How to select predictive models for causal inference?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00370v2
• Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 15:47:27 GMT
• Title: How to select predictive models for causal inference?
• Authors: Matthieu Doutreligne and Ga\"el Varoquaux
• Abstract summary: We show that classic machine-learning model selection does not select the best outcome models for causal inference. We outline a good causal model-selection procedure: using the so-called $Rtext-risk$; using flexible estimators to compute the nuisance models on the train set.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As predictive models -- e.g., from machine learning -- give likely outcomes, they may be used to reason on the effect of an intervention, a causal-inference task. The increasing complexity of health data has opened the door to a plethora of models, but also the Pandora box of model selection: which of these models yield the most valid causal estimates? Here we highlight that classic machine-learning model selection does not select the best outcome models for causal inference. Indeed, causal model selection should control both outcome errors for each individual, treated or not treated, whereas only one outcome is observed. Theoretically, simple risks used in machine learning do not control causal effects when treated and non-treated population differ too much. More elaborate risks build proxies of the causal error using ``nuisance'' re-weighting to compute it on the observed data. But does computing these nuisance adds noise to model selection? Drawing from an extensive empirical study, we outline a good causal model-selection procedure: using the so-called $R\text{-risk}$; using flexible estimators to compute the nuisance models on the train set; and splitting out 10\% of the data to compute risks.

Related papers

• Estimating Causal Effects from Learned Causal Networks [56.14597641617531]
  We propose an alternative paradigm for answering causal-effect queries over discrete observable variables. We learn the causal Bayesian network and its confounding latent variables directly from the observational data. We show that this emphmodel completion learning approach can be more effective than estimand approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-26T08:39:09Z)
• Stubborn Lexical Bias in Data and Models [50.79738900885665]
  We use a new statistical method to examine whether spurious patterns in data appear in models trained on the data. We apply an optimization approach to *reweight* the training data, reducing thousands of spurious correlations. Surprisingly, though this method can successfully reduce lexical biases in the training data, we still find strong evidence of corresponding bias in the trained models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-03T20:12:27Z)
• Information FOMO: The unhealthy fear of missing out on information. A method for removing misleading data for healthier models [0.0]
  Misleading or unnecessary data can have out-sized impacts on the health or accuracy of Machine Learning (ML) models. We present a sequential selection method that identifies critically important information within a dataset. We find these instabilities are a result of the complexity of the underlying map and linked to extreme events and heavy tails.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-27T19:43:53Z)
• Measuring Causal Effects of Data Statistics on Language Model's `Factual' Predictions [59.284907093349425]
  Large amounts of training data are one of the major reasons for the high performance of state-of-the-art NLP models. We provide a language for describing how training data influences predictions, through a causal framework. Our framework bypasses the need to retrain expensive models and allows us to estimate causal effects based on observational data alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-28T17:36:24Z)
• Active Bayesian Causal Inference [72.70593653185078]
  We propose Active Bayesian Causal Inference (ABCI), a fully-Bayesian active learning framework for integrated causal discovery and reasoning. ABCI jointly infers a posterior over causal models and queries of interest. We show that our approach is more data-efficient than several baselines that only focus on learning the full causal graph.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T22:38:57Z)
• Causal discovery for observational sciences using supervised machine learning [1.6631602844999722]
  Causal inference can estimate causal effects, but unless data are collected experimentally, statistical analyses must rely on pre-specified causal models. Severalally correct methods already exist, but they generally struggle on smaller samples. Most methods focus on very sparse causal models, which may not always be a realistic representation of real-life data generating mechanisms. We propose a new causal discovery method that addresses these three shortcomings: Supervised learning discovery (SLdisco)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-25T16:44:00Z)
• Benign-Overfitting in Conditional Average Treatment Effect Prediction with Linear Regression [14.493176427999028]
  We study the benign overfitting theory in the prediction of the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) with linear regression models. We show that the T-learner fails to achieve the consistency except the random assignment, while the IPW-learner converges the risk to zero if the propensity score is known.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-10T18:51:52Z)
• Estimation of Bivariate Structural Causal Models by Variational Gaussian Process Regression Under Likelihoods Parametrised by Normalising Flows [74.85071867225533]
  Causal mechanisms can be described by structural causal models. One major drawback of state-of-the-art artificial intelligence is its lack of explainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-06T14:52:58Z)
• A Causal Lens for Peeking into Black Box Predictive Models: Predictive Model Interpretation via Causal Attribution [3.3758186776249928]
  We aim to address this problem in settings where the predictive model is a black box. We reduce the problem of interpreting a black box predictive model to that of estimating the causal effects of each of the model inputs on the model output. We show how the resulting causal attribution of responsibility for model output to the different model inputs can be used to interpret the predictive model and to explain its predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-01T23:20:57Z)
• A General Framework for Survival Analysis and Multi-State Modelling [70.31153478610229]
  We use neural ordinary differential equations as a flexible and general method for estimating multi-state survival models. We show that our model exhibits state-of-the-art performance on popular survival data sets and demonstrate its efficacy in a multi-state setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T19:24:54Z)
• Resolving Spurious Correlations in Causal Models of Environments via Interventions [2.836066255205732]
  We consider the problem of inferring a causal model of a reinforcement learning environment. Our method designs a reward function that incentivizes an agent to do an intervention to find errors in the causal model. The experimental results in a grid-world environment show that our approach leads to better causal models compared to baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-12T20:20:47Z)

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.