Positivity Validation Detection and Explainability via Zero Fraction Multi-Hypothesis Testing and Asymmetrically Pruned Decision Trees

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.04033v1
• Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 08:32:58 GMT
• Title: Positivity Validation Detection and Explainability via Zero Fraction Multi-Hypothesis Testing and Asymmetrically Pruned Decision Trees
• Authors: Guy Wolf, Gil Shabat, Hanan Shteingart
• Abstract summary: Positivity is one of the three conditions for causal inference from observational data. To democratize the ability to do causal inference by non-experts, it is required to design an algorithm to test positivity.
• Score: 7.688686113950607
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Positivity is one of the three conditions for causal inference from observational data. The standard way to validate positivity is to analyze the distribution of propensity. However, to democratize the ability to do causal inference by non-experts, it is required to design an algorithm to (i) test positivity and (ii) explain where in the covariate space positivity is lacking. The latter could be used to either suggest the limitation of further causal analysis and/or encourage experimentation where positivity is violated. The contribution of this paper is first present the problem of automatic positivity analysis and secondly to propose an algorithm based on a two steps process. The first step, models the propensity condition on the covariates and then analyze the latter distribution using multiple hypothesis testing to create positivity violation labels. The second step uses asymmetrically pruned decision trees for explainability. The latter is further converted into readable text a non-expert can understand. We demonstrate our method on a proprietary data-set of a large software enterprise.

Related papers

• Measuring the Reliability of Causal Probing Methods: Tradeoffs, Limitations, and the Plight of Nullifying Interventions [3.173096780177902]
  Causal probing is an approach to interpreting foundation models, such as large language models. We propose a general empirical analysis framework to evaluate the reliability of causal probing interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T03:45:49Z)
• Fuzzy Fault Trees Formalized [1.640922391885265]
  Fuzzy logic is a popular framework for dealing with ambiguous values. In this paper, we define a rigorous framework for fuzzy unreliability values. We also provide a bottom-up algorithm to efficiently calculate fuzzy reliability for a system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T14:45:54Z)
• Joint empirical risk minimization for instance-dependent positive-unlabeled data [4.112909937203119]
  Learning from positive and unlabeled data (PU learning) is actively researched machine learning task. The goal is to train a binary classification model based on a dataset containing part on positives which are labeled, and unlabeled instances. Unlabeled set includes remaining part positives and all negative observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-27T12:45:12Z)
• Shortcomings of Top-Down Randomization-Based Sanity Checks for Evaluations of Deep Neural Network Explanations [67.40641255908443]
  We identify limitations of model-randomization-based sanity checks for the purpose of evaluating explanations. Top-down model randomization preserves scales of forward pass activations with high probability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-22T18:52:38Z)
• Bounding Counterfactuals under Selection Bias [60.55840896782637]
  We propose a first algorithm to address both identifiable and unidentifiable queries. We prove that, in spite of the missingness induced by the selection bias, the likelihood of the available data is unimodal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-26T10:33:10Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Kernel Robust Hypothesis Testing [20.78285964841612]
  In this paper, uncertainty sets are constructed in a data-driven manner using kernel method. The goal is to design a test that performs well under the worst-case distributions over the uncertainty sets. For the Neyman-Pearson setting, the goal is to minimize the worst-case probability of miss detection subject to a constraint on the worst-case probability of false alarm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-23T23:59:03Z)
• Nested Counterfactual Identification from Arbitrary Surrogate Experiments [95.48089725859298]
  We study the identification of nested counterfactuals from an arbitrary combination of observations and experiments. Specifically, we prove the counterfactual unnesting theorem (CUT), which allows one to map arbitrary nested counterfactuals to unnested ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-07T12:51:04Z)
• Provable Guarantees for Self-Supervised Deep Learning with Spectral Contrastive Loss [72.62029620566925]
  Recent works in self-supervised learning have advanced the state-of-the-art by relying on the contrastive learning paradigm. Our work analyzes contrastive learning without assuming conditional independence of positive pairs. We propose a loss that performs spectral decomposition on the population augmentation graph and can be succinctly written as a contrastive learning objective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-08T07:41:02Z)
• The Curse of Performance Instability in Analysis Datasets: Consequences, Source, and Suggestions [93.62888099134028]
  We find that the performance of state-of-the-art models on Natural Language Inference (NLI) and Reading (RC) analysis/stress sets can be highly unstable. This raises three questions: (1) How will the instability affect the reliability of the conclusions drawn based on these analysis sets? We give both theoretical explanations and empirical evidence regarding the source of the instability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-28T15:41:12Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.