Uncertainty-Aware Lookahead Factor Models for Quantitative Investing

On a periodic basis, publicly traded companies report fundamentals, financial data including revenue, earnings, debt, among others. Quantitative finance research has identified several factors, functions of the reported data that historically correlate with stock market performance. In this paper, we first show through simulation that if we could select stocks via factors calculated on future fundamentals (via oracle), that our portfolios would far outperform standard factor models. Motivated by this insight, we train deep nets to forecast future fundamentals from a trailing 5-year history. We propose lookahead factor models which plug these predicted future fundamentals into traditional factors. Finally, we incorporate uncertainty estimates from both neural heteroscedastic regression and a dropout-based heuristic, improving performance by adjusting our portfolios to avert risk. In retrospective analysis, we leverage an industry-grade portfolio simulator (backtester) to show simultaneous improvement in annualized return and Sharpe ratio. Specifically, the simulated annualized return for the uncertainty-aware model is 17.7% (vs 14.0% for a standard factor model) and the Sharpe ratio is 0.84 (vs 0.52).

Extracting Structured Data from Physician-Patient Conversations By Predicting Noteworthy Utterances

Despite diverse efforts to mine various modalities of medical data, the conversations between physicians and patients at the time of care remain an untapped source of insights. In this paper, we leverage this data to extract structured information that might assist physicians with post-visit documentation in electronic health records, potentially lightening the clerical burden. In this exploratory study, we describe a new dataset consisting of conversation transcripts, post-visit summaries, corresponding supporting evidence (in the transcript), and structured labels. We focus on the tasks of recognizing relevant diagnoses and abnormalities in the review of organ systems (RoS). One methodological challenge is that the conversations are long (around 1500 words), making it difficult for modern deep-learning models to use them as input. To address this challenge, we extract noteworthy utterances---parts of the conversation likely to be cited as evidence supporting some summary sentence. We find that by first filtering for (predicted) noteworthy utterances, we can significantly boost predictive performance for recognizing both diagnoses and RoS abnormalities.

Predicting Mortality Risk in Viral and Unspecified Pneumonia to Assist Clinicians with COVID-19 ECMO Planning

Respiratory complications due to coronavirus disease COVID-19 have claimed tens of thousands of lives in 2020. Many cases of COVID-19 escalate from Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) to viral pneumonia to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to death. Extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-sustaining oxygenation and ventilation therapy that may be used for patients with severe ARDS when mechanical ventilation is insufficient to sustain life. While early planning and surgical cannulation for ECMO can increase survival, clinicians report the lack of a risk score hinders these efforts. In this work, we leverage machine learning techniques to develop the PEER score, used to highlight critically ill patients with viral or unspecified pneumonia at high risk of mortality or decompensation in a subpopulation eligible for ECMO. The PEER score is validated on two large, publicly available critical care databases and predicts mortality at least as well as other existing risk scores. Stratifying our cohorts into low-risk and high-risk groups, we find that the high-risk group also has a higher proportion of decompensation indicators such as vasopressor and ventilator use. Finally, the PEER score is provided in the form of a nomogram for direct calculation of patient risk, and can be used to highlight at-risk patients among critical care patients eligible for ECMO.

Generating SOAP Notes from Doctor-Patient Conversations

Following each patient visit, physicians must draft detailed clinical summaries called SOAP notes. Moreover, with electronic health records, these notes must be digitized. For all the benefits of this documentation the process remains onerous, contributing to increasing physician burnout. In a parallel development, patients increasingly record audio from their visits (with consent), often through dedicated apps. In this paper, we present the first study to evaluate complete pipelines for leveraging these transcripts to train machine learning model to generate these notes. We first describe a unique dataset of patient visit records, consisting of transcripts, paired SOAP notes, and annotations marking noteworthy utterances that support each summary sentence. We decompose the problem into extractive and abstractive subtasks, exploring a spectrum of approaches according to how much they demand from each component. Our best performing method first (i) extracts noteworthy utterances via multi-label classification assigns them to summary section(s); (ii) clusters noteworthy utterances on a per-section basis; and (iii) generates the summary sentences by conditioning on the corresponding cluster and the subsection of the SOAP sentence to be generated. Compared to an end-to-end approach that generates the full SOAP note from the full conversation, our approach improves by 7 ROUGE-1 points. Oracle experiments indicate that fixing our generative capabilities, improvements in extraction alone could provide (up to) a further 9 ROUGE point gain.

Estimating Treatment Effects with Observed Confounders and Mediators

Given a causal graph, the do-calculus can express treatment effects as functionals of the observational joint distribution that can be estimated empirically. Sometimes the do-calculus identifies multiple valid formulae, prompting us to compare the statistical properties of the corresponding estimators. For example, the backdoor formula applies when all confounders are observed and the frontdoor formula applies when an observed mediator transmits the causal effect. In this paper, we investigate the over-identified scenario where both confounders and mediators are observed, rendering both estimators valid. Addressing the linear Gaussian causal model, we derive the finite-sample variance for both estimators and demonstrate that either estimator can dominate the other by an unbounded constant factor depending on the model parameters. Next, we derive an optimal estimator, which leverages all observed variables to strictly outperform the backdoor and frontdoor estimators. We also present a procedure for combining two datasets, with confounders observed in one and mediators in the other. Finally, we evaluate our methods on both simulated data and the IHDP and JTPA datasets.

A Unified View of Label Shift Estimation

Label shift describes the setting where although the label distribution might change between the source and target domains, the class-conditional probabilities (of data given a label) do not. There are two dominant approaches for estimating the label marginal. BBSE, a moment-matching approach based on confusion matrices, is provably consistent and provides interpretable error bounds. However, a maximum likelihood estimation approach, which we call MLLS, dominates empirically. In this paper, we present a unified view of the two methods and the first theoretical characterization of the likelihood-based estimator. Our contributions include (i) conditions for consistency of MLLS, which include calibration of the classifier and a confusion matrix invertibility condition that BBSE also requires; (ii) a unified view of the methods, casting the confusion matrix as roughly equivalent to MLLS for a particular choice of calibration method; and (iii) a decomposition of MLLS's finite-sample error into terms reflecting the impacts of miscalibration and estimation error. Our analysis attributes BBSE's statistical inefficiency to a loss of information due to coarse calibration. We support our findings with experiments on both synthetic data and the MNIST and CIFAR10 image recognition datasets.

Causal Inference With Selectively-Deconfounded Data

Given only data generated by a standard confounding graph with unobserved confounder, the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) is not identifiable. To estimate the ATE, a practitioner must then either (a) collect deconfounded data; (b) run a clinical trial; or (c) elucidate further properties of the causal graph that might render the ATE identifiable. In this paper, we consider the benefit of incorporating a (large) confounded observational dataset alongside a (small) deconfounded observational dataset when estimating the ATE. Our theoretical results show that the inclusion of confounded data can significantly reduce the quantity of deconfounded data required to estimate the ATE to within a desired accuracy level. Moreover, in some cases---say, genetics---we could imagine retrospectively selecting samples to deconfound. We demonstrate that by strategically selecting these examples based upon the (already observed) treatment and outcome, we can reduce our data dependence further. Our theoretical and empirical results establish that the worst-case relative performance of our approach (vs. a natural benchmark) is bounded while our best-case gains are unbounded. Next, we demonstrate the benefits of selective deconfounding using a large real-world dataset related to genetic mutation in cancer. Finally, we introduce an online version of the problem, proposing two adaptive heuristics.

Algorithmic Fairness from a Non-ideal Perspective

Inspired by recent breakthroughs in predictive modeling, practitioners in both industry and government have turned to machine learning with hopes of operationalizing predictions to drive automated decisions. Unfortunately, many social desiderata concerning consequential decisions, such as justice or fairness, have no natural formulation within a purely predictive framework. In efforts to mitigate these problems, researchers have proposed a variety of metrics for quantifying deviations from various statistical parities that we might expect to observe in a fair world and offered a variety of algorithms in attempts to satisfy subsets of these parities or to trade off the degree to which they are satisfied against utility. In this paper, we connect this approach to \emph{fair machine learning} to the literature on ideal and non-ideal methodological approaches in political philosophy. The ideal approach requires positing the principles according to which a just world would operate. In the most straightforward application of ideal theory, one supports a proposed policy by arguing that it closes a discrepancy between the real and the perfectly just world. However, by failing to account for the mechanisms by which our non-ideal world arose, the responsibilities of various decision-makers, and the impacts of proposed policies, naive applications of ideal thinking can lead to misguided interventions. In this paper, we demonstrate a connection between the fair machine learning literature and the ideal approach in political philosophy, and argue that the increasingly apparent shortcomings of proposed fair machine learning algorithms reflect broader troubles faced by the ideal approach. We conclude with a critical discussion of the harms of misguided solutions, a reinterpretation of impossibility results, and directions for future research.

Game Design for Eliciting Distinguishable Behavior

The ability to inferring latent psychological traits from human behavior is key to developing personalized human-interacting machine learning systems. Approaches to infer such traits range from surveys to manually-constructed experiments and games. However, these traditional games are limited because they are typically designed based on heuristics. In this paper, we formulate the task of designing \emph{behavior diagnostic games} that elicit distinguishable behavior as a mutual information maximization problem, which can be solved by optimizing a variational lower bound. Our framework is instantiated by using prospect theory to model varying player traits, and Markov Decision Processes to parameterize the games. We validate our approach empirically, showing that our designed games can successfully distinguish among players with different traits, outperforming manually-designed ones by a large margin.