Predictive Performance Comparison of Decision Policies Under Confounding
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the problem of evaluating and comparing the predictive performance of different decision policies in the presence of unobserved confounding variables.
- It proposes a framework for robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms under unobserved confounding, building on concepts from conformal inference and causal analysis.
- The work aims to provide guidance on assessing the relative value of predictive algorithms in decision-making applications, such as in healthcare, where unobserved confounding can be a significant challenge.
Plain English Explanation
When making important decisions, we often rely on predictive algorithms to help guide us. For example, in healthcare, algorithms might be used to predict a patient's risk of developing a certain illness. However, these algorithms can be affected by unobserved factors, known as confounding variables, that influence both the input data and the outcome we're trying to predict.
This paper presents a new framework for evaluating and comparing the performance of different predictive algorithms, even when these confounding variables are not observed. The key idea is to use techniques from conformal inference and causal analysis to get a more accurate and robust assessment of how well the algorithms are performing.
The goal is to provide guidance on choosing the best predictive algorithm for a given decision-making task, particularly in domains like healthcare where unobserved confounding can be a significant challenge. By having a better understanding of how these algorithms perform, we can make more informed decisions that can ultimately improve outcomes for the people affected.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a framework for robust design and evaluation of predictive algorithms under unobserved confounding. It builds on concepts from conformal inference and causal analysis to provide a principled approach for assessing the relative value of prediction algorithms in decision-making applications.
The key elements of the framework include:
- Causal modeling: The authors construct a causal model of the decision-making process, which explicitly accounts for unobserved confounding variables that may affect both the input data and the outcome.
- Counterfactual evaluation: They propose a counterfactual evaluation procedure that estimates the performance of different decision policies under the same underlying confounding distribution, allowing for a fair comparison.
- Contextual policy recovery: The framework includes a method for recovering the optimal decision policy from observational data, taking into account the contextual factors that influence the decision-making process.
The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach through experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets, showing that it can provide more accurate and robust performance assessments compared to traditional evaluation methods.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a well-developed framework for addressing the challenge of unobserved confounding in the evaluation of predictive algorithms for decision-making. The authors' use of causal modeling and counterfactual analysis is a strength, as it allows for a more principled and reliable assessment of algorithm performance.
One potential limitation is the reliance on strong assumptions about the causal structure of the decision-making process, which may not always be fully known or accurately specified. The authors acknowledge this and discuss approaches for sensitivity analysis, but further research may be needed to understand the robustness of the framework to violations of these assumptions.
Additionally, the computational complexity of the proposed methods may be a practical concern, especially for large-scale or real-time decision-making applications. The authors do not provide much discussion on the scalability or efficiency of their approach, which could be an important consideration for real-world deployment.
Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the field of predictive algorithm evaluation and decision-making under uncertainty. Its emphasis on causal reasoning and robust performance assessment is a promising direction for improving the reliability and trustworthiness of algorithmic decision systems, particularly in high-stakes domains like healthcare.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a novel framework for evaluating and comparing the predictive performance of decision policies in the presence of unobserved confounding variables. By leveraging concepts from conformal inference and causal analysis, the proposed approach aims to provide a more robust and reliable assessment of algorithm performance, which is crucial for informed decision-making in areas like healthcare.
The key contributions of this work include a causal modeling approach, a counterfactual evaluation procedure, and a method for recovering the optimal decision policy from observational data. Through experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their framework in addressing the challenges posed by unobserved confounding.
While the proposed methods show promise, the authors acknowledge the need for further research to address potential limitations, such as the reliance on strong causal assumptions and the computational complexity of the approach. Nevertheless, this paper represents an important step forward in the development of rigorous and principled methods for the design and evaluation of predictive algorithms in high-stakes decision-making applications.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Predictive Performance Comparison of Decision Policies Under Confounding
Luke Guerdan, Amanda Coston, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu
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.
Read more6/13/2024
🛸
0
Robust Design and Evaluation of Predictive Algorithms under Unobserved Confounding
Ashesh Rambachan, Amanda Coston, Edward Kennedy
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.
Read more5/21/2024
🤯
0
Conformal Counterfactual Inference under Hidden Confounding
Zonghao Chen, Ruocheng Guo, Jean-Franc{c}ois Ton, Yang Liu
Personalized decision making requires the knowledge of potential outcomes under different treatments, and confidence intervals about the potential outcomes further enrich this decision-making process and improve its reliability in high-stakes scenarios. Predicting potential outcomes along with its uncertainty in a counterfactual world poses the foundamental challenge in causal inference. Existing methods that construct confidence intervals for counterfactuals either rely on the assumption of strong ignorability, or need access to un-identifiable lower and upper bounds that characterize the difference between observational and interventional distributions. To overcome these limitations, we first propose a novel approach wTCP-DR based on transductive weighted conformal prediction, which provides confidence intervals for counterfactual outcomes with marginal converage guarantees, even under hidden confounding. With less restrictive assumptions, our approach requires access to a fraction of interventional data (from randomized controlled trials) to account for the covariate shift from observational distributoin to interventional distribution. Theoretical results explicitly demonstrate the conditions under which our algorithm is strictly advantageous to the naive method that only uses interventional data. After ensuring valid intervals on counterfactuals, it is straightforward to construct intervals for individual treatment effects (ITEs). We demonstrate our method across synthetic and real-world data, including recommendation systems, to verify the superiority of our methods compared against state-of-the-art baselines in terms of both coverage and efficiency
Read more5/22/2024
🔮
0
Designing Decision Support Systems Using Counterfactual Prediction Sets
Eleni Straitouri, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez
Decision support systems for classification tasks are predominantly designed to predict the value of the ground truth labels. However, since their predictions are not perfect, these systems also need to make human experts understand when and how to use these predictions to update their own predictions. Unfortunately, this has been proven challenging. In this context, it has been recently argued that an alternative type of decision support systems may circumvent this challenge. Rather than providing a single label prediction, these systems provide a set of label prediction values constructed using a conformal predictor, namely a prediction set, and forcefully ask experts to predict a label value from the prediction set. However, the design and evaluation of these systems have so far relied on stylized expert models, questioning their promise. In this paper, we revisit the design of this type of systems from the perspective of online learning and develop a methodology that does not require, nor assumes, an expert model. Our methodology leverages the nested structure of the prediction sets provided by any conformal predictor and a natural counterfactual monotonicity assumption to achieve an exponential improvement in regret in comparison to vanilla bandit algorithms. We conduct a large-scale human subject study ($n = 2{,}751$) to compare our methodology to several competitive baselines. The results show that, for decision support systems based on prediction sets, limiting experts' level of agency leads to greater performance than allowing experts to always exercise their own agency. We have made available the data gathered in our human subject study as well as an open source implementation of our system at https://github.com/Networks-Learning/counterfactual-prediction-sets.
Read more7/17/2024