Generalization Bounds and Representation Learning for Estimation of Potential Outcomes and Causal Effects

Practitioners in diverse fields such as healthcare, economics and education are eager to apply machine learning to improve decision making. The cost and impracticality of performing experiments and a recent monumental increase in electronic record keeping has brought attention to the problem of evaluating decisions based on non-experimental observational data. This is the setting of this work. In particular, we study estimation of individual-level causal effects, such as a single patient's response to alternative medication, from recorded contexts, decisions and outcomes. We give generalization bounds on the error in estimated effects based on distance measures between groups receiving different treatments, allowing for sample re-weighting. We provide conditions under which our bound is tight and show how it relates to results for unsupervised domain adaptation. Led by our theoretical results, we devise representation learning algorithms that minimize our bound, by regularizing the representation's induced treatment group distance, and encourage sharing of information between treatment groups. We extend these algorithms to simultaneously learn a weighted representation to further reduce treatment group distances. Finally, an experimental evaluation on real and synthetic data shows the value of our proposed representation architecture and regularization scheme.

Estimation of Utility-Maximizing Bounds on Potential Outcomes

Estimation of individual treatment effects is often used as the basis for contextual decision making in fields such as healthcare, education, and economics. However, in many real-world applications it is sufficient for the decision maker to have upper and lower bounds on the potential outcomes of decision alternatives, allowing them to evaluate the trade-off between benefit and risk. With this in mind, we develop an algorithm for directly learning upper and lower bounds on the potential outcomes under treatment and non-treatment. Our theoretical analysis highlights a trade-off between the complexity of the learning task and the confidence with which the resulting bounds cover the true potential outcomes; the more confident we wish to be, the more complex the learning task is. We suggest a novel algorithm that maximizes a utility function while maintaining valid potential outcome bounds. We illustrate different properties of our algorithm, and highlight how it can be used to guide decision making using two semi-simulated datasets.

Characterization of Overlap in Observational Studies

Overlap between treatment groups is required for nonparametric estimation of causal effects. If a subgroup of subjects always receives (or never receives) a given intervention, we cannot estimate the effect of intervention changes on that subgroup without further assumptions. When overlap does not hold globally, characterizing local regions of overlap can inform the relevance of any causal conclusions for new subjects, and can help guide additional data collection. To have impact, these descriptions must be interpretable for downstream users who are not machine learning experts, such as clinicians. We formalize overlap estimation as a problem of finding minimum volume sets and give a method to solve it by reduction to binary classification with Boolean rules. We also generalize our method to estimate overlap in off-policy policy evaluation. Using data from real-world applications, we demonstrate that these rules have comparable accuracy to black-box estimators while maintaining a simple description. In one case study, we perform a user study with clinicians to evaluate rules learned to describe treatment group overlap in post-surgical opioid prescriptions. In another, we estimate overlap in policy evaluation of antibiotic prescription for urinary tract infections.

A Survey on Graph Kernels

Graph kernels have become an established and widely-used technique for solving classification tasks on graphs. This survey gives a comprehensive overview of techniques for kernel-based graph classification developed in the past 15 years. We describe and categorize graph kernels based on properties inherent to their design, such as the nature of their extracted graph features, their method of computation and their applicability to problems in practice. In an extensive experimental evaluation, we study the classification accuracy of a large suite of graph kernels on established benchmarks as well as new datasets. We compare the performance of popular kernels with several baseline methods and study the effect of applying a Gaussian RBF kernel to the metric induced by a graph kernel. In doing so, we find that simple baselines become competitive after this transformation on some datasets. Moreover, we study the extent to which existing graph kernels agree in their predictions (and prediction errors) and obtain a data-driven categorization of kernels as result. Finally, based on our experimental results, we derive a practitioner's guide to kernel-based graph classification.

Support and Invertibility in Domain-Invariant Representations

Learning domain-invariant representations has become a popular approach to unsupervised domain adaptation and is often justified by invoking a particular suite of theoretical results. We argue that there are two significant flaws in such arguments. First, the results in question hold only for a fixed representation and do not account for information lost in non-invertible transformations. Second, domain invariance is often a far too strict requirement and does not always lead to consistent estimation, even under strong and favorable assumptions. In this work, we give generalization bounds for unsupervised domain adaptation that hold for any representation function by acknowledging the cost of non-invertibility. In addition, we show that penalizing distance between densities is often wasteful and propose a bound based on measuring the extent to which the support of the source domain covers the target domain. We perform experiments on well-known benchmarks that illustrate the short-comings of current standard practice.

Machine Learning Analysis of Heterogeneity in the Effect of Student Mindset Interventions

We study heterogeneity in the effect of a mindset intervention on student-level performance through an observational dataset from the National Study of Learning Mindsets (NSLM). Our analysis uses machine learning (ML) to address the following associated problems: assessing treatment group overlap and covariate balance, imputing conditional average treatment effects, and interpreting imputed effects. By comparing several different model families we illustrate the flexibility of both off-the-shelf and purpose-built estimators. We find that the mindset intervention has a positive average effect of 0.26, 95%-CI [0.22, 0.30], and that heterogeneity in the range of [0.1, 0.4] is moderated by school-level achievement level, poverty concentration, urbanicity, and student prior expectations.

Learning Representations for Counterfactual Inference

Observational studies are rising in importance due to the widespread accumulation of data in fields such as healthcare, education, employment and ecology. We consider the task of answering counterfactual questions such as, "Would this patient have lower blood sugar had she received a different medication?". We propose a new algorithmic framework for counterfactual inference which brings together ideas from domain adaptation and representation learning. In addition to a theoretical justification, we perform an empirical comparison with previous approaches to causal inference from observational data. Our deep learning algorithm significantly outperforms the previous state-of-the-art.

Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?

Recent attempts to achieve fairness in predictive models focus on the balance between fairness and accuracy. In sensitive applications such as healthcare or criminal justice, this trade-off is often undesirable as any increase in prediction error could have devastating consequences. In this work, we argue that the fairness of predictions should be evaluated in context of the data, and that unfairness induced by inadequate samples sizes or unmeasured predictive variables should be addressed through data collection, rather than by constraining the model. We decompose cost-based metrics of discrimination into bias, variance, and noise, and propose actions aimed at estimating and reducing each term. Finally, we perform case-studies on prediction of income, mortality, and review ratings, confirming the value of this analysis. We find that data collection is often a means to reduce discrimination without sacrificing accuracy.

Learning Weighted Representations for Generalization Across Designs

Predictive models that generalize well under distributional shift are often desirable and sometimes crucial to building robust and reliable machine learning applications. We focus on distributional shift that arises in causal inference from observational data and in unsupervised domain adaptation. We pose both of these problems as prediction under a shift in design. Popular methods for overcoming distributional shift make unrealistic assumptions such as having a well-specified model or knowing the policy that gave rise to the observed data. Other methods are hindered by their need for a pre-specified metric for comparing observations, or by poor asymptotic properties. We devise a bound on the generalization error under design shift, incorporating both representation learning and sample re-weighting. Based on the bound, we propose an algorithmic framework that does not require any of the above assumptions and which is asymptotically consistent. We empirically study the new framework using two synthetic datasets, and demonstrate its effectiveness compared to previous methods.

Estimating individual treatment effect: generalization bounds and algorithms

There is intense interest in applying machine learning to problems of causal inference in fields such as healthcare, economics and education. In particular, individual-level causal inference has important applications such as precision medicine. We give a new theoretical analysis and family of algorithms for predicting individual treatment effect (ITE) from observational data, under the assumption known as strong ignorability. The algorithms learn a "balanced" representation such that the induced treated and control distributions look similar. We give a novel, simple and intuitive generalization-error bound showing that the expected ITE estimation error of a representation is bounded by a sum of the standard generalization-error of that representation and the distance between the treated and control distributions induced by the representation. We use Integral Probability Metrics to measure distances between distributions, deriving explicit bounds for the Wasserstein and Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) distances. Experiments on real and simulated data show the new algorithms match or outperform the state-of-the-art.