A major challenge in estimating treatment effects in observational studies is the reliance on untestable conditions such as the assumption of no unmeasured confounding. In this work, we propose an algorithm that can falsify the assumption of no unmeasured confounding in a setting with observational data from multiple heterogeneous sources, which we refer to as environments. Our proposed falsification strategy leverages a key observation that unmeasured confounding can cause observed causal mechanisms to appear dependent. Building on this observation, we develop a novel two-stage procedure that detects these dependencies with high statistical power while controlling false positives. The algorithm does not require access to randomized data and, in contrast to other falsification approaches, functions even under transportability violations when the environment has a direct effect on the outcome of interest. To showcase the practical relevance of our approach, we show that our method is able to efficiently detect confounding on both simulated and semi-synthetic data.

A common assumption in causal inference from observational data is that there is no hidden confounding. Yet it is, in general, impossible to verify the presence of hidden confounding factors from a single dataset. Under the assumption of independent causal mechanisms underlying the data-generating process, we demonstrate a way to detect unobserved confounders when having multiple observational datasets coming from different environments. We present a theory for testable conditional independencies that are only absent when there is hidden confounding and examine cases where we violate its assumptions: degenerate & dependent mechanisms, and faithfulness violations. Additionally, we propose a procedure to test these independencies and study its empirical finite-sample behavior using simulation studies and semi-synthetic data based on a real-world dataset. In most cases, the proposed procedure correctly predicts the presence of hidden confounding, particularly when the confounding bias is large.

Abstract Arguably, a desirable feature of a learner is that its performance gets better with an increasing amount of training data, at least in expectation. This issue has received renewed attention in recent years and some curious and surprising findings have been reported on. In essence, these results show that more data does actually not necessarily lead to improved performance—worse even, performance can deteriorate. Clustering, however, has not been subjected to such kind of study up to now. This paper shows that k-means clustering, a ubiquitous technique in machine learning and data mining, suffers from the same lack of so-called monotonicity and can display deterioration in expected performance with increasing training set sizes. Our main, theoretical contributions prove that 1-means clustering is monotonic, while 2-means is not even weakly monotonic, i.e., the occurrence of nonmonotonic behavior persists indefinitely, beyond any training sample size. For larger k, the question remains open.

Active learning algorithms propose what data should be labeled given a pool of unlabeled data. Instead of selecting randomly what data to annotate, active learning strategies aim to select data so as to get a good predictive model with as little labeled samples as possible. Single-shot batch active learners select all samples to be labeled in a single step, before any labels are observed. We study single-shot active learners that minimize generalization bounds to select a representative sample, such as the maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) active learner. We prove that a related bound, the discrepancy, provides a tighter worst-case bound. We study these bounds probabilistically, which inspires us to introduce a novel bound, the nuclear discrepancy (ND). The ND bound is tighter for the expected loss under optimistic probabilistic assumptions. Our experiments show that the MMD active learner performs better than the discrepancy in terms of the mean squared error, indicating that tighter worst case bounds do not imply better active learning performance. The proposed active learner improves significantly upon the MMD and discrepancy in the realizable setting and a similar trend is observed in the agnostic setting, showing the benefits of a probabilistic approach to active learning. Our study highlights that assumptions underlying generalization bounds can be equally important as bound-tightness, when it comes to active learning performance. Code for reproducing our experimental results can be found at https://github.com/tomviering/NuclearDiscrepancy .

Consider a classification problem where we have both labeled and unlabeled data available. We show that for linear classifiers defined by convex margin-based surrogate losses that are decreasing, it is impossible to construct \emph{any} semi-supervised approach that is able to guarantee an improvement over the supervised classifier measured by this surrogate loss on the labeled and unlabeled data. For convex margin-based loss functions that also increase, we demonstrate safe improvements \emph{are} possible.

For semi-supervised techniques to be applied safely in practice we at least want methods to outperform their supervised counterparts. We study this question for classification using the well-known quadratic surrogate loss function. Unlike other approaches to semi-supervised learning, the procedure proposed in this work does not rely on assumptions that are not intrinsic to the classifier at hand. Using a projection of the supervised estimate onto a set of constraints imposed by the unlabeled data, we find we can safely improve over the supervised solution in terms of this quadratic loss. More specifically, we prove that, measured on the labeled and unlabeled training data, this semi-supervised procedure never gives a lower quadratic loss than the supervised alternative. To our knowledge this is the first approach that offers such strong, albeit conservative, guarantees for improvement over the supervised solution. The characteristics of our approach are explicated using benchmark datasets to further understand the similarities and differences between the quadratic loss criterion used in the theoretical results and the classification accuracy typically considered in practice.

The goal of semi-supervised learning is to improve supervised classifiers by using additional unlabeled training examples. In this work we study a simple self-learning approach to semi-supervised learning applied to the least squares classifier. We show that a soft-label and a hard-label variant of self-learning can be derived by applying block coordinate descent to two related but slightly different objective functions. The resulting soft-label approach is related to an idea about dealing with missing data that dates back to the 1930s. We show that the soft-label variant typically outperforms the hard-label variant on benchmark datasets and partially explain this behaviour by studying the relative difficulty of finding good local minima for the corresponding objective functions.

Domain adaptation is the supervised learning setting in which the training and test data are sampled from different distributions: training data is sampled from a source domain, whilst test data is sampled from a target domain. This paper proposes and studies an approach, called feature-level domain adaptation (FLDA), that models the dependence between the two domains by means of a feature-level transfer model that is trained to describe the transfer from source to target domain. Subsequently, we train a domain-adapted classifier by minimizing the expected loss under the resulting transfer model. For linear classifiers and a large family of loss functions and transfer models, this expected loss can be computed or approximated analytically, and minimized efficiently. Our empirical evaluation of FLDA focuses on problems comprising binary and count data in which the transfer can be naturally modeled via a dropout distribution, which allows the classifier to adapt to differences in the marginal probability of features in the source and the target domain. Our experiments on several real- world problems show that FLDA performs on par with state- of- the-art domain-adaptation techniques.

Semi-supervised learning is an important and active topic of research in pattern recognition. For classification using linear discriminant analysis specifically, several semi-supervised variants have been proposed. Using any one of these methods is not guaranteed to outperform the supervised classifier which does not take the additional unlabeled data into account. In this work we compare traditional Expectation Maximization type approaches for semi-supervised linear discriminant analysis with approaches based on intrinsic constraints and propose a new principled approach for semi-supervised linear discriminant analysis, using so-called implicit constraints. We explore the relationships between these methods and consider the question if and in what sense we can expect improvement in performance over the supervised procedure. The constraint based approaches are more robust to misspecification of the model, and may outperform alternatives that make more assumptions on the data in terms of the log-likelihood of unseen objects.