Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recourse

As predictive models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes decision making (e.g., loan approvals), there has been growing interest in post hoc techniques which provide recourse to affected individuals. These techniques generate recourses under the assumption that the underlying predictive model does not change. However, in practice, models are often regularly updated for a variety of reasons (e.g., dataset shifts), thereby rendering previously prescribed recourses ineffective. To address this problem, we propose a novel framework, RObust Algorithmic Recourse (ROAR), that leverages adversarial training for finding recourses that are robust to model shifts. To the best of our knowledge, this work proposes the first solution to this critical problem. We also carry out detailed theoretical analysis which underscores the importance of constructing recourses that are robust to model shifts: 1) we derive a lower bound on the probability of invalidation of recourses generated by existing approaches which are not robust to model shifts. 2) we prove that the additional cost incurred due to the robust recourses output by our framework is bounded. Experimental evaluation on multiple synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed framework and supports our theoretical findings.

Confounding Feature Acquisition for Causal Effect Estimation

Reliable treatment effect estimation from observational data depends on the availability of all confounding information. While much work has targeted treatment effect estimation from observational data, there is relatively little work in the setting of confounding variable missingness, where collecting more information on confounders is often costly or time-consuming. In this work, we frame this challenge as a problem of feature acquisition of confounding features for causal inference. Our goal is to prioritize acquiring values for a fixed and known subset of missing confounders in samples that lead to efficient average treatment effect estimation. We propose two acquisition strategies based on i) covariate balancing (CB), and ii) reducing statistical estimation error on observed factual outcome error (OE). We compare CB and OE on five common causal effect estimation methods, and demonstrate improved sample efficiency of OE over baseline methods under various settings. We also provide visualizations for further analysis on the difference between our proposed methods.

Ethical Machine Learning in Health Care

The use of machine learning (ML) in health care raises numerous ethical concerns, especially as models can amplify existing health inequities. Here, we outline ethical considerations for equitable ML in the advancement of health care. Specifically, we frame ethics of ML in health care through the lens of social justice. We describe ongoing efforts and outline challenges in a proposed pipeline of ethical ML in health, ranging from problem selection to post-deployment considerations. We close by summarizing recommendations to address these challenges.

Probabilistic Machine Learning for Healthcare

Machine learning can be used to make sense of healthcare data. Probabilistic machine learning models help provide a complete picture of observed data in healthcare. In this review, we examine how probabilistic machine learning can advance healthcare. We consider challenges in the predictive model building pipeline where probabilistic models can be beneficial including calibration and missing data. Beyond predictive models, we also investigate the utility of probabilistic machine learning models in phenotyping, in generative models for clinical use cases, and in reinforcement learning.

Sequential Explanations with Mental Model-Based Policies

The act of explaining across two parties is a feedback loop, where one provides information on what needs to be explained and the other provides an explanation relevant to this information. We apply a reinforcement learning framework which emulates this format by providing explanations based on the explainee's current mental model. We conduct novel online human experiments where explanations generated by various explanation methods are selected and presented to participants, using policies which observe participants' mental models, in order to optimize an interpretability proxy. Our results suggest that mental model-based policies (anchored in our proposed state representation) may increase interpretability over multiple sequential explanations, when compared to a random selection baseline. This work provides insight into how to select explanations which increase relevant information for users, and into conducting human-grounded experimentation to understand interpretability.

Counterfactually Guided Policy Transfer in Clinical Settings

Reliably transferring treatment policies learned in one clinical environment to another is currently limited by challenges related to domain shift. In this paper we address off-policy learning for sequential decision making under domain shift -- a scenario susceptible to catastrophic overconfidence -- which is highly relevant to a high-stakes clinical settings where the target domain may also be data-scarce. We propose a two-fold counterfactual regularization procedure to improve off-policy learning, addressing domain shift and data scarcity. First, we utilize an informative prior derived from a data-rich source environment to indirectly improve drawing counterfactual example observations. Then, these samples are then used to learn a policy for the target domain, regularized by the source policy through KL-divergence. In simulated sepsis treatment, our counterfactual policy transfer procedure significantly improves the performance of a learned treatment policy.

What went wrong and when? Instance-wise Feature Importance for Time-series Models

Multivariate time series models are poised to be used for decision support in high-stakes applications, such as healthcare. In these contexts, it is important to know which features at which times most influenced a prediction. We demonstrate a general approach for assigning importance to observations in multivariate time series, based on their counterfactual influence on future predictions. Specifically, we define the importance of an observation as the change in the predictive distribution, had the observation not been seen. We integrate over plausible counterfactuals by sampling from the corresponding conditional distributions of generative time series models. We compare our importance metric to gradient-based explanations, attention mechanisms, and other baselines in simulated and clinical ICU data, and show that our approach generates the most precise explanations. Our method is inexpensive, model agnostic, and can be used with arbitrarily complex time series models and predictors.

Towards Realistic Individual Recourse and Actionable Explanations in Black-Box Decision Making Systems

Machine learning based decision making systems are increasingly affecting humans. An individual can suffer an undesirable outcome under such decision making systems (e.g. denied credit) irrespective of whether the decision is fair or accurate. Individual recourse pertains to the problem of providing an actionable set of changes a person can undertake in order to improve their outcome. We propose a recourse algorithm that models the underlying data distribution or manifold. We then provide a mechanism to generate the smallest set of changes that will improve an individual's outcome. This mechanism can be easily used to provide recourse for any differentiable machine learning based decision making system. Further, the resulting algorithm is shown to be applicable to both supervised classification and causal decision making systems. Our work attempts to fill gaps in existing fairness literature that have primarily focused on discovering and/or algorithmically enforcing fairness constraints on decision making systems. This work also provides an alternative approach to generating counterfactual explanations.

What Clinicians Want: Contextualizing Explainable Machine Learning for Clinical End Use

Translating machine learning (ML) models effectively to clinical practice requires establishing clinicians' trust. Explainability, or the ability of an ML model to justify its outcomes and assist clinicians in rationalizing the model prediction, has been generally understood to be critical to establishing trust. However, the field suffers from the lack of concrete definitions for usable explanations in different settings. To identify specific aspects of explainability that may catalyze building trust in ML models, we surveyed clinicians from two distinct acute care specialties (Intenstive Care Unit and Emergency Department). We use their feedback to characterize when explainability helps to improve clinicians' trust in ML models. We further identify the classes of explanations that clinicians identified as most relevant and crucial for effective translation to clinical practice. Finally, we discern concrete metrics for rigorous evaluation of clinical explainability methods. By integrating perceptions of explainability between clinicians and ML researchers we hope to facilitate the endorsement and broader adoption and sustained use of ML systems in healthcare.