arXiv subjects

Alexander D'Amour

Publications and source records attributed to Alexander D'Amour.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2022

Adapting to Latent Subgroup Shifts via Concepts and Proxies

We address the problem of unsupervised domain adaptation when the source domain differs from the target domain because of a shift in the distribution of a latent subgroup. When this subgroup confounds all observed data, neither covariate shift nor label shift assumptions apply. We show that the optimal target predictor can be non-parametrically identified with the help of concept and proxy variables available only in the source domain, and unlabeled data from the target. The identification results are constructive, immediately suggesting an algorithm for estimating the optimal predictor in the target. For continuous observations, when this algorithm becomes impractical, we propose a latent variable model specific to the data generation process at hand. We show how the approach degrades as the size of the shift changes, and verify that it outperforms both covariate and label shift adjustment.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2022

Boosting the interpretability of clinical risk scores with intervention predictions

Machine learning systems show significant promise for forecasting patient adverse events via risk scores. However, these risk scores implicitly encode assumptions about future interventions that the patient is likely to receive, based on the intervention policy present in the training data. Without this important context, predictions from such systems are less interpretable for clinicians. We propose a joint model of intervention policy and adverse event risk as a means to explicitly communicate the model's assumptions about future interventions. We develop such an intervention policy model on MIMIC-III, a real world de-identified ICU dataset, and discuss some use cases that highlight the utility of this approach. We show how combining typical risk scores, such as the likelihood of mortality, with future intervention probability scores leads to more interpretable clinical predictions.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Bayesian Inference and Partial Identification in Multi-Treatment Causal Inference with Unobserved Confounding

In causal estimation problems, the parameter of interest is often only partially identified, implying that the parameter cannot be recovered exactly, even with infinite data. Here, we study Bayesian inference for partially identified treatment effects in multi-treatment causal inference problems with unobserved confounding. In principle, inferring the partially identified treatment effects is natural under the Bayesian paradigm, but the results can be highly sensitive to parameterization and prior specification, often in surprising ways. It is thus essential to understand which aspects of the conclusions about treatment effects are driven entirely by the prior specification. We use a so-called transparent parameterization to contextualize the effects of more interpretable scientifically motivated prior specifications on the multiple effects. We demonstrate our analysis in an example quantifying the effects of gene expression levels on mouse obesity.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

The MultiBERTs: BERT Reproductions for Robustness Analysis

Experiments with pre-trained models such as BERT are often based on a single checkpoint. While the conclusions drawn apply to the artifact tested in the experiment (i.e., the particular instance of the model), it is not always clear whether they hold for the more general procedure which includes the architecture, training data, initialization scheme, and loss function. Recent work has shown that repeating the pre-training process can lead to substantially different performance, suggesting that an alternate strategy is needed to make principled statements about procedures. To enable researchers to draw more robust conclusions, we introduce the MultiBERTs, a set of 25 BERT-Base checkpoints, trained with similar hyper-parameters as the original BERT model but differing in random weight initialization and shuffling of training data. We also define the Multi-Bootstrap, a non-parametric bootstrap method for statistical inference designed for settings where there are multiple pre-trained models and limited test data. To illustrate our approach, we present a case study of gender bias in coreference resolution, in which the Multi-Bootstrap lets us measure effects that may not be detected with a single checkpoint. We release our models and statistical library along with an additional set of 140 intermediate checkpoints captured during pre-training to facilitate research on learning dynamics.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2022

Causally motivated Shortcut Removal Using Auxiliary Labels

Shortcut learning, in which models make use of easy-to-represent but unstable associations, is a major failure mode for robust machine learning. We study a flexible, causally-motivated approach to training robust predictors by discouraging the use of specific shortcuts, focusing on a common setting where a robust predictor could achieve optimal \emph{iid} generalization in principle, but is overshadowed by a shortcut predictor in practice. Our approach uses auxiliary labels, typically available at training time, to enforce conditional independences implied by the causal graph. We show both theoretically and empirically that causally-motivated regularization schemes (a) lead to more robust estimators that generalize well under distribution shift, and (b) have better finite sample efficiency compared to usual regularization schemes, even when no shortcut is present. Our analysis highlights important theoretical properties of training techniques commonly used in the causal inference, fairness, and disentanglement literatures. Our code is available at https://github.com/mymakar/causally_motivated_shortcut_removal

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

Counterfactual Invariance to Spurious Correlations: Why and How to Pass Stress Tests

Informally, a 'spurious correlation' is the dependence of a model on some aspect of the input data that an analyst thinks shouldn't matter. In machine learning, these have a know-it-when-you-see-it character; e.g., changing the gender of a sentence's subject changes a sentiment predictor's output. To check for spurious correlations, we can 'stress test' models by perturbing irrelevant parts of input data and seeing if model predictions change. In this paper, we study stress testing using the tools of causal inference. We introduce counterfactual invariance as a formalization of the requirement that changing irrelevant parts of the input shouldn't change model predictions. We connect counterfactual invariance to out-of-domain model performance, and provide practical schemes for learning (approximately) counterfactual invariant predictors (without access to counterfactual examples). It turns out that both the means and implications of counterfactual invariance depend fundamentally on the true underlying causal structure of the data -- in particular, whether the label causes the features or the features cause the label. Distinct causal structures require distinct regularization schemes to induce counterfactual invariance. Similarly, counterfactual invariance implies different domain shift guarantees depending on the underlying causal structure. This theory is supported by empirical results on text classification.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2021

SLOE: A Faster Method for Statistical Inference in High-Dimensional Logistic Regression

Logistic regression remains one of the most widely used tools in applied statistics, machine learning and data science. However, in moderately high-dimensional problems, where the number of features $d$ is a non-negligible fraction of the sample size $n$, the logistic regression maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), and statistical procedures based the large-sample approximation of its distribution, behave poorly. Recently, Sur and Candès (2019) showed that these issues can be corrected by applying a new approximation of the MLE's sampling distribution in this high-dimensional regime. Unfortunately, these corrections are difficult to implement in practice, because they require an estimate of the \emph{signal strength}, which is a function of the underlying parameters $β$ of the logistic regression. To address this issue, we propose SLOE, a fast and straightforward approach to estimate the signal strength in logistic regression. The key insight of SLOE is that the Sur and Candès (2019) correction can be reparameterized in terms of the \emph{corrupted signal strength}, which is only a function of the estimated parameters $\widehat β$. We propose an estimator for this quantity, prove that it is consistent in the relevant high-dimensional regime, and show that dimensionality correction using SLOE is accurate in finite samples. Compared to the existing ProbeFrontier heuristic, SLOE is conceptually simpler and orders of magnitude faster, making it suitable for routine use. We demonstrate the importance of routine dimensionality correction in the Heart Disease dataset from the UCI repository, and a genomics application using data from the UK Biobank. We provide an open source package for this method, available at \url{https://github.com/google-research/sloe-logistic}.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2021

Deconfounding Scores: Feature Representations for Causal Effect Estimation with Weak Overlap

A key condition for obtaining reliable estimates of the causal effect of a treatment is overlap (a.k.a. positivity): the distributions of the features used to perform causal adjustment cannot be too different in the treated and control groups. In cases where overlap is poor, causal effect estimators can become brittle, especially when they incorporate weighting. To address this problem, a number of proposals (including confounder selection or dimension reduction methods) incorporate feature representations to induce better overlap between the treated and control groups. A key concern in these proposals is that the representation may introduce confounding bias into the effect estimator. In this paper, we introduce deconfounding scores, which are feature representations that induce better overlap without biasing the target of estimation. We show that deconfounding scores satisfy a zero-covariance condition that is identifiable in observed data. As a proof of concept, we characterize a family of deconfounding scores in a simplified setting with Gaussian covariates, and show that in some simple simulations, these scores can be used to construct estimators with good finite-sample properties. In particular, we show that this technique could be an attractive alternative to standard regularizations that are often applied to IPW and balancing weights.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2021

Revisiting Rashomon: A Comment on "The Two Cultures"

Here, I provide some reflections on Prof. Leo Breiman's "The Two Cultures" paper. I focus specifically on the phenomenon that Breiman dubbed the "Rashomon Effect", describing the situation in which there are many models that satisfy predictive accuracy criteria equally well, but process information in the data in substantially different ways. This phenomenon can make it difficult to draw conclusions or automate decisions based on a model fit to data. I make connections to recent work in the Machine Learning literature that explore the implications of this issue, and note that grappling with it can be a fruitful area of collaboration between the algorithmic and data modeling cultures.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2021

On Robustness and Transferability of Convolutional Neural Networks

Modern deep convolutional networks (CNNs) are often criticized for not generalizing under distributional shifts. However, several recent breakthroughs in transfer learning suggest that these networks can cope with severe distribution shifts and successfully adapt to new tasks from a few training examples. In this work we study the interplay between out-of-distribution and transfer performance of modern image classification CNNs for the first time and investigate the impact of the pre-training data size, the model scale, and the data preprocessing pipeline. We find that increasing both the training set and model sizes significantly improve the distributional shift robustness. Furthermore, we show that, perhaps surprisingly, simple changes in the preprocessing such as modifying the image resolution can significantly mitigate robustness issues in some cases. Finally, we outline the shortcomings of existing robustness evaluation datasets and introduce a synthetic dataset SI-Score we use for a systematic analysis across factors of variation common in visual data such as object size and position.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2021

Evaluating Prediction-Time Batch Normalization for Robustness under Covariate Shift

Covariate shift has been shown to sharply degrade both predictive accuracy and the calibration of uncertainty estimates for deep learning models. This is worrying, because covariate shift is prevalent in a wide range of real world deployment settings. However, in this paper, we note that frequently there exists the potential to access small unlabeled batches of the shifted data just before prediction time. This interesting observation enables a simple but surprisingly effective method which we call prediction-time batch normalization, which significantly improves model accuracy and calibration under covariate shift. Using this one line code change, we achieve state-of-the-art on recent covariate shift benchmarks and an mCE of 60.28\% on the challenging ImageNet-C dataset; to our knowledge, this is the best result for any model that does not incorporate additional data augmentation or modification of the training pipeline. We show that prediction-time batch normalization provides complementary benefits to existing state-of-the-art approaches for improving robustness (e.g. deep ensembles) and combining the two further improves performance. Our findings are supported by detailed measurements of the effect of this strategy on model behavior across rigorous ablations on various dataset modalities. However, the method has mixed results when used alongside pre-training, and does not seem to perform as well under more natural types of dataset shift, and is therefore worthy of additional study. We include links to the data in our figures to improve reproducibility, including a Python notebooks that can be run to easily modify our analysis at https://colab.research.google.com/drive/11N0wDZnMQQuLrRwRoumDCrhSaIhkqjof.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learning

ML models often exhibit unexpectedly poor behavior when they are deployed in real-world domains. We identify underspecification as a key reason for these failures. An ML pipeline is underspecified when it can return many predictors with equivalently strong held-out performance in the training domain. Underspecification is common in modern ML pipelines, such as those based on deep learning. Predictors returned by underspecified pipelines are often treated as equivalent based on their training domain performance, but we show here that such predictors can behave very differently in deployment domains. This ambiguity can lead to instability and poor model behavior in practice, and is a distinct failure mode from previously identified issues arising from structural mismatch between training and deployment domains. We show that this problem appears in a wide variety of practical ML pipelines, using examples from computer vision, medical imaging, natural language processing, clinical risk prediction based on electronic health records, and medical genomics. Our results show the need to explicitly account for underspecification in modeling pipelines that are intended for real-world deployment in any domain.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2020

Prediction-Based Decisions and Fairness: A Catalogue of Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions

A recent flurry of research activity has attempted to quantitatively define "fairness" for decisions based on statistical and machine learning (ML) predictions. The rapid growth of this new field has led to wildly inconsistent terminology and notation, presenting a serious challenge for cataloguing and comparing definitions. This paper attempts to bring much-needed order. First, we explicate the various choices and assumptions made---often implicitly---to justify the use of prediction-based decisions. Next, we show how such choices and assumptions can raise concerns about fairness and we present a notationally consistent catalogue of fairness definitions from the ML literature. In doing so, we offer a concise reference for thinking through the choices, assumptions, and fairness considerations of prediction-based decision systems.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2020

Overlap in Observational Studies with High-Dimensional Covariates

Estimating causal effects under exogeneity hinges on two key assumptions: unconfoundedness and overlap. Researchers often argue that unconfoundedness is more plausible when more covariates are included in the analysis. Less discussed is the fact that covariate overlap is more difficult to satisfy in this setting. In this paper, we explore the implications of overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates and formalize curse-of-dimensionality argument, suggesting that these assumptions are stronger than investigators likely realize. Our key innovation is to explore how strict overlap restricts global discrepancies between the covariate distributions in the treated and control populations. Exploiting results from information theory, we derive explicit bounds on the average imbalance in covariate means under strict overlap and show that these bounds become more restrictive as the dimension grows large. We discuss how these implications interact with assumptions and procedures commonly deployed in observational causal inference, including sparsity and trimming.

math.ST↗

arXiv2019

A Biologically Plausible Benchmark for Contextual Bandit Algorithms in Precision Oncology Using in vitro Data

Precision oncology, the genetic sequencing of tumors to identify druggable targets, has emerged as the standard of care in the treatment of many cancers. Nonetheless, due to the pace of therapy development and variability in patient information, designing effective protocols for individual treatment assignment in a sample-efficient way remains a major challenge. One promising approach to this problem is to frame precision oncology treatment as a contextual bandit problem and to apply sequential decision-making algorithms designed to minimize regret in this setting. However, a clear prerequisite for considering this methodology in high-stakes clinical decisions is careful benchmarking to understand realistic costs and benefits. Here, we propose a benchmark dataset to evaluate contextual bandit algorithms based on real in vitro drug response of approximately 900 cancer cell lines. Specifically, we curated a dataset of complete treatment responses for a subset of 7 treatments from prior in vitro studies. This allows us to compute the regret of proposed decision policies using biologically plausible counterfactuals. We ran a suite of Bayesian bandit algorithms on our benchmark, and found that the methods accumulate less regret over a sequence of treatment assignment tasks than a rule-based baseline derived from current clinical practice. This effect was more pronounced when genomic information was included as context. We expect this work to be a starting point for evaluation of both the unique structural requirements and ethical implications for real-world testing of bandit based clinical decision support.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

Comment: Reflections on the Deconfounder

The aim of this comment (set to appear in a formal discussion in JASA) is to draw out some conclusions from an extended back-and-forth I have had with Wang and Blei regarding the deconfounder method proposed in "The Blessings of Multiple Causes" [arXiv:1805.06826]. I will make three points here. First, in my role as the critic in this conversation, I will summarize some arguments about the lack of causal identification in the bulk of settings where the "informal" message of the paper suggests that the deconfounder could be used. This is a point that is discussed at length in D'Amour 2019 [arXiv:1902.10286], which motivated the results concerning causal identification in Theorems 6--8 of "Blessings". Second, I will argue that adding parametric assumptions to the working model in order to obtain identification of causal parameters (a strategy followed in Theorem 6 and in the experimental examples) is a risky strategy, and should only be done when extremely strong prior information is available. Finally, I will consider the implications of the nonparametric identification results provided for a narrow, but non-trivial, set of causal estimands in Theorems 7 and 8. I will highlight that these results may be even more interesting from the perspective of detecting causal identification from observed data, under relatively weak assumptions about confounders.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2019

On Multi-Cause Causal Inference with Unobserved Confounding: Counterexamples, Impossibility, and Alternatives

Unobserved confounding is a central barrier to drawing causal inferences from observational data. Several authors have recently proposed that this barrier can be overcome in the case where one attempts to infer the effects of several variables simultaneously. In this paper, we present two simple, analytical counterexamples that challenge the general claims that are central to these approaches. In addition, we show that nonparametric identification is impossible in this setting. We discuss practical implications, and suggest alternatives to the methods that have been proposed so far in this line of work: using proxy variables and shifting focus to sensitivity analysis.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2019

Flexible sensitivity analysis for observational studies without observable implications

A fundamental challenge in observational causal inference is that assumptions about unconfoundedness are not testable from data. Assessing sensitivity to such assumptions is therefore important in practice. Unfortunately, some existing sensitivity analysis approaches inadvertently impose restrictions that are at odds with modern causal inference methods, which emphasize flexible models for observed data. To address this issue, we propose a framework that allows (1) flexible models for the observed data and (2) clean separation of the identified and unidentified parts of the sensitivity model. Our framework extends an approach from the missing data literature, known as Tukey's factorization, to the causal inference setting. Under this factorization, we can represent the distributions of unobserved potential outcomes in terms of unidentified selection functions that posit an unidentified relationship between the treatment assignment indicator and the observed potential outcomes. The sensitivity parameters in this framework are easily interpreted, and we provide heuristics for calibrating these parameters against observable quantities. We demonstrate the flexibility of this approach in two examples, where we estimate both average treatment effects and quantile treatment effects using Bayesian nonparametric models for the observed data.

stat.ME↗