论文检索

只试验一次：机器学习模型更新的持续因果验证AI 解读

Machine learning (ML) models are increasingly used as decision-support tools in high-risk domains. Evaluating the causal impact of deploying such models can be done with a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that randomizes users to ML vs. control groups and assesses the effect on relevant outcomes. However, ML models are inevitably updated over time, and we often lack evidence for the causal impact of these updates. While the causal effect could be repeatedly validated with…

未观测混杂下的公平性审计AI 解读

Many definitions of fairness or inequity involve unobservable causal quantities that cannot be directly estimated without strong assumptions. For instance, it is particularly difficult to estimate notions of fairness that rely on hard-to-measure concepts such as risk (e.g., quantifying whether patients at the same risk level have equal probability of treatment, regardless of group membership). Such measurements of risk can be accurately obtained when no unobserved…

右删失下利用实验数据检验观察性研究AI 解读

Drawing causal inferences from observational studies (OS) requires unverifiable validity assumptions; however, one can falsify those assumptions by benchmarking the OS with experimental data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). A major limitation of existing procedures is not accounting for censoring, despite the abundance of RCTs and OSes that report right-censored time-to-event outcomes. We consider two cases where censoring time (1) is independent of time-to-event…

组合无偏与可能有偏估计量的风险和收益：因果推断应用AI 解读

Several problems in statistics involve the combination of high-variance unbiased estimators with low-variance estimators that are only unbiased under strong assumptions. A notable example is the estimation of causal effects while combining small experimental datasets with larger observational datasets. There exist a series of recent proposals on how to perform such a combination, even when the bias of the low-variance estimator is unknown. To build intuition for the…

通过条件矩限制证伪观察性研究的内部与外部有效性AI 解读

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT)s are relied upon to assess new treatments, but suffer from limited power to guide personalized treatment decisions. On the other hand, observational (i.e., non-experimental) studies have large and diverse populations, but are prone to various biases (e.g. residual confounding). To safely leverage the strengths of observational studies, we focus on the problem of falsification, whereby RCTs are used to validate causal effect estimates…