Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jacob M. Chen
dblp:354/4788
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 91% Information extraction and text analysis · 9% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
causal inference |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Proximal Causal Inference With Text Data · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference
deconfounding |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Proximal Causal Inference With Text Data · NeurIPS 2024 |
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference
proximal causal inference |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Proximal Causal Inference With Text Data · NeurIPS 2024 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
zero-shot models · 0.8proximal g-formula · 0.8odds ratio falsification · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Just Trial Once: Ongoing Causal Validation of Machine Learning ModelsabstractMachine 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 ongoing RCTs, such experiments are expensive and time-consuming to run. In this work, we present an alternative solution: using only data from a prior RCT, we give conditions under which the causal impact of a new ML model can be precisely bounded or estimated, even if it was not included in the RCT. Our assumptions incorporate two realistic constraints: ML predictions are often deterministic, and their impacts depend on user trust in the model. Based on our analysis, we give recommendations for trial designs that maximize our ability to assess future versions of an ML model. Our hope is that our trial design recommendations will save practitioners time and resources while allowing for quicker deployments of updates to ML models. Jacob M. Chen, Michael Oberst |
UAI | 1 |
| 2024 | Proximal Causal Inference With Text DataabstractRecent text-based causal methods attempt to mitigate confounding bias by estimating proxies of confounding variables that are partially or imperfectly measured from unstructured text data. These approaches, however, assume analysts have supervised labels of the confounders given text for a subset of instances, a constraint that is sometimes infeasible due to data privacy or annotation costs. In this work, we address settings in which an important confounding variable is completely unobserved. We propose a new causal inference method that uses two instances of pre-treatment text data, infers two proxies using two zero-shot models on the separate instances, and applies these proxies in the proximal g-formula. We prove, under certain assumptions about the instances of text and accuracy of the zero-shot predictions, that our method of inferring text-based proxies satisfies identification conditions of the proximal g-formula while other seemingly reasonable proposals do not. To address untestable assumptions associated with our method and the proximal g-formula, we further propose an odds ratio falsification heuristic that flags when to proceed with downstream effect estimation using the inferred proxies. We evaluate our method in synthetic and semi-synthetic settings---the latter with real-world clinical notes from MIMIC-III and open large language models for zero-shot prediction---and find that our method produces estimates with low bias. We believe that this text-based design of proxies allows for the use of proximal causal inference in a wider range of scenarios, particularly those for which obtaining suitable proxies from structured data is difficult. Jacob M. Chen, Rohit Bhattacharya, Katherine A. Keith |
NeurIPS | 1 |
| 2023 | Causal inference with outcome-dependent missingness and self-censoringabstractWe consider missingness in the context of causal inference when the outcome of interest may be missing. If the outcome directly affects its own missingness status, i.e., it is “self-censoring”, this may lead to severely biased causal effect estimates. Miao et al. (2015) proposed the shadow variable method to correct for bias due to self-censoring; however, verifying the required model assumptions can be difficult. Here, we propose a test based on a randomized incentive variable offered to encourage reporting of the outcome that can be used to verify identification assumptions that are sufficient to correct for both self-censoring and confounding bias. Concretely, the test confirms whether a given set of pre-treatment covariates is sufficient to block all backdoor paths between the treatment and outcome as well as all paths between the treatment and missingness indicator after conditioning on the outcome. We show that under these conditions, the causal effect is identified by using the treatment as a shadow variable, and it leads to an intuitive inverse probability weighting estimator that uses a product of the treatment and response weights. We evaluate the efficacy of our test and downstream estimator via simulations. Jacob M. Chen, Daniel Malinsky, Rohit Bhattacharya |
UAI | 1 |