In many randomized experiments, the treatment effect of the long-term metric (i.e. the primary outcome of interest) is often difficult or infeasible to measure. Such long-term metrics are often slow to react to changes and sufficiently noisy they are challenging to faithfully estimate in short-horizon experiments. A common alternative is to measure several short-term proxy metrics in the hope they closely track the long-term metric -- so they can be used to effectively guide decision-making in the near-term. We introduce a new statistical framework to both define and construct an optimal proxy metric for use in a homogeneous population of randomized experiments. Our procedure first reduces the construction of an optimal proxy metric in a given experiment to a portfolio optimization problem which depends on the true latent treatment effects and noise level of experiment under consideration. We then denoise the observed treatment effects of the long-term metric and a set of proxies in a historical corpus of randomized experiments to extract estimates of the latent treatment effects for use in the optimization problem. One key insight derived from our approach is that the optimal proxy metric for a given experiment is not apriori fixed; rather it should depend on the sample size (or effective noise level) of the randomized experiment for which it is deployed. To instantiate and evaluate our framework, we employ our methodology in a large corpus of randomized experiments from an industrial recommendation system and construct proxy metrics that perform favorably relative to several baselines.

Recently, many researchers have advanced data-driven methods for modeling heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs). Even still, estimation of HTEs is a difficult task–these methods frequently over- or under-estimate the treatment effects, leading to poor calibration of the resulting models. However, while many methods exist for evaluating the calibration of prediction and classification models, formal approaches to assess the calibration of HTE models are limited to the calibration slope. In this paper, we define an analogue of the (L2) expected calibration error for HTEs, and propose a robust estimator. Our approach is motivated by doubly robust treatment effect estimators, making it unbiased, and resilient to confounding, overfitting, and high-dimensionality issues. Furthermore, our method is straightforward to adapt to many structures under which treatment effects can be identified, including randomized trials, observational studies, and survival analysis. We illustrate how to use our proposed metric to evaluate the calibration of learned HTE models through the application to the CRITEO-UPLIFT Trial.

Machine learning (ML) systems often exhibit unexpectedly poor behavior when they are deployed in real-world domains. We identify underspecification in ML pipelines as a key reason for these failures. An ML pipeline is the full procedure followed to train and validate a predictor. Such a pipeline is underspecified when it can return many distinct predictors with equivalently strong test performance. Underspecification is common in modern ML pipelines that primarily validate predictors on held-out data that follow the same distribution as the training data. Predictors returned by underspecified pipelines are often treated as equivalent based on their training domain performance, but we show here that such predictors can behave very differently in deployment domains. This ambiguity can lead to instability and poor model behavior in practice, and is a distinct failure mode from previously identified issues arising from structural mismatch between training and deployment domains. We provide evidence that underspecfication has substantive implications for practical ML pipelines, using examples from computer vision, medical imaging, natural language processing, clinical risk prediction based on electronic health records, and medical genomics. Our results show the need to explicitly account for underspecification in modeling pipelines that are intended for real-world deployment in any domain.

Informally, a 'spurious correlation' is the dependence of a model on some aspect of the input data that an analyst thinks shouldn't matter. In machine learning, these have a know-it-when-you-see-it character; e.g., changing the gender of a sentence's subject changes a sentiment predictor's output. To check for spurious correlations, we can 'stress test' models by perturbing irrelevant parts of input data and seeing if model predictions change. In this paper, we study stress testing using the tools of causal inference. We introduce counterfactual invariance as a formalization of the requirement that changing irrelevant parts of the input shouldn't change model predictions. We connect counterfactual invariance to out-of-domain model performance, and provide practical schemes for learning (approximately) counterfactual invariant predictors (without access to counterfactual examples). It turns out that both the means and implications of counterfactual invariance depend fundamentally on the true underlying causal structure of the data---in particular, whether the label causes the features or the features cause the label. Distinct causal structures require distinct regularization schemes to induce counterfactual invariance. Similarly, counterfactual invariance implies different domain shift guarantees depending on the underlying causal structure. This theory is supported by empirical results on text classification.

Logistic regression remains one of the most widely used tools in applied statistics, machine learning and data science. However, in moderately high-dimensional problems, where the number of features $d$ is a non-negligible fraction of the sample size $n$, the logistic regression maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), and statistical procedures based the large-sample approximation of its distribution, behave poorly. Recently, Sur and Candès (2019) showed that these issues can be corrected by applying a new approximation of the MLE's sampling distribution in this high-dimensional regime. Unfortunately, these corrections are difficult to implement in practice, because they require an estimate of the \emph{signal strength}, which is a function of the underlying parameters $\beta$ of the logistic regression. To address this issue, we propose SLOE, a fast and straightforward approach to estimate the signal strength in logistic regression. The key insight of SLOE is that the Sur and Candès (2019) correction can be reparameterized in terms of the corrupted signal strength, which is only a function of the estimated parameters $\widehat \beta$. We propose an estimator for this quantity, prove that it is consistent in the relevant high-dimensional regime, and show that dimensionality correction using SLOE is accurate in finite samples. Compared to the existing ProbeFrontier heuristic, SLOE is conceptually simpler and orders of magnitude faster, making it suitable for routine use. We demonstrate the importance of routine dimensionality correction in the Heart Disease dataset from the UCI repository, and a genomics application using data from the UK Biobank.

When observed decisions depend only on observed features, off-policy policy evaluation (OPE) methods for sequential decision problems can estimate the performance of evaluation policies before deploying them. However, this assumption is frequently violated due to unobserved confounders, unrecorded variables that impact both the decisions and their outcomes. We assess robustness of OPE methods under unobserved confounding by developing worst-case bounds on the performance of an evaluation policy. When unobserved confounders can affect every decision in an episode, we demonstrate that even small amounts of per-decision confounding can heavily bias OPE methods. Fortunately, in a number of important settings found in healthcare, policy-making, and technology, unobserved confounders may directly affect only one of the many decisions made, and influence future decisions/rewards only through the directly affected decision. Under this less pessimistic model of one-decision confounding, we propose an efficient loss-minimization-based procedure for computing worst-case bounds, and prove its statistical consistency. On simulated healthcare examples---management of sepsis and interventions for autistic children---where this is a reasonable model, we demonstrate that our method invalidates non-robust results and provides meaningful certificates of robustness, allowing reliable selection of policies under unobserved confounding.

OBJECTIVE: Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic requires accurate forecasting of health system capacity requirements using readily available inputs. We examined whether testing and hospitalization data could help quantify the anticipated burden on the health system given shelter-in-place (SIP) order. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 16,103 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were performed on 15,807 patients at Stanford facilities between March 2 and April 11, 2020. We analyzed the fraction of tested patients that were confirmed positive for COVID-19, the fraction of those needing hospitalization, and the fraction requiring ICU admission over the 40 days between March 2nd and April 11th 2020. RESULTS: We find a marked slowdown in the hospitalization rate within ten days of SIP even as cases continued to rise. We also find a shift towards younger patients in the age distribution of those testing positive for COVID-19 over the four weeks of SIP. The impact of this shift is a divergence between increasing positive case confirmations and slowing new hospitalizations, both of which affects the demand on health systems. CONCLUSION: Without using local hospitalization rates and the age distribution of positive patients, current models are likely to overestimate the resource burden of COVID-19. It is imperative that health systems start using these data to quantify effects of SIP and aid reopening planning.

We develop a procedure for minimizing a function using $n$ batched function value measurements at each of $T$ rounds by using classifiers to identify a function’s sublevel set. We show that sufficiently accurate classifiers can achieve linear convergence rates, and show that the convergence rate is tied to the difficulty of active learning sublevel sets. Further, we show that the bootstrap is a computationally efficient approximation to the necessary classification scheme. The end result is a computationally efficient method requiring no tuning that consistently outperforms other methods on simulations, standard benchmarks, real-world DNA binding optimization, and airfoil design problems where batched function queries are natural.

Standard forms of coordinate and stochastic gradient methods do not adapt to structure in data; their good behavior under random sampling is predicated on uniformity in data. When gradients in certain blocks of features (for coordinate descent) or examples (for SGD) are larger than others, there is a natural structure that can be exploited for quicker convergence. Yet adaptive variants often suffer nontrivial computational overhead. We present a framework that discovers and leverages such structural properties at a low computational cost. We employ a bandit optimization procedure that “learns” probabilities for sampling coordinates or examples in (non-smooth) optimization problems, allowing us to guarantee performance close to that of the optimal stationary sampling distribution. When such structures exist, our algorithms achieve tighter convergence guarantees than their non-adaptive counterparts, and we complement our analysis with experiments on several datasets.

To better understand and analyze text corpora, such as the news, it is often useful to extract keywords that are meaningfully associated with a given topic. A corpus of documents labeled by their topic can be used to approach this as a learning problem. We consider this problem through the lens of statistical text analysis, using bag-of-words frequencies as features for a sparse linear model. We demonstrate, through numerical experiments, that iterative hard thresholding (IHT) is a practical and effective algorithm for keyword-extraction from large text corpora. In fact, our implementation of IHT can quickly analyze more than 800,000 documents, returning keywords comparable to algorithms solving a Lasso problem-formulation, with significantly less computation time. Further, we generalize the analysis of the IHT algorithm to show that it is stable for rank deficient matrices, as those arising from our bag-of-words model often are.