Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

We study the problem of learning personalized decision policies from observational data while accounting for possible unobserved confounding in the data-generating process. Unlike previous approaches that assume unconfoundedness, i.e., no unobserved confounders affected both treatment assignment and outcomes, we calibrate policy learning for realistic violations of this unverifiable assumption with uncertainty sets motivated by sensitivity analysis in causal inference. Our framework for confounding-robust policy improvement optimizes the minimax regret of a candidate policy against a baseline or reference "status quo" policy, over an uncertainty set around nominal propensity weights. We prove that if the uncertainty set is well-specified, robust policy learning can do no worse than the baseline, and only improve if the data supports it. We characterize the adversarial subproblem and use efficient algorithmic solutions to optimize over parametrized spaces of decision policies such as logistic treatment assignment. We assess our methods on synthetic data and a large clinical trial, demonstrating that confounded selection can hinder policy learning and lead to unwarranted harm, while our robust approach guarantees safety and focuses on well-evidenced improvement. 

We present a new approach to the problems of evaluating and learning personalized decision policies from observational data of past contexts, decisions, and outcomes. Only the outcome of the enacted decision is available and the historical policy is unknown. These problems arise in personalized medicine using electronic health records and in internet advertising. Existing approaches use inverse propensity weighting (or, doubly robust versions) to make historical outcome (or, residual) data look like it were generated by a new policy being evaluated or learned. But this relies on a plug-in approach that rejects data points with a decision that disagrees with the new policy, leading to high variance estimates and ineffective learning. We propose a new, balance-based approach that too makes the data look like the new policy but does so directly by finding weights that optimize for balance between the weighted data and the target policy in the given, finite sample, which is equivalent to minimizing worst-case or posterior conditional mean square error. Our policy learner proceeds as a two-level optimization problem over policies and weights. We demonstrate that this approach markedly outperforms existing ones both in evaluation and learning, which is unsurprising given the wider support of balance-based weights. We establish extensive theoretical consistency guarantees and regret bounds that support this empirical success. 

We study the problem of policy evaluation and learning from batched contextual bandit data when treatments are continuous, going beyond previous work on discrete treatments. Previous work for discrete treatment/action spaces focuses on inverse probability weighting (IPW) and doubly robust (DR) methods that use a rejection sampling approach for evaluation and the equivalent weighted classification problem for learning. In the continuous setting, this reduction fails as we would almost surely reject all observations. To tackle the case of continuous treatments, we extend the IPW and DR approaches to the continuous setting using a kernel function that leverages treatment proximity to attenuate discrete rejection. Our policy estimator is consistent and we characterize the optimal bandwidth. The resulting continuous policy optimizer (CPO) approach using our estimator achieves convergent regret and approaches the best-in-class policy for learnable policy classes. We demonstrate that the estimator performs well and, in particular, outperforms a discretization-based benchmark. We further study the performance of our policy optimizer in a case study on personalized dosing based on a dataset of Warfarin patients, their covariates, and final therapeutic doses. Our learned policy outperforms benchmarks and nears the oracle-best linear policy. 

Observational data is increasingly used as a means for making individual-level causal predictions and intervention recommendations. The foremost challenge of causal inference from observational data is hidden confounding, whose presence cannot be tested in data and can invalidate any causal conclusion. Experimental data does not suffer from confounding but is usually limited in both scope and scale. We introduce a novel method of using limited experimental data to correct the hidden confounding in causal effect models trained on larger observational data, even if the observational data does not fully overlap with the experimental data. Our method makes strictly weaker assumptions than existing approaches, and we prove conditions under which it yields a consistent estimator. We demonstrate our method's efficacy using real-world data from a large educational experiment. 

We extend the classic multi-armed bandit (MAB) model to the setting of noncompliance, where the arm pull is a mere instrument and the treatment applied may differ from it, which gives rise to the instrument-armed bandit (IAB) problem. The IAB setting is relevant whenever the experimental units are human since free will, ethics, and the law may prohibit unrestricted or forced application of treatment. In particular, the setting is relevant in bandit models of dynamic clinical trials and other controlled trials on human interventions. Nonetheless, the setting has not been fully investigate in the bandit literature. We show that there are various and divergent notions of regret in this setting, all of which coincide only in the classic MAB setting. We characterize the behavior of these regrets and analyze standard MAB algorithms. We argue for a particular kind of regret that captures the causal effect of treatments but show that standard MAB algorithms cannot achieve sublinear control on this regret. Instead, we develop new algorithms for the IAB problem, prove new regret bounds for them, and compare them to standard MAB algorithms in numerical examples. 

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. 

Recent work in fairness in machine learning has proposed adjusting for fairness by equalizing accuracy metrics across groups and has also studied how datasets affected by historical prejudices may lead to unfair decision policies. We connect these lines of work and study the residual unfairness that arises when a fairness-adjusted predictor is not actually fair on the target population due to systematic censoring of training data by existing biased policies. This scenario is particularly common in the same applications where fairness is a concern. We characterize theoretically the impact of such censoring on standard fairness metrics for binary classifiers and provide criteria for when residual unfairness may or may not appear. We prove that, under certain conditions, fairness-adjusted classifiers will in fact induce residual unfairness that perpetuates the same injustices, against the same groups, that biased the data to begin with, thus showing that even state-of-the-art fair machine learning can have a "bias in, bias out" property. When certain benchmark data is available, we show how sample reweighting can estimate and adjust fairness metrics while accounting for censoring. We use this to study the case of Stop, Question, and Frisk (SQF) and demonstrate that attempting to adjust for fairness perpetuates the same injustices that the policy is infamous for. 

We study the problem of learning to choose from $m$ discrete treatment options (e.g., news item or medical drug) the one with best causal effect for a particular instance (e.g., user or patient) where the training data consists of passive observations of covariates, treatment, and the outcome of the treatment. The standard approach to this problem is regress and compare: split the training data by treatment, fit a regression model in each split, and, for a new instance, predict all $m$ outcomes and pick the best. By reformulating the problem as a single learning task rather than $m$ separate ones, we propose a new approach based on recursively partitioning the data into regimes where different treatments are optimal. We extend this approach to an optimal partitioning approach that finds a globally optimal partition, achieving a compact, interpretable, and impactful personalization model. We develop new tools for validating and evaluating personalization models on observational data and use these to demonstrate the power of our novel approaches in a personalized medicine and a job training application.