Sources of Gain: Decomposing Performance in Conditional Average Dose Response Estimation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08206v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 13:39:32 GMT
• Title: Sources of Gain: Decomposing Performance in Conditional Average Dose Response Estimation
• Authors: Christopher Bockel-Rickermann, Toon Vanderschueren, Tim Verdonck, Wouter Verbeke,
• Abstract summary: Estimating conditional average dose responses (CADR) is an important but challenging problem. Our paper analyses this practice and shows that using popular benchmark datasets without further analysis is insufficient to judge model performance. We propose a novel decomposition scheme that allows the evaluation of the impact of five distinct components contributing to CADR estimator performance.
• Score: 0.9332308328407303
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Estimating conditional average dose responses (CADR) is an important but challenging problem. Estimators must correctly model the potentially complex relationships between covariates, interventions, doses, and outcomes. In recent years, the machine learning community has shown great interest in developing tailored CADR estimators that target specific challenges. Their performance is typically evaluated against other methods on (semi-) synthetic benchmark datasets. Our paper analyses this practice and shows that using popular benchmark datasets without further analysis is insufficient to judge model performance. Established benchmarks entail multiple challenges, whose impacts must be disentangled. Therefore, we propose a novel decomposition scheme that allows the evaluation of the impact of five distinct components contributing to CADR estimator performance. We apply this scheme to eight popular CADR estimators on four widely-used benchmark datasets, running nearly 1,500 individual experiments. Our results reveal that most established benchmarks are challenging for reasons different from their creators' claims. Notably, confounding, the key challenge tackled by most estimators, is not an issue in any of the considered datasets. We discuss the major implications of our findings and present directions for future research.

Related papers

• Beyond Exact Match: Semantically Reassessing Event Extraction by Large Language Models [69.38024658668887]
  Current evaluation method for event extraction relies on token-level exact match. We propose RAEE, an automatic evaluation framework that accurately assesses event extraction results at semantic-level instead of token-level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T07:54:01Z)
• Self-Training with Pseudo-Label Scorer for Aspect Sentiment Quad Prediction [54.23208041792073]
  Aspect Sentiment Quad Prediction (ASQP) aims to predict all quads (aspect term, aspect category, opinion term, sentiment polarity) for a given review. A key challenge in the ASQP task is the scarcity of labeled data, which limits the performance of existing methods. We propose a self-training framework with a pseudo-label scorer, wherein a scorer assesses the match between reviews and their pseudo-labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T05:30:21Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Using representation balancing to learn conditional-average dose responses from clustered data [5.633848204699653]
  Estimating a unit's responses to interventions with an associated dose is relevant in a variety of domains. We show the impacts of clustered data on model performance and propose an estimator, CBRNet.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T14:17:44Z)
• Task-specific experimental design for treatment effect estimation [59.879567967089145]
  Large randomised trials (RCTs) are the standard for causal inference. Recent work has proposed more sample-efficient alternatives to RCTs, but these are not adaptable to the downstream application for which the causal effect is sought. We develop a task-specific approach to experimental design and derive sampling strategies customised to particular downstream applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T18:10:37Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
• ILDAE: Instance-Level Difficulty Analysis of Evaluation Data [22.043291547405545]
  We conduct Instance-Level Difficulty Analysis of Evaluation data (ILDAE) in a large-scale setup of 23 datasets. We demonstrate its five novel applications: 1) conducting efficient-yet-accurate evaluations with fewer instances saving computational cost and time, 2) improving quality of existing evaluation datasets by repairing erroneous and trivial instances, 3) selecting the best model based on application requirements, 4) analyzing dataset characteristics for guiding future data creation, 5) estimating Out-of-Domain performance reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-07T00:02:11Z)
• Deep Reinforcement Learning at the Edge of the Statistical Precipice [31.178451465925555]
  We argue that reliable evaluation in the few run deep RL regime cannot ignore the uncertainty in results without running the risk of slowing down progress in the field. We advocate for reporting interval estimates of aggregate performance and propose performance profiles to account for the variability in results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-30T14:23:48Z)
• Doing Great at Estimating CATE? On the Neglected Assumptions in Benchmark Comparisons of Treatment Effect Estimators [91.3755431537592]
  We show that even in arguably the simplest setting, estimation under ignorability assumptions can be misleading. We consider two popular machine learning benchmark datasets for evaluation of heterogeneous treatment effect estimators. We highlight that the inherent characteristics of the benchmark datasets favor some algorithms over others.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T13:21:27Z)
• BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models [41.45240621979654]
  We introduce BEIR, a heterogeneous benchmark for information retrieval. We study the effectiveness of nine state-of-the-art retrieval models in a zero-shot evaluation setup. Dense-retrieval models are computationally more efficient but often underperform other approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-17T23:29:55Z)

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.