A Class of Algorithms for General Instrumental Variable Models

Causal treatment effect estimation is a key problem that arises in a variety of real-world settings, from personalized medicine to governmental policy making. There has been a flurry of recent work in machine learning on estimating causal effects when one has access to an instrument. However, to achieve identifiability, they in general require one-size-fits-all assumptions such as an additive error model for the outcome. An alternative is partial identification, which provides bounds on the causal effect. Little exists in terms of bounding methods that can deal with the most general case, where the treatment itself can be continuous. Moreover, bounding methods generally do not allow for a continuum of assumptions on the shape of the causal effect that can smoothly trade off stronger background knowledge for more informative bounds. In this work, we provide a method for causal effect bounding in continuous distributions, leveraging recent advances in gradient-based methods for the optimization of computationally intractable objective functions. We demonstrate on a set of synthetic and real-world data that our bounds capture the causal effect when additive methods fail, providing a useful range of answers compatible with observation as opposed to relying on unwarranted structural assumptions.

The Sensitivity of Counterfactual Fairness to Unmeasured Confounding

Causal approaches to fairness have seen substantial recent interest, both from the machine learning community and from wider parties interested in ethical prediction algorithms. In no small part, this has been due to the fact that causal models allow one to simultaneously leverage data and expert knowledge to remove discriminatory effects from predictions. However, one of the primary assumptions in causal modeling is that you know the causal graph. This introduces a new opportunity for bias, caused by misspecifying the causal model. One common way for misspecification to occur is via unmeasured confounding: the true causal effect between variables is partially described by unobserved quantities. In this work we design tools to assess the sensitivity of fairness measures to this confounding for the popular class of non-linear additive noise models (ANMs). Specifically, we give a procedure for computing the maximum difference between two counterfactually fair predictors, where one has become biased due to confounding. For the case of bivariate confounding our technique can be swiftly computed via a sequence of closed-form updates. For multivariate confounding we give an algorithm that can be efficiently solved via automatic differentiation. We demonstrate our new sensitivity analysis tools in real-world fairness scenarios to assess the bias arising from confounding.

Convolutional neural networks: a magic bullet for gravitational-wave detection?

In the last few years, machine learning techniques, in particular convolutional neural networks, have been investigated as a method to replace or complement traditional matched filtering techniques that are used to detect the gravitational-wave signature of merging black holes. However, to date, these methods have not yet been successfully applied to the analysis of long stretches of data recorded by the Advanced LIGO and Virgo gravitational-wave observatories. In this work, we critically examine the use of convolutional neural networks as a tool to search for merging black holes. We identify the strengths and limitations of this approach, highlight some common pitfalls in translating between machine learning and gravitational-wave astronomy, and discuss the interdisciplinary challenges. In particular, we explain in detail why convolutional neural networks alone can not be used to claim a statistically significant gravitational-wave detection. However, we demonstrate how they can still be used to rapidly flag the times of potential signals in the data for a more detailed follow-up. Our convolutional neural network architecture as well as the proposed performance metrics are better suited for this task than a standard binary classifications scheme. A detailed evaluation of our approach on Advanced LIGO data demonstrates the potential of such systems as trigger generators. Finally, we sound a note of caution by constructing adversarial examples, which showcase interesting "failure modes" of our model, where inputs with no visible resemblance to real gravitational-wave signals are identified as such by the network with high confidence.

Improving Consequential Decision Making under Imperfect Predictions

Consequential decisions are increasingly informed by sophisticated data-driven predictive models. For accurate predictive models, deterministic threshold rules have been shown to be optimal in terms of utility, even under a variety of fairness constraints. However, consistently learning accurate models requires access to ground truth data. Unfortunately, in practice, some data can only be observed if a certain decision was taken. Thus, collected data always depends on potentially imperfect historical decision policies. As a result, learned deterministic threshold rules are often suboptimal. We address the above question from the perspective of sequential policy learning. We first show that, if decisions are taken by a faulty deterministic policy, the observed outcomes under this policy are insufficient to improve it. We then describe how this undesirable behavior can be avoided using stochastic policies. Finally, we introduce a practical gradient-based algorithm to learn stochastic policies that effectively leverage the outcomes of decisions to improve over time. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world data illustrate our theoretical results and show the efficacy of our proposed algorithm.

Generalization in anti-causal learning

The ability to learn and act in novel situations is still a prerogative of animate intelligence, as current machine learning methods mostly fail when moving beyond the standard i.i.d. setting. What is the reason for this discrepancy? Most machine learning tasks are anti-causal, i.e., we infer causes (labels) from effects (observations). Typically, in supervised learning we build systems that try to directly invert causal mechanisms. Instead, in this paper we argue that strong generalization capabilities crucially hinge on searching and validating meaningful hypotheses, requiring access to a causal model. In such a framework, we want to find a cause that leads to the observed effect. Anti-causal models are used to drive this search, but a causal model is required for validation. We investigate the fundamental differences between causal and anti-causal tasks, discuss implications for topics ranging from adversarial attacks to disentangling factors of variation, and provide extensive evidence from the literature to substantiate our view. We advocate for incorporating causal models in supervised learning to shift the paradigm from inference only, to search and validation.

Learning Independent Causal Mechanisms

Statistical learning relies upon data sampled from a distribution, and we usually do not care what actually generated it in the first place. From the point of view of causal modeling, the structure of each distribution is induced by physical mechanisms that give rise to dependences between observables. Mechanisms, however, can be meaningful autonomous modules of generative models that make sense beyond a particular entailed data distribution, lending themselves to transfer between problems. We develop an algorithm to recover a set of independent (inverse) mechanisms from a set of transformed data points. The approach is unsupervised and based on a set of experts that compete for data generated by the mechanisms, driving specialization. We analyze the proposed method in a series of experiments on image data. Each expert learns to map a subset of the transformed data back to a reference distribution. The learned mechanisms generalize to novel domains. We discuss implications for transfer learning and links to recent trends in generative modeling.

Blind Justice: Fairness with Encrypted Sensitive Attributes

Recent work has explored how to train machine learning models which do not discriminate against any subgroup of the population as determined by sensitive attributes such as gender or race. To avoid disparate treatment, sensitive attributes should not be considered. On the other hand, in order to avoid disparate impact, sensitive attributes must be examined, e.g., in order to learn a fair model, or to check if a given model is fair. We introduce methods from secure multi-party computation which allow us to avoid both. By encrypting sensitive attributes, we show how an outcome-based fair model may be learned, checked, or have its outputs verified and held to account, without users revealing their sensitive attributes.

Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning

Recent work on fairness in machine learning has focused on various statistical discrimination criteria and how they trade off. Most of these criteria are observational: They depend only on the joint distribution of predictor, protected attribute, features, and outcome. While convenient to work with, observational criteria have severe inherent limitations that prevent them from resolving matters of fairness conclusively. Going beyond observational criteria, we frame the problem of discrimination based on protected attributes in the language of causal reasoning. This viewpoint shifts attention from "What is the right fairness criterion?" to "What do we want to assume about the causal data generating process?" Through the lens of causality, we make several contributions. First, we crisply articulate why and when observational criteria fail, thus formalizing what was before a matter of opinion. Second, our approach exposes previously ignored subtleties and why they are fundamental to the problem. Finally, we put forward natural causal non-discrimination criteria and develop algorithms that satisfy them.