Data is the foundation of most science. Unfortunately, sharing data can be obstructed by the risk of violating data privacy, impeding research in fields like healthcare. Synthetic data is a potential solution. It aims to generate data that has the same distribution as the original data, but that does not disclose information about individuals. Membership Inference Attacks (MIAs) are a common privacy attack, in which the attacker attempts to determine whether a particular real sample was used for training of the model. Previous works that propose MIAs against generative models either display low performance -- giving the false impression that data is highly private -- or need to assume access to internal generative model parameters -- a relatively low-risk scenario, as the data publisher often only releases synthetic data, not the model. In this work we argue for a realistic MIA setting that assumes the attacker has some knowledge of the underlying data distribution. We propose DOMIAS, a density-based MIA model that aims to infer membership by targeting local overfitting of the generative model. Experimentally we show that DOMIAS is significantly more successful at MIA than previous work, especially at attacking uncommon samples. The latter is disconcerting since these samples may correspond to underrepresented groups. We also demonstrate how DOMIAS' MIA performance score provides an interpretable metric for privacy, giving data publishers a new tool for achieving the desired privacy-utility trade-off in their synthetic data.
Conformal prediction is a powerful distribution-free tool for uncertainty quantification, establishing valid prediction intervals with finite-sample guarantees. To produce valid intervals which are also adaptive to the difficulty of each instance, a common approach is to compute normalized nonconformity scores on a separate calibration set. Self-supervised learning has been effectively utilized in many domains to learn general representations for downstream predictors. However, the use of self-supervision beyond model pretraining and representation learning has been largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate how self-supervised pretext tasks can improve the quality of the conformal regressors, specifically by improving the adaptability of conformal intervals. We train an auxiliary model with a self-supervised pretext task on top of an existing predictive model and use the self-supervised error as an additional feature to estimate nonconformity scores. We empirically demonstrate the benefit of the additional information using both synthetic and real data on the efficiency (width), deficit, and excess of conformal prediction intervals.
We study the problem of inferring heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) from time-to-event data in the presence of competing events. Albeit its great practical relevance, this problem has received little attention compared to its counterparts studying HTE estimation without time-to-event data or competing events. We take an outcome modeling approach to estimating HTEs, and consider how and when existing prediction models for time-to-event data can be used as plug-in estimators for potential outcomes. We then investigate whether competing events present new challenges for HTE estimation -- in addition to the standard confounding problem --, and find that, because there are multiple definitions of causal effects in this setting -- namely total, direct and separable effects --, competing events can act as an additional source of covariate shift depending on the desired treatment effect interpretation and associated estimand. We theoretically analyze and empirically illustrate when and how these challenges play a role when using generic machine learning prediction models for the estimation of HTEs.
Personalized treatment effect estimates are often of interest in high-stakes applications -- thus, before deploying a model estimating such effects in practice, one needs to be sure that the best candidate from the ever-growing machine learning toolbox for this task was chosen. Unfortunately, due to the absence of counterfactual information in practice, it is usually not possible to rely on standard validation metrics for doing so, leading to a well-known model selection dilemma in the treatment effect estimation literature. While some solutions have recently been investigated, systematic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria is still lacking. In this paper, instead of attempting to declare a global `winner', we therefore empirically investigate success- and failure modes of different selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the DGP used for testing, and provide interesting insights into the relative (dis)advantages of different criteria alongside desiderata for the design of further illuminating empirical studies in this context.
TemporAI is an open source Python software library for machine learning (ML) tasks involving data with a time component, focused on medicine and healthcare use cases. It supports data in time series, static, and eventmodalities and provides an interface for prediction, causal inference, and time-to-event analysis, as well as common preprocessing utilities and model interpretability methods. The library aims to facilitate innovation in the medical ML space by offering a standardized temporal setting toolkit for model development, prototyping and benchmarking, bridging the gaps in the ML research, healthcare professional, medical/pharmacological industry, and data science communities. TemporAI is available on GitHub (https://github.com/vanderschaarlab/temporai) and we welcome community engagement through use, feedback, and code contributions.
Ensembles of machine learning models have been well established as a powerful method of improving performance over a single model. Traditionally, ensembling algorithms train their base learners independently or sequentially with the goal of optimizing their joint performance. In the case of deep ensembles of neural networks, we are provided with the opportunity to directly optimize the true objective: the joint performance of the ensemble as a whole. Surprisingly, however, directly minimizing the loss of the ensemble appears to rarely be applied in practice. Instead, most previous research trains individual models independently with ensembling performed post hoc. In this work, we show that this is for good reason - joint optimization of ensemble loss results in degenerate behavior. We approach this problem by decomposing the ensemble objective into the strength of the base learners and the diversity between them. We discover that joint optimization results in a phenomenon in which base learners collude to artificially inflate their apparent diversity. This pseudo-diversity fails to generalize beyond the training data, causing a larger generalization gap. We proceed to demonstrate the practical implications of this effect finding that, in some cases, a balance between independent training and joint optimization can improve performance over the former while avoiding the degeneracies of the latter.
Synthcity is an open-source software package for innovative use cases of synthetic data in ML fairness, privacy and augmentation across diverse tabular data modalities, including static data, regular and irregular time series, data with censoring, multi-source data, composite data, and more. Synthcity provides the practitioners with a single access point to cutting edge research and tools in synthetic data. It also offers the community a playground for rapid experimentation and prototyping, a one-stop-shop for SOTA benchmarks, and an opportunity for extending research impact. The library can be accessed on GitHub (https://github.com/vanderschaarlab/synthcity) and pip (https://pypi.org/project/synthcity/). We warmly invite the community to join the development effort by providing feedback, reporting bugs, and contributing code.
Causal deep learning (CDL) is a new and important research area in the larger field of machine learning. With CDL, researchers aim to structure and encode causal knowledge in the extremely flexible representation space of deep learning models. Doing so will lead to more informed, robust, and general predictions and inference -- which is important! However, CDL is still in its infancy. For example, it is not clear how we ought to compare different methods as they are so different in their output, the way they encode causal knowledge, or even how they represent this knowledge. This is a living paper that categorises methods in causal deep learning beyond Pearl's ladder of causation. We refine the rungs in Pearl's ladder, while also adding a separate dimension that categorises the parametric assumptions of both input and representation, arriving at the map of causal deep learning. Our map covers machine learning disciplines such as supervised learning, reinforcement learning, generative modelling and beyond. Our paradigm is a tool which helps researchers to: find benchmarks, compare methods, and most importantly: identify research gaps. With this work we aim to structure the avalanche of papers being published on causal deep learning. While papers on the topic are being published daily, our map remains fixed. We open-source our map for others to use as they see fit: perhaps to offer guidance in a related works section, or to better highlight the contribution of their paper.
It is important to guarantee that machine learning algorithms deployed in the real world do not result in unfairness or unintended social consequences. Fair ML has largely focused on the protection of single attributes in the simpler setting where both attributes and target outcomes are binary. However, the practical application in many a real-world problem entails the simultaneous protection of multiple sensitive attributes, which are often not simply binary, but continuous or categorical. To address this more challenging task, we introduce FairCOCCO, a fairness measure built on cross-covariance operators on reproducing kernel Hilbert Spaces. This leads to two practical tools: first, the FairCOCCO Score, a normalised metric that can quantify fairness in settings with single or multiple sensitive attributes of arbitrary type; and second, a subsequent regularisation term that can be incorporated into arbitrary learning objectives to obtain fair predictors. These contributions address crucial gaps in the algorithmic fairness literature, and we empirically demonstrate consistent improvements against state-of-the-art techniques in balancing predictive power and fairness on real-world datasets.
While there have been a number of remarkable breakthroughs in machine learning (ML), much of the focus has been placed on model development. However, to truly realize the potential of machine learning in real-world settings, additional aspects must be considered across the ML pipeline. Data-centric AI is emerging as a unifying paradigm that could enable such reliable end-to-end pipelines. However, this remains a nascent area with no standardized framework to guide practitioners to the necessary data-centric considerations or to communicate the design of data-centric driven ML systems. To address this gap, we propose DC-Check, an actionable checklist-style framework to elicit data-centric considerations at different stages of the ML pipeline: Data, Training, Testing, and Deployment. This data-centric lens on development aims to promote thoughtfulness and transparency prior to system development. Additionally, we highlight specific data-centric AI challenges and research opportunities. DC-Check is aimed at both practitioners and researchers to guide day-to-day development. As such, to easily engage with and use DC-Check and associated resources, we provide a DC-Check companion website (https://www.vanderschaar-lab.com/dc-check/). The website will also serve as an updated resource as methods and tooling evolve over time.