Search for: All records

We study contextual stochastic optimization problems, where we leverage rich auxiliary observations (e.g., product characteristics) to improve decision making with uncertain variables (e.g., demand). We show how to train forest decision policies for this problem by growing trees that choose splits to directly optimize the downstream decision quality rather than split to improve prediction accuracy as in the standard random forest algorithm. We realize this seemingly computationally intractable problem by developing approximate splitting criteria that use optimization perturbation analysis to eschew burdensome reoptimization for every candidate split, so that our method scales to large-scale problems. We prove that our splitting criteria consistently approximate the true risk and that our method achieves asymptotic optimality. We extensively validate our method empirically, demonstrating the value of optimization-aware construction of forests and the success of our efficient approximations. We show that our approximate splitting criteria can reduce running time hundredfold while achieving performance close to forest algorithms that exactly reoptimize for every candidate split. This paper was accepted by Hamid Nazerzadeh, data science. 

We study a nonparametric contextual bandit problem in which the expected reward functions belong to a Hölder class with smoothness parameter β. We show how this interpolates between two extremes that were previously studied in isolation: nondifferentiable bandits (β at most 1), with which rate-optimal regret is achieved by running separate noncontextual bandits in different context regions, and parametric-response bandits (infinite [Formula: see text]), with which rate-optimal regret can be achieved with minimal or no exploration because of infinite extrapolatability. We develop a novel algorithm that carefully adjusts to all smoothness settings, and we prove its regret is rate-optimal by establishing matching upper and lower bounds, recovering the existing results at the two extremes. In this sense, our work bridges the gap between the existing literature on parametric and nondifferentiable contextual bandit problems and between bandit algorithms that exclusively use global or local information, shedding light on the crucial interplay of complexity and regret in contextual bandits. 

Incorporating side observations in decision making can reduce uncertainty and boost performance, but it also requires that we tackle a potentially complex predictive relationship. Although one may use off-the-shelf machine learning methods to separately learn a predictive model and plug it in, a variety of recent methods instead integrate estimation and optimization by fitting the model to directly optimize downstream decision performance. Surprisingly, in the case of contextual linear optimization, we show that the naïve plug-in approach actually achieves regret convergence rates that are significantly faster than methods that directly optimize downstream decision performance. We show this by leveraging the fact that specific problem instances do not have arbitrarily bad near-dual-degeneracy. Although there are other pros and cons to consider as we discuss and illustrate numerically, our results highlight a nuanced landscape for the enterprise to integrate estimation and optimization. Our results are overall positive for practice: predictive models are easy and fast to train using existing tools; simple to interpret; and, as we show, lead to decisions that perform very well. This paper was accepted by Hamid Nazerzadeh, data science. 

The increasing impact of algorithmic decisions on people’s lives compels us to scrutinize their fairness and, in particular, the disparate impacts that ostensibly color-blind algorithms can have on different groups. Examples include credit decisioning, hiring, advertising, criminal justice, personalized medicine, and targeted policy making, where in some cases legislative or regulatory frameworks for fairness exist and define specific protected classes. In this paper we study a fundamental challenge to assessing disparate impacts in practice: protected class membership is often not observed in the data. This is particularly a problem in lending and healthcare. We consider the use of an auxiliary data set, such as the U.S. census, to construct models that predict the protected class from proxy variables, such as surname and geolocation. We show that even with such data, a variety of common disparity measures are generally unidentifiable, providing a new perspective on the documented biases of popular proxy-based methods. We provide exact characterizations of the tightest possible set of all possible true disparities that are consistent with the data (and possibly additional assumptions). We further provide optimization-based algorithms for computing and visualizing these sets and statistical tools to assess sampling uncertainty. Together, these enable reliable and robust assessments of disparities—an important tool when disparity assessment can have far-reaching policy implications. We demonstrate this in two case studies with real data: mortgage lending and personalized medicine dosing. This paper was accepted by Hamid Nazerzadeh, Guest Editor for the Special Issue on Data-Driven Prescriptive Analytics. 

We study the problem of learning conditional average treatment effects (CATE) from observational data with unobserved confounders. The CATE function maps baseline covariates to individual causal effect predictions and is key for personalized assessments. Recent work has focused on how to learn CATE under unconfoundedness, i.e., when there are no unobserved confounders. Since CATE may not be identified when unconfoundedness is violated, we develop a functional interval estimator that predicts bounds on the individual causal effects under realistic violations of unconfoundedness. Our estimator takes the form of a weighted kernel estimator with weights that vary adversarially. We prove that our estimator is sharp in that it converges exactly to the tightest bounds possible on CATE when there may be unobserved confounders. Further, we study personalized decision rules derived from our estimator and prove that they achieve optimal minimax regret asymptotically. We assess our approach in a simulation study as well as demonstrate its application in the case of hormone replacement therapy by comparing conclusions from a real observational study and clinical trial. 

Assessing the fairness of a decision making system with respect to a protected class, such as gender or race, is challenging when class membership labels are unavailable. Probabilistic models for predicting the protected class based on observable proxies, such as surname and geolocation for race, are sometimes used to impute these missing labels for compliance assessments. Empirically, these methods are observed to exaggerate disparities, but the reason why is unknown. In this paper, we decompose the biases in estimating outcome disparity via threshold-based imputation into multiple interpretable bias sources, allowing us to explain when over- or underestimation occurs. We also propose an alternative weighted estimator that uses soft classification, and show that its bias arises simply from the conditional covariance of the outcome with the true class membership. Finally, we illustrate our results with numerical simulations and a public dataset of mortgage applications, using geolocation as a proxy for race. We confirm that the bias of threshold-based imputation is generally upward, but its magnitude varies strongly with the threshold chosen. Our new weighted estimator tends to have a negative bias that is much simpler to analyze and reason about. 

Valid causal inference in observational studies often requires controlling for confounders. However, in practice measurements of confounders may be noisy, and can lead to biased estimates of causal effects. We show that we can reduce bias induced by measurement noise using a large number of noisy measurements of the underlying confounders. We propose the use of matrix factorization to infer the confounders from noisy covariates. This flexible and principled framework adapts to missing values, accommodates a wide variety of data types, and can enhance a wide variety of causal inference methods. We bound the error for the induced average treatment effect estimator and show it is consistent in a linear regression setting, using Exponential Family Matrix Completion preprocessing. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed procedure in numerical experiments with both synthetic data and real clinical data.