Search for: All records

Predicting how different interventions will causally affect a specific individual is important in a variety of domains such as personalized medicine, public policy, and online marketing. There are a large number of methods to predict the effect of an existing intervention based on historical data from individuals who received it. However, in many settings it is important to predict the effects of novel interventions (e.g., a newly invented drug), which these methods do not address. Here, we consider zero-shot causal learning: predicting the personalized effects of a novel intervention. We propose CaML, a causal meta-learning framework which formulates the personalized prediction of each intervention’s effect as a task. CaML trains a single meta-model across thousands of tasks, each constructed by sampling an intervention, its recipients, and its nonrecipients. By leveraging both intervention information (e.g., a drug’s attributes) and individual features (e.g., a patient’s history), CaML is able to predict the personalized effects of novel interventions that do not exist at the time of training. Experimental results on real world datasets in large-scale medical claims and cell-line perturbations demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Most strikingly, CaML’s zero-shot predictions outperform even strong baselines trained directly on data from the test interventions. 

A long-standing expectation is that large, dense and cosmopolitan areas support socioeconomic mixing and exposure among diverse individuals^1–6. Assessing this hypothesis has been difficult because previous measures of socioeconomic mixing have relied on static residential housing data rather than real-life exposures among people at work, in places of leisure and in home neighbourhoods^7,8. Here we develop a measure of exposure segregation that captures the socioeconomic diversity of these everyday encounters. Using mobile phone mobility data to represent 1.6 billion real-world exposures among 9.6 million people in the United States, we measure exposure segregation across 382 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and 2,829 counties. We find that exposure segregation is 67% higher in the ten largest MSAs than in small MSAs with fewer than 100,000 residents. This means that, contrary to expectations, residents of large cosmopolitan areas have less exposure to a socioeconomically diverse range of individuals. Second, we find that the increased socioeconomic segregation in large cities arises because they offer a greater choice of differentiated spaces targeted to specific socioeconomic groups. Third, we find that this segregation-increasing effect is countered when a city’s hubs (such as shopping centres) are positioned to bridge diverse neighbourhoods and therefore attract people of all socioeconomic statuses. Our findings challenge a long-standing conjecture in human geography and highlight how urban design can both prevent and facilitate encounters among diverse individuals.

 

The field of fair machine learning aims to ensure that decisions guided by algorithms are equitable. Over the last decade, several formal, mathematical definitions of fairness have gained prominence. Here we first assemble and categorize these definitions into two broad families: (1) those that constrain the effects of decisions on disparities; and (2) those that constrain the effects of legally protected characteristics, like race and gender, on decisions. We then show, analytically and empirically, that both families of definitions typically result in strongly Pareto dominated decision policies. For example, in the case of college admissions, adhering to popular formal conceptions of fairness would simultaneously result in lower student-body diversity and a less academically prepared class, relative to what one could achieve by explicitly tailoring admissions policies to achieve desired outcomes. In this sense, requiring that these fairness definitions hold can, perversely, harm the very groups they were designed to protect. In contrast to axiomatic notions of fairness, we argue that the equitable design of algorithms requires grappling with their context-specific consequences, akin to the equitable design of policy. We conclude by listing several open challenges in fair machine learning and offering strategies to ensure algorithms are better aligned with policy goals. 

Abstract An unhealthy diet is a major risk factor for chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer 1–4 . Limited access to healthy food options may contribute to unhealthy diets 5,6 . Studying diets is challenging, typically restricted to small sample sizes, single locations, and non-uniform design across studies, and has led to mixed results on the impact of the food environment 7–23 . Here we leverage smartphones to track diet health, operationalized through the self-reported consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, fast food and soda, as well as body-mass index status in a country-wide observational study of 1,164,926 U.S. participants (MyFitnessPal app users) and 2.3 billion food entries to study the independent contributions of fast food and grocery store access, income and education to diet health outcomes. This study constitutes the largest nationwide study examining the relationship between the food environment and diet to date. We find that higher access to grocery stores, lower access to fast food, higher income and college education are independently associated with higher consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, lower consumption of fast food and soda, and lower likelihood of being affected by overweight and obesity. However, these associations vary significantly across zip codes with predominantly Black, Hispanic or white populations. For instance, high grocery store access has a significantly larger association with higher fruit and vegetable consumption in zip codes with predominantly Hispanic populations (7.4% difference) and Black populations (10.2% difference) in contrast to zip codes with predominantly white populations (1.7% difference). Policy targeted at improving food access, income and education may increase healthy eating, but intervention allocation may need to be optimized for specific subpopulations and locations. 

Recent work highlights the role of causality in designing equitable decision-making algorithms. It is not immediately clear, however, how existing causal conceptions of fairness relate to one another, or what the consequences are of using these definitions as design principles. Here, we first assemble and categorize popular causal definitions of algorithmic fairness into two broad families: (1) those that constrain the effects of decisions on counterfactual disparities; and (2) those that constrain the effects of legally protected characteristics, like race and gender, on decisions. We then show, analytically and empirically, that both families of definitions almost always—in a measure theoretic sense—result in strongly Pareto dominated decision policies, meaning there is an alternative, unconstrained policy favored by every stakeholder with preferences drawn from a large, natural class. For example, in the case of college admissions decisions, policies constrained to satisfy causal fairness definitions would be disfavored by every stakeholder with neutral or positive preferences for both academic preparedness and diversity. Indeed, under a prominent definition of causal fairness, we prove the resulting policies require admitting all students with the same probability, regardless of academic qualifications or group membership. Our results highlight formal limitations and potential adverse consequences of common mathematical notions of causal fairness.