跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确联合处理反事实结果、干预效应及历史决策造成的选择偏差,因果推断依据充分,未涉及金融预测或分位数目标。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Luke Guerdan
Amanda Coston
Kenneth Holstein
Zhiwei Steven Wu

结果测量误差下的反事实预测

研究问题
当预测标签是目标结果的有误差代理,且历史干预影响结果与代理并引入选择偏差时,如何构造可靠的反事实预测模型?
方法与思路
作者在已知代理测量误差性质时提出无偏风险最小化方法,联合纠正处理效应与选择偏差,并估计未知的处理依赖误差参数。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要报告联合纠正框架的理论与医疗、就业随机试验数据实验,并称只纠正测量误差或只处理干预影响会留下可靠性限制。
阅读关注点
应核对目标结果、代理标签和反事实风险的定义,误差参数可识别条件,以及历史政策选择偏差的调整与数据需求。
阅读边界
这是 arXiv 预印本,未核实同行评审或期刊接收。摘要未说明无偏性及误差参数估计的具体条件,不能据此确认任意代理标签可纠正。

原文摘要

Across domains such as medicine, employment, and criminal justice, predictive models often target labels that imperfectly reflect the outcomes of interest to experts and policymakers. For example, clinical risk assessments deployed to inform physician decision-making often predict measures of healthcare utilization (e.g., costs, hospitalization) as a proxy for patient medical need. These proxies can be subject to outcome measurement error when they systematically differ from the target outcome they are intended to measure. However, prior modeling efforts to characterize and mitigate outcome measurement error overlook the fact that the decision being informed by a model often serves as a risk-mitigating intervention that impacts the target outcome of interest and its recorded proxy. Thus, in these settings, addressing measurement error requires counterfactual modeling of treatment effects on outcomes. In this work, we study intersectional threats to model reliability introduced by outcome measurement error, treatment effects, and selection bias from historical decision-making policies. We develop an unbiased risk minimization method which, given knowledge of proxy measurement error properties, corrects for the combined effects of these challenges. We also develop a method for estimating treatment-dependent measurement error parameters when these are unknown in advance. We demonstrate the utility of our approach theoretically and via experiments on real-world data from randomized controlled trials conducted in healthcare and employment domains. As importantly, we demonstrate that models correcting for outcome measurement error or treatment effects alone suffer from considerable reliability limitations. Our work underscores the importance of considering intersectional threats to model validity during the design and evaluation of predictive models for decision support.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文