Falsification of Internal and External Validity in Observational Studies via Conditional Moment Restrictions

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT)s are relied upon to assess new treatments, but suffer from limited power to guide personalized treatment decisions. On the other hand, observational (i.e., non-experimental) studies have large and diverse populations, but are prone to various biases (e.g. residual confounding). To safely leverage the strengths of observational studies, we focus on the problem of falsification, whereby RCTs are used to validate causal effect estimates learned from observational data. In particular, we show that, given data from both an RCT and an observational study, assumptions on internal and external validity have an observable, testable implication in the form of a set of Conditional Moment Restrictions (CMRs). Further, we show that expressing these CMRs with respect to the causal effect, or "causal contrast", as opposed to individual counterfactual means, provides a more reliable falsification test. In addition to giving guarantees on the asymptotic properties of our test, we demonstrate superior power and type I error of our approach on semi-synthetic and real world datasets. Our approach is interpretable, allowing a practitioner to visualize which subgroups in the population lead to falsification of an observational study.

Who Should Predict? Exact Algorithms For Learning to Defer to Humans

Automated AI classifiers should be able to defer the prediction to a human decision maker to ensure more accurate predictions. In this work, we jointly train a classifier with a rejector, which decides on each data point whether the classifier or the human should predict. We show that prior approaches can fail to find a human-AI system with low misclassification error even when there exists a linear classifier and rejector that have zero error (the realizable setting). We prove that obtaining a linear pair with low error is NP-hard even when the problem is realizable. To complement this negative result, we give a mixed-integer-linear-programming (MILP) formulation that can optimally solve the problem in the linear setting. However, the MILP only scales to moderately-sized problems. Therefore, we provide a novel surrogate loss function that is realizable-consistent and performs well empirically. We test our approaches on a comprehensive set of datasets and compare to a wide range of baselines.

TabLLM: Few-shot Classification of Tabular Data with Large Language Models

We study the application of large language models to zero-shot and few-shot classification of tabular data. We prompt the large language model with a serialization of the tabular data to a natural-language string, together with a short description of the classification problem. In the few-shot setting, we fine-tune the large language model using some labeled examples. We evaluate several serialization methods including templates, table-to-text models, and large language models. Despite its simplicity, we find that this technique outperforms prior deep-learning-based tabular classification methods on several benchmark datasets. In most cases, even zero-shot classification obtains non-trivial performance, illustrating the method's ability to exploit prior knowledge encoded in large language models. Unlike many deep learning methods for tabular datasets, this approach is also competitive with strong traditional baselines like gradient-boosted trees, especially in the very-few-shot setting.

Falsification before Extrapolation in Causal Effect Estimation

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard when developing policy guidelines. However, RCTs are often narrow, and lack data on broader populations of interest. Causal effects in these populations are often estimated using observational datasets, which may suffer from unobserved confounding and selection bias. Given a set of observational estimates (e.g. from multiple studies), we propose a meta-algorithm that attempts to reject observational estimates that are biased. We do so using validation effects, causal effects that can be inferred from both RCT and observational data. After rejecting estimators that do not pass this test, we generate conservative confidence intervals on the extrapolated causal effects for subgroups not observed in the RCT. Under the assumption that at least one observational estimator is asymptotically normal and consistent for both the validation and extrapolated effects, we provide guarantees on the coverage probability of the intervals output by our algorithm. To facilitate hypothesis testing in settings where causal effect transportation across datasets is necessary, we give conditions under which a doubly-robust estimator of group average treatment effects is asymptotically normal, even when flexible machine learning methods are used for estimation of nuisance parameters. We illustrate the properties of our approach on semi-synthetic and real world datasets, and show that it compares favorably to standard meta-analysis techniques.

Sample Efficient Learning of Predictors that Complement Humans

One of the goals of learning algorithms is to complement and reduce the burden on human decision makers. The expert deferral setting wherein an algorithm can either predict on its own or defer the decision to a downstream expert helps accomplish this goal. A fundamental aspect of this setting is the need to learn complementary predictors that improve on the human's weaknesses rather than learning predictors optimized for average error. In this work, we provide the first theoretical analysis of the benefit of learning complementary predictors in expert deferral. To enable efficiently learning such predictors, we consider a family of consistent surrogate loss functions for expert deferral and analyze their theoretical properties. Finally, we design active learning schemes that require minimal amount of data of human expert predictions in order to learn accurate deferral systems.

Training Subset Selection for Weak Supervision

Existing weak supervision approaches use all the data covered by weak signals to train a classifier. We show both theoretically and empirically that this is not always optimal. Intuitively, there is a tradeoff between the amount of weakly-labeled data and the precision of the weak labels. We explore this tradeoff by combining pretrained data representations with the cut statistic (Muhlenbach et al., 2004) to select (hopefully) high-quality subsets of the weakly-labeled training data. Subset selection applies to any label model and classifier and is very simple to plug in to existing weak supervision pipelines, requiring just a few lines of code. We show our subset selection method improves the performance of weak supervision for a wide range of label models, classifiers, and datasets. Using less weakly-labeled data improves the accuracy of weak supervision pipelines by up to 19% (absolute) on benchmark tasks.

Evaluating Robustness to Dataset Shift via Parametric Robustness Sets

We give a method for proactively identifying small, plausible shifts in distribution which lead to large differences in model performance. To ensure that these shifts are plausible, we parameterize them in terms of interpretable changes in causal mechanisms of observed variables. This defines a parametric robustness set of plausible distributions and a corresponding worst-case loss. While the loss under an individual parametric shift can be estimated via reweighting techniques such as importance sampling, the resulting worst-case optimization problem is non-convex, and the estimate may suffer from large variance. For small shifts, however, we can construct a local second-order approximation to the loss under shift and cast the problem of finding a worst-case shift as a particular non-convex quadratic optimization problem, for which efficient algorithms are available. We demonstrate that this second-order approximation can be estimated directly for shifts in conditional exponential family models, and we bound the approximation error. We apply our approach to a computer vision task (classifying gender from images), revealing sensitivity to shifts in non-causal attributes.

Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Clinical Information Extractors

We show that large language models, such as GPT-3, perform well at zero-shot information extraction from clinical text despite not being trained specifically for the clinical domain. We present several examples showing how to use these models as tools for the diverse tasks of (i) concept disambiguation, (ii) evidence extraction, (iii) coreference resolution, and (iv) concept extraction, all on clinical text. The key to good performance is the use of simple task-specific programs that map from the language model outputs to the label space of the task. We refer to these programs as resolvers, a generalization of the verbalizer, which defines a mapping between output tokens and a discrete label space. We show in our examples that good resolvers share common components (e.g., "safety checks" that ensure the language model outputs faithfully match the input data), and that the common patterns across tasks make resolvers lightweight and easy to create. To better evaluate these systems, we also introduce two new datasets for benchmarking zero-shot clinical information extraction based on manual relabeling of the CASI dataset (Moon et al., 2014) with labels for new tasks. On the clinical extraction tasks we studied, the GPT-3 + resolver systems significantly outperform existing zero- and few-shot baselines.

Co-training Improves Prompt-based Learning for Large Language Models

We demonstrate that co-training (Blum & Mitchell, 1998) can improve the performance of prompt-based learning by using unlabeled data. While prompting has emerged as a promising paradigm for few-shot and zero-shot learning, it is often brittle and requires much larger models compared to the standard supervised setup. We find that co-training makes it possible to improve the original prompt model and at the same time learn a smaller, downstream task-specific model. In the case where we only have partial access to a prompt model (e.g., output probabilities from GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020)) we learn a calibration model over the prompt outputs. When we have full access to the prompt model's gradients but full finetuning remains prohibitively expensive (e.g., T0 (Sanh et al., 2021)), we learn a set of soft prompt continuous vectors to iteratively update the prompt model. We find that models trained in this manner can significantly improve performance on challenging datasets where there is currently a large gap between prompt-based learning and fully-supervised models.

Teaching Humans When To Defer to a Classifier via Examplars

Expert decision makers are starting to rely on data-driven automated agents to assist them with various tasks. For this collaboration to perform properly, the human decision maker must have a mental model of when and when not to rely on the agent. In this work, we aim to ensure that human decision makers learn a valid mental model of the agent's strengths and weaknesses. To accomplish this goal, we propose an exemplar-based teaching strategy where humans solve the task with the help of the agent and try to formulate a set of guidelines of when and when not to defer. We present a novel parameterization of the human's mental model of the AI that applies a nearest neighbor rule in local regions surrounding the teaching examples. Using this model, we derive a near-optimal strategy for selecting a representative teaching set. We validate the benefits of our teaching strategy on a multi-hop question answering task using crowd workers and find that when workers draw the right lessons from the teaching stage, their task performance improves, we furthermore validate our method on a set of synthetic experiments.