for instance, correspond to an age group, a disorder, or a disease. The presence of a topic in a subject means that specific c… ▽ More We present a neural network framework for learning a survival model to predict a time-to-event outcome while simultaneously learning a topic model that reveals feature relationships. In particular, we model each subject as a distribution over "topics", where a topic could, for instance, correspond to an age group, a disorder, or a disease. The presence of a topic in a subject means that specific clinical features are more likely to appear for the subject. Topics encode information about related features and are learned in a supervised manner to predict a time-to-event outcome. Our framework supports combining many different topic and survival models; training the resulting joint survival-topic model readily scales to large datasets using standard neural net optimizers with minibatch gradient descent. For example, a special case is to combine LDA with a Cox model, in which case a subject's distribution over topics serves as the input feature vector to the Cox model. We explain how to address practical implementation issues that arise when applying these neural survival-supervised topic models to clinical data, including how to visualize results to assist clinical interpretation. We study the effectiveness of our proposed framework on seven clinical datasets on predicting time until death as well as hospital ICU length of stay, where we find that neural survival-supervised topic models achieve competitive accuracy with existing approaches while yielding interpretable clinical topics that explain feature relationships. Our code is available at: https://github.com/georgehc/survival-topics △ Less

Submitted 4 June, 2024; v1 submitted 15 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Comments: Accepted at the Artificial Intelligence in Medicine journal; preliminary conference version (see earlier arXiv draft) appeared in the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIME 2020)

Counterfactual Predictions under Runtime Confounding

Authors: Amanda Coston, Edward H. Kennedy, Alexandra Chouldechova

Abstract: Algorithms are commonly used to predict outcomes under a particular decision or intervention, such as predicting whether an offender will succeed on parole if placed under minimal supervision. Generally, to learn such counterfactual prediction models from observational data on historical decisions and corresponding outcomes, one must measure all factors that jointly affect the outcomes and the dec… ▽ More Algorithms are commonly used to predict outcomes under a particular decision or intervention, such as predicting whether an offender will succeed on parole if placed under minimal supervision. Generally, to learn such counterfactual prediction models from observational data on historical decisions and corresponding outcomes, one must measure all factors that jointly affect the outcomes and the decision taken. Motivated by decision support applications, we study the counterfactual prediction task in the setting where all relevant factors are captured in the historical data, but it is either undesirable or impermissible to use some such factors in the prediction model. We refer to this setting as runtime confounding. We propose a doubly-robust procedure for learning counterfactual prediction models in this setting. Our theoretical analysis and experimental results suggest that our method often outperforms competing approaches. We also present a validation procedure for evaluating the performance of counterfactual prediction methods. △ Less

Submitted 15 April, 2021; v1 submitted 30 June, 2020; originally announced June 2020.

Journal ref: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Vol 33, 2020. pp. 4150--4162

Conditional Learning of Fair Representations

Authors: Han Zhao, Amanda Coston, Tameem Adel, Geoffrey J. Gordon

Abstract: We propose a novel algorithm for learning fair representations that can simultaneously mitigate two notions of disparity among different demographic subgroups in the classification setting. Two key components underpinning the design of our algorithm are balanced error rate and conditional alignment of representations. We show how these two components contribute to ensuring accuracy parity and equa… ▽ More We propose a novel algorithm for learning fair representations that can simultaneously mitigate two notions of disparity among different demographic subgroups in the classification setting. Two key components underpinning the design of our algorithm are balanced error rate and conditional alignment of representations. We show how these two components contribute to ensuring accuracy parity and equalized false-positive and false-negative rates across groups without impacting demographic parity. Furthermore, we also demonstrate both in theory and on two real-world experiments that the proposed algorithm leads to a better utility-fairness trade-off on balanced datasets compared with existing algorithms on learning fair representations for classification. △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2020; v1 submitted 16 October, 2019; originally announced October 2019.

Counterfactual Risk Assessments, Evaluation, and Fairness

Authors: Amanda Coston, Alan Mishler, Edward H. Kennedy, Alexandra Chouldechova

Abstract: Algorithmic risk assessments are increasingly used to help humans make decisions in high-stakes settings, such as medicine, criminal justice and education. In each of these cases, the purpose of the risk assessment tool is to inform actions, such as medical treatments or release conditions, often with the aim of reducing the likelihood of an adverse event such as hospital readmission or recidivism… ▽ More Algorithmic risk assessments are increasingly used to help humans make decisions in high-stakes settings, such as medicine, criminal justice and education. In each of these cases, the purpose of the risk assessment tool is to inform actions, such as medical treatments or release conditions, often with the aim of reducing the likelihood of an adverse event such as hospital readmission or recidivism. Problematically, most tools are trained and evaluated on historical data in which the outcomes observed depend on the historical decision-making policy. These tools thus reflect risk under the historical policy, rather than under the different decision options that the tool is intended to inform. Even when tools are constructed to predict risk under a specific decision, they are often improperly evaluated as predictors of the target outcome. Focusing on the evaluation task, in this paper we define counterfactual analogues of common predictive performance and algorithmic fairness metrics that we argue are better suited for the decision-making context. We introduce a new method for estimating the proposed metrics using doubly robust estimation. We provide theoretical results that show that only under strong conditions can fairness according to the standard metric and the counterfactual metric simultaneously hold. Consequently, fairness-promoting methods that target parity in a standard fairness metric may --- and as we show empirically, do --- induce greater imbalance in the counterfactual analogue. We provide empirical comparisons on both synthetic data and a real world child welfare dataset to demonstrate how the proposed method improves upon standard practice. △ Less

Submitted 10 January, 2020; v1 submitted 30 August, 2019; originally announced September 2019.

Comments: To appear in ACM FAT* 2020

Proceedings of NeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Machine Learning for the Develo** World: Achieving Sustainable Impact

Authors: Maria De-Arteaga, Amanda Coston, William Herlands

Abstract: This is the Proceedings of NeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Machine Learning for the Develo** World: Achieving Sustainable Impact, held in Montreal, Canada on December 8, 2018 This is the Proceedings of NeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Machine Learning for the Develo** World: Achieving Sustainable Impact, held in Montreal, Canada on December 8, 2018 △ Less

Submitted 18 February, 2019; v1 submitted 20 December, 2018; originally announced December 2018.

Comments: 18 papers in the proceedings. 10 additional papers were presented at the workshop but not included in the proceedings