Counterfactual-Augmented Importance Sampling for Semi-Offline Policy Evaluation

In applying reinforcement learning (RL) to high-stakes domains, quantitative and qualitative evaluation using observational data can help practitioners understand the generalization performance of new policies. However, this type of off-policy evaluation (OPE) is inherently limited since offline data may not reflect the distribution shifts resulting from the application of new policies. On the other hand, online evaluation by collecting rollouts according to the new policy is often infeasible, as deploying new policies in these domains can be unsafe. In this work, we propose a semi-offline evaluation framework as an intermediate step between offline and online evaluation, where human users provide annotations of unobserved counterfactual trajectories. While tempting to simply augment existing data with such annotations, we show that this naive approach can lead to biased results. Instead, we design a new family of OPE estimators based on importance sampling (IS) and a novel weighting scheme that incorporate counterfactual annotations without introducing additional bias. We analyze the theoretical properties of our approach, showing its potential to reduce both bias and variance compared to standard IS estimators. Our analyses reveal important practical considerations for handling biased, noisy, or missing annotations. In a series of proof-of-concept experiments involving bandits and a healthcare-inspired simulator, we demonstrate that our approach outperforms purely offline IS estimators and is robust to imperfect annotations. Our framework, combined with principled human-centered design of annotation solicitation, can enable the application of RL in high-stakes domains.

Updating Clinical Risk Stratification Models Using Rank-Based Compatibility: Approaches for Evaluating and Optimizing Clinician-Model Team Performance

As data shift or new data become available, updating clinical machine learning models may be necessary to maintain or improve performance over time. However, updating a model can introduce compatibility issues when the behavior of the updated model does not align with user expectations, resulting in poor user-model team performance. Existing compatibility measures depend on model decision thresholds, limiting their applicability in settings where models are used to generate rankings based on estimated risk. To address this limitation, we propose a novel rank-based compatibility measure, $C^R$, and a new loss function that aims to optimize discriminative performance while encouraging good compatibility. Applied to a case study in mortality risk stratification leveraging data from MIMIC, our approach yields more compatible models while maintaining discriminative performance compared to existing model selection techniques, with an increase in $C^R$ of $0.019$ ($95\%$ confidence interval: $0.005$, $0.035$). This work provides new tools to analyze and update risk stratification models used in clinical care.

Leveraging Factored Action Spaces for Off-Policy Evaluation

Off-policy evaluation (OPE) aims to estimate the benefit of following a counterfactual sequence of actions, given data collected from executed sequences. However, existing OPE estimators often exhibit high bias and high variance in problems involving large, combinatorial action spaces. We investigate how to mitigate this issue using factored action spaces i.e. expressing each action as a combination of independent sub-actions from smaller action spaces. This approach facilitates a finer-grained analysis of how actions differ in their effects. In this work, we propose a new family of "decomposed" importance sampling (IS) estimators based on factored action spaces. Given certain assumptions on the underlying problem structure, we prove that the decomposed IS estimators have less variance than their original non-decomposed versions, while preserving the property of zero bias. Through simulations, we empirically verify our theoretical results, probing the validity of various assumptions. Provided with a technique that can derive the action space factorisation for a given problem, our work shows that OPE can be improved "for free" by utilising this inherent problem structure.

Leveraging an Alignment Set in Tackling Instance-Dependent Label Noise

Noisy training labels can hurt model performance. Most approaches that aim to address label noise assume label noise is independent from the input features. In practice, however, label noise is often feature or \textit{instance-dependent}, and therefore biased (i.e., some instances are more likely to be mislabeled than others). E.g., in clinical care, female patients are more likely to be under-diagnosed for cardiovascular disease compared to male patients. Approaches that ignore this dependence can produce models with poor discriminative performance, and in many healthcare settings, can exacerbate issues around health disparities. In light of these limitations, we propose a two-stage approach to learn in the presence instance-dependent label noise. Our approach utilizes \textit{\anchor points}, a small subset of data for which we know the observed and ground truth labels. On several tasks, our approach leads to consistent improvements over the state-of-the-art in discriminative performance (AUROC) while mitigating bias (area under the equalized odds curve, AUEOC). For example, when predicting acute respiratory failure onset on the MIMIC-III dataset, our approach achieves a harmonic mean (AUROC and AUEOC) of 0.84 (SD [standard deviation] 0.01) while that of the next best baseline is 0.81 (SD 0.01). Overall, our approach improves accuracy while mitigating potential bias compared to existing approaches in the presence of instance-dependent label noise.

Leveraging Factored Action Spaces for Efficient Offline Reinforcement Learning in Healthcare

Many reinforcement learning (RL) applications have combinatorial action spaces, where each action is a composition of sub-actions. A standard RL approach ignores this inherent factorization structure, resulting in a potential failure to make meaningful inferences about rarely observed sub-action combinations; this is particularly problematic for offline settings, where data may be limited. In this work, we propose a form of linear Q-function decomposition induced by factored action spaces. We study the theoretical properties of our approach, identifying scenarios where it is guaranteed to lead to zero bias when used to approximate the Q-function. Outside the regimes with theoretical guarantees, we show that our approach can still be useful because it leads to better sample efficiency without necessarily sacrificing policy optimality, allowing us to achieve a better bias-variance trade-off. Across several offline RL problems using simulators and real-world datasets motivated by healthcare, we demonstrate that incorporating factored action spaces into value-based RL can result in better-performing policies. Our approach can help an agent make more accurate inferences within underexplored regions of the state-action space when applying RL to observational datasets.

Forecasting with Sparse but Informative Variables: A Case Study in Predicting Blood Glucose

In time-series forecasting, future target values may be affected by both intrinsic and extrinsic effects. When forecasting blood glucose, for example, intrinsic effects can be inferred from the history of the target signal alone (\textit{i.e.} blood glucose), but accurately modeling the impact of extrinsic effects requires auxiliary signals, like the amount of carbohydrates ingested. Standard forecasting techniques often assume that extrinsic and intrinsic effects vary at similar rates. However, when auxiliary signals are generated at a much lower frequency than the target variable (e.g., blood glucose measurements are made every 5 minutes, while meals occur once every few hours), even well-known extrinsic effects (e.g., carbohydrates increase blood glucose) may prove difficult to learn. To better utilize these \textit{sparse but informative variables} (SIVs), we introduce a novel encoder/decoder forecasting approach that accurately learns the per-timepoint effect of the SIV, by (i) isolating it from intrinsic effects and (ii) restricting its learned effect based on domain knowledge. On a simulated dataset pertaining to the task of blood glucose forecasting, when the SIV is accurately recorded our approach outperforms baseline approaches in terms of rMSE (13.07 [95% CI: 11.77,14.16] vs. 14.14 [12.69,15.27]). In the presence of a corrupted SIV, the proposed approach can still result in lower error compared to the baseline but the advantage is reduced as noise increases. By isolating their effects and incorporating domain knowledge, our approach makes it possible to better utilize SIVs in forecasting.

Disparate Censorship & Undertesting: A Source of Label Bias in Clinical Machine Learning

As machine learning (ML) models gain traction in clinical applications, understanding the impact of clinician and societal biases on ML models is increasingly important. While biases can arise in the labels used for model training, the many sources from which these biases arise are not yet well-studied. In this paper, we highlight disparate censorship (i.e., differences in testing rates across patient groups) as a source of label bias that clinical ML models may amplify, potentially causing harm. Many patient risk-stratification models are trained using the results of clinician-ordered diagnostic and laboratory tests of labels. Patients without test results are often assigned a negative label, which assumes that untested patients do not experience the outcome. Since orders are affected by clinical and resource considerations, testing may not be uniform in patient populations, giving rise to disparate censorship. Disparate censorship in patients of equivalent risk leads to undertesting in certain groups, and in turn, more biased labels for such groups. Using such biased labels in standard ML pipelines could contribute to gaps in model performance across patient groups. Here, we theoretically and empirically characterize conditions in which disparate censorship or undertesting affect model performance across subgroups. Our findings call attention to disparate censorship as a source of label bias in clinical ML models.

Combining chest X-rays and EHR data using machine learning to diagnose acute respiratory failure

When patients develop acute respiratory failure, accurately identifying the underlying etiology is essential for determining the best treatment, but it can be challenging to differentiate between common diagnoses in clinical practice. Machine learning models could improve medical diagnosis by augmenting clinical decision making and play a role in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with acute respiratory failure. While machine learning models have been developed to identify common findings on chest radiographs (e.g. pneumonia), augmenting these approaches by also analyzing clinically relevant data from the electronic health record (EHR) could aid in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. Machine learning models were trained to predict the cause of acute respiratory failure (pneumonia, heart failure, and/or COPD) using chest radiographs and EHR data from patients within an internal cohort using diagnoses based on physician chart review. Models were also tested on patients in an external cohort using discharge diagnosis codes. A model combining chest radiographs and EHR data outperformed models based on each modality alone for pneumonia and COPD. For pneumonia, the combined model AUROC was 0.79 (0.78-0.79), image model AUROC was 0.73 (0.72-0.75), and EHR model AUROC was 0.73 (0.70-0.76); for COPD, combined: 0.89 (0.83-0.91), image: 0.85 (0.77-0.89), and EHR: 0.80 (0.76-0.84); for heart failure, combined: 0.80 (0.77-0.84), image: 0.77 (0.71-0.81), and EHR: 0.80 (0.75-0.82). In the external cohort, performance was consistent for heart failure and COPD, but declined slightly for pneumonia. Overall, machine learning models combing chest radiographs and EHR data can accurately differentiate between common causes of acute respiratory failure. Further work is needed to determine whether these models could aid clinicians in the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure in clinical settings.

Mind the Performance Gap: Examining Dataset Shift During Prospective Validation

Once integrated into clinical care, patient risk stratification models may perform worse compared to their retrospective performance. To date, it is widely accepted that performance will degrade over time due to changes in care processes and patient populations. However, the extent to which this occurs is poorly understood, in part because few researchers report prospective validation performance. In this study, we compare the 2020-2021 ('20-'21) prospective performance of a patient risk stratification model for predicting healthcare-associated infections to a 2019-2020 ('19-'20) retrospective validation of the same model. We define the difference in retrospective and prospective performance as the performance gap. We estimate how i) "temporal shift", i.e., changes in clinical workflows and patient populations, and ii) "infrastructure shift", i.e., changes in access, extraction and transformation of data, both contribute to the performance gap. Applied prospectively to 26,864 hospital encounters during a twelve-month period from July 2020 to June 2021, the model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.767 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.737, 0.801) and a Brier score of 0.189 (95% CI: 0.186, 0.191). Prospective performance decreased slightly compared to '19-'20 retrospective performance, in which the model achieved an AUROC of 0.778 (95% CI: 0.744, 0.815) and a Brier score of 0.163 (95% CI: 0.161, 0.165). The resulting performance gap was primarily due to infrastructure shift and not temporal shift. So long as we continue to develop and validate models using data stored in large research data warehouses, we must consider differences in how and when data are accessed, measure how these differences may affect prospective performance, and work to mitigate those differences.

Model Selection for Offline Reinforcement Learning: Practical Considerations for Healthcare Settings

Reinforcement learning (RL) can be used to learn treatment policies and aid decision making in healthcare. However, given the need for generalization over complex state/action spaces, the incorporation of function approximators (e.g., deep neural networks) requires model selection to reduce overfitting and improve policy performance at deployment. Yet a standard validation pipeline for model selection requires running a learned policy in the actual environment, which is often infeasible in a healthcare setting. In this work, we investigate a model selection pipeline for offline RL that relies on off-policy evaluation (OPE) as a proxy for validation performance. We present an in-depth analysis of popular OPE methods, highlighting the additional hyperparameters and computational requirements (fitting/inference of auxiliary models) when used to rank a set of candidate policies. We compare the utility of different OPE methods as part of the model selection pipeline in the context of learning to treat patients with sepsis. Among all the OPE methods we considered, fitted Q evaluation (FQE) consistently leads to the best validation ranking, but at a high computational cost. To balance this trade-off between accuracy of ranking and computational efficiency, we propose a simple two-stage approach to accelerate model selection by avoiding potentially unnecessary computation. Our work serves as a practical guide for offline RL model selection and can help RL practitioners select policies using real-world datasets. To facilitate reproducibility and future extensions, the code accompanying this paper is available online at https://github.com/MLD3/OfflineRL_ModelSelection.