Alicia Curth

Jonathan Crabbé, Alicia Curth, Ioana Bica et al. · cambridge, oxford

Estimating personalized effects of treatments is a complex, yet pervasive problem. To tackle it, recent developments in the machine learning (ML) literature on heterogeneous treatment effect estimation gave rise to many sophisticated, but opaque, tools: due to their flexibility, modularity and ability to learn constrained representations, neural networks in particular have become central to this literature. Unfortunately, the assets of such black boxes come at a cost: models typically involve countless nontrivial operations, making it difficult to understand what they have learned. Yet, understanding these models can be crucial -- in a medical context, for example, discovered knowledge on treatment effect heterogeneity could inform treatment prescription in clinical practice. In this work, we therefore use post-hoc feature importance methods to identify features that influence the model's predictions. This allows us to evaluate treatment effect estimators along a new and important dimension that has been overlooked in previous work: We construct a benchmarking environment to empirically investigate the ability of personalized treatment effect models to identify predictive covariates -- covariates that determine differential responses to treatment. Our benchmarking environment then enables us to provide new insight into the strengths and weaknesses of different types of treatment effects models as we modulate different challenges specific to treatment effect estimation -- e.g. the ratio of prognostic to predictive information, the possible nonlinearity of potential outcomes and the presence and type of confounding.

Daniel Jarrett, Bogdan Cebere, Tennison Liu et al.

Consider the problem of imputing missing values in a dataset. One the one hand, conventional approaches using iterative imputation benefit from the simplicity and customizability of learning conditional distributions directly, but suffer from the practical requirement for appropriate model specification of each and every variable. On the other hand, recent methods using deep generative modeling benefit from the capacity and efficiency of learning with neural network function approximators, but are often difficult to optimize and rely on stronger data assumptions. In this work, we study an approach that marries the advantages of both: We propose *HyperImpute*, a generalized iterative imputation framework for adaptively and automatically configuring column-wise models and their hyperparameters. Practically, we provide a concrete implementation with out-of-the-box learners, optimizers, simulators, and extensible interfaces. Empirically, we investigate this framework via comprehensive experiments and sensitivities on a variety of public datasets, and demonstrate its ability to generate accurate imputations relative to a strong suite of benchmarks. Contrary to recent work, we believe our findings constitute a strong defense of the iterative imputation paradigm.

Alicia Curth, Mihaela van der Schaar

Personalized treatment effect estimates are often of interest in high-stakes applications -- thus, before deploying a model estimating such effects in practice, one needs to be sure that the best candidate from the ever-growing machine learning toolbox for this task was chosen. Unfortunately, due to the absence of counterfactual information in practice, it is usually not possible to rely on standard validation metrics for doing so, leading to a well-known model selection dilemma in the treatment effect estimation literature. While some solutions have recently been investigated, systematic understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria is still lacking. In this paper, instead of attempting to declare a global `winner', we therefore empirically investigate success- and failure modes of different selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them, and provide interesting insights into the relative (dis)advantages of different criteria alongside desiderata for the design of further illuminating empirical studies in this context.

Alicia Curth, Alan Jeffares, Mihaela van der Schaar

Conventional statistical wisdom established a well-understood relationship between model complexity and prediction error, typically presented as a U-shaped curve reflecting a transition between under- and overfitting regimes. However, motivated by the success of overparametrized neural networks, recent influential work has suggested this theory to be generally incomplete, introducing an additional regime that exhibits a second descent in test error as the parameter count p grows past sample size n - a phenomenon dubbed double descent. While most attention has naturally been given to the deep-learning setting, double descent was shown to emerge more generally across non-neural models: known cases include linear regression, trees, and boosting. In this work, we take a closer look at evidence surrounding these more classical statistical machine learning methods and challenge the claim that observed cases of double descent truly extend the limits of a traditional U-shaped complexity-generalization curve therein. We show that once careful consideration is given to what is being plotted on the x-axes of their double descent plots, it becomes apparent that there are implicitly multiple complexity axes along which the parameter count grows. We demonstrate that the second descent appears exactly (and only) when and where the transition between these underlying axes occurs, and that its location is thus not inherently tied to the interpolation threshold p=n. We then gain further insight by adopting a classical nonparametric statistics perspective. We interpret the investigated methods as smoothers and propose a generalized measure for the effective number of parameters they use on unseen examples, using which we find that their apparent double descent curves indeed fold back into more traditional convex shapes - providing a resolution to tensions between double descent and statistical intuition.

Toon Vanderschueren, Alicia Curth, Wouter Verbeke et al.

Machine learning (ML) holds great potential for accurately forecasting treatment outcomes over time, which could ultimately enable the adoption of more individualized treatment strategies in many practical applications. However, a significant challenge that has been largely overlooked by the ML literature on this topic is the presence of informative sampling in observational data. When instances are observed irregularly over time, sampling times are typically not random, but rather informative -- depending on the instance's characteristics, past outcomes, and administered treatments. In this work, we formalize informative sampling as a covariate shift problem and show that it can prohibit accurate estimation of treatment outcomes if not properly accounted for. To overcome this challenge, we present a general framework for learning treatment outcomes in the presence of informative sampling using inverse intensity-weighting, and propose a novel method, TESAR-CDE, that instantiates this framework using Neural CDEs. Using a simulation environment based on a clinical use case, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in learning under informative sampling.

Dennis Frauen, Fergus Imrie, Alicia Curth et al.

Unobserved confounding is common in many applications, making causal inference from observational data challenging. As a remedy, causal sensitivity analysis is an important tool to draw causal conclusions under unobserved confounding with mathematical guarantees. In this paper, we propose NeuralCSA, a neural framework for generalized causal sensitivity analysis. Unlike previous work, our framework is compatible with (i) a large class of sensitivity models, including the marginal sensitivity model, f-sensitivity models, and Rosenbaum's sensitivity model; (ii) different treatment types (i.e., binary and continuous); and (iii) different causal queries, including (conditional) average treatment effects and simultaneous effects on multiple outcomes. The generality of NeuralCSA is achieved by learning a latent distribution shift that corresponds to a treatment intervention using two conditional normalizing flows. We provide theoretical guarantees that NeuralCSA is able to infer valid bounds on the causal query of interest and also demonstrate this empirically using both simulated and real-world data.

Alex J. Chan, Alicia Curth, Mihaela van der Schaar

Human decision making is well known to be imperfect and the ability to analyse such processes individually is crucial when attempting to aid or improve a decision-maker's ability to perform a task, e.g. to alert them to potential biases or oversights on their part. To do so, it is necessary to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions and how this process changes over time as the agent learns online in reaction to the accrued experience. To then understand the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. By interpreting actions within a potential outcomes framework, we introduce a meaningful mapping based on agents choosing an action they believe to have the greatest treatment effect. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them, using a novel architecture built upon an expressive family of deep state-space models. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.

Alicia Curth, Mihaela van der Schaar

We study the problem of inferring heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) from time-to-event data in the presence of competing events. Albeit its great practical relevance, this problem has received little attention compared to its counterparts studying HTE estimation without time-to-event data or competing events. We take an outcome modeling approach to estimating HTEs, and consider how and when existing prediction models for time-to-event data can be used as plug-in estimators for potential outcomes. We then investigate whether competing events present new challenges for HTE estimation -- in addition to the standard confounding problem --, and find that, because there are multiple definitions of causal effects in this setting -- namely total, direct and separable effects --, competing events can act as an additional source of covariate shift depending on the desired treatment effect interpretation and associated estimand. We theoretically analyze and empirically illustrate when and how these challenges play a role when using generic machine learning prediction models for the estimation of HTEs.

Alicia Curth, Alihan Hüyük, Mihaela van der Schaar

We study the problem of adaptively identifying patient subpopulations that benefit from a given treatment during a confirmatory clinical trial. This type of adaptive clinical trial has been thoroughly studied in biostatistics, but has been allowed only limited adaptivity so far. Here, we aim to relax classical restrictions on such designs and investigate how to incorporate ideas from the recent machine learning literature on adaptive and online experimentation to make trials more flexible and efficient. We find that the unique characteristics of the subpopulation selection problem -- most importantly that (i) one is usually interested in finding subpopulations with any treatment benefit (and not necessarily the single subgroup with largest effect) given a limited budget and that (ii) effectiveness only has to be demonstrated across the subpopulation on average -- give rise to interesting challenges and new desiderata when designing algorithmic solutions. Building on these findings, we propose AdaGGI and AdaGCPI, two meta-algorithms for subpopulation construction. We empirically investigate their performance across a range of simulation scenarios and derive insights into their (dis)advantages across different settings.

Alicia Curth, Rachel Lawrence, Sushrut Karmalkar et al.

We investigate whether transformers use their depth adaptively across tasks of increasing difficulty. Using a controlled multi-hop relational reasoning task based on family stories, where difficulty is determined by the number of relationship hops that must be composed, we monitor (i) how predictions evolve across layers via early readouts (the logit lens) and (ii) how task-relevant information is integrated across tokens via causal patching. For pretrained models, we find some limited evidence for adaptive depth use: some larger models need fewer layers to arrive at plausible answers for easier tasks, and models generally use more layers to integrate information across tokens as chain length increases. For models finetuned on the task, we find clearer and more consistent evidence of adaptive depth use, with the effect being stronger for less constrained finetuning regimes that do not preserve general language modeling abilities.

Stefan Feuerriegel, Dennis Frauen, Valentyn Melnychuk et al.

Causal machine learning (ML) offers flexible, data-driven methods for predicting treatment outcomes including efficacy and toxicity, thereby supporting the assessment and safety of drugs. A key benefit of causal ML is that it allows for estimating individualized treatment effects, so that clinical decision-making can be personalized to individual patient profiles. Causal ML can be used in combination with both clinical trial data and real-world data, such as clinical registries and electronic health records, but caution is needed to avoid biased or incorrect predictions. In this Perspective, we discuss the benefits of causal ML (relative to traditional statistical or ML approaches) and outline the key components and steps. Finally, we provide recommendations for the reliable use of causal ML and effective translation into the clinic.

Alicia Curth

The sudden appearance of modern machine learning (ML) phenomena like double descent and benign overfitting may leave many classically trained statisticians feeling uneasy -- these phenomena appear to go against the very core of statistical intuitions conveyed in any introductory class on learning from data. The historical lack of earlier observation of such phenomena is usually attributed to today's reliance on more complex ML methods, overparameterization, interpolation and/or higher data dimensionality. In this note, we show that there is another reason why we observe behaviors today that appear at odds with intuitions taught in classical statistics textbooks, which is much simpler to understand yet rarely discussed explicitly. In particular, many intuitions originate in fixed design settings, in which in-sample prediction error (under resampling of noisy outcomes) is of interest, while modern ML evaluates its predictions in terms of generalization error, i.e. out-of-sample prediction error in random designs. Here, we highlight that this simple move from fixed to random designs has (perhaps surprisingly) far-reaching consequences on textbook intuitions relating to the bias-variance tradeoff, and comment on the resulting (im)possibility of observing double descent and benign overfitting in fixed versus random designs.

Alicia Curth, Alan Jeffares, Mihaela van der Schaar

Despite their remarkable effectiveness and broad application, the drivers of success underlying ensembles of trees are still not fully understood. In this paper, we highlight how interpreting tree ensembles as adaptive and self-regularizing smoothers can provide new intuition and deeper insight to this topic. We use this perspective to show that, when studied as smoothers, randomized tree ensembles not only make predictions that are quantifiably more smooth than the predictions of the individual trees they consist of, but also further regulate their smoothness at test-time based on the dissimilarity between testing and training inputs. First, we use this insight to revisit, refine and reconcile two recent explanations of forest success by providing a new way of quantifying the conjectured behaviors of tree ensembles objectively by measuring the effective degree of smoothing they imply. Then, we move beyond existing explanations for the mechanisms by which tree ensembles improve upon individual trees and challenge the popular wisdom that the superior performance of forests should be understood as a consequence of variance reduction alone. We argue that the current high-level dichotomy into bias- and variance-reduction prevalent in statistics is insufficient to understand tree ensembles -- because the prevailing definition of bias does not capture differences in the expressivity of the hypothesis classes formed by trees and forests. Instead, we show that forests can improve upon trees by three distinct mechanisms that are usually implicitly entangled. In particular, we demonstrate that the smoothing effect of ensembling can reduce variance in predictions due to noise in outcome generation, reduce variability in the quality of the learned function given fixed input data and reduce potential bias in learnable functions by enriching the available hypothesis space.

Alan Jeffares, Alicia Curth, Mihaela van der Schaar

Deep learning sometimes appears to work in unexpected ways. In pursuit of a deeper understanding of its surprising behaviors, we investigate the utility of a simple yet accurate model of a trained neural network consisting of a sequence of first-order approximations telescoping out into a single empirically operational tool for practical analysis. Across three case studies, we illustrate how it can be applied to derive new empirical insights on a diverse range of prominent phenomena in the literature -- including double descent, grokking, linear mode connectivity, and the challenges of applying deep learning on tabular data -- highlighting that this model allows us to construct and extract metrics that help predict and understand the a priori unexpected performance of neural networks. We also demonstrate that this model presents a pedagogical formalism allowing us to isolate components of the training process even in complex contemporary settings, providing a lens to reason about the effects of design choices such as architecture & optimization strategy, and reveals surprising parallels between neural network learning and gradient boosting.

Alihan Hüyük, Qiyao Wei, Alicia Curth et al.

Decision-makers are often experts of their domain and take actions based on their domain knowledge. Doctors, for instance, may prescribe treatments by predicting the likely outcome of each available treatment. Actions of an expert thus naturally encode part of their domain knowledge, and can help make inferences within the same domain: Knowing doctors try to prescribe the best treatment for their patients, we can tell treatments prescribed more frequently are likely to be more effective. Yet in machine learning, the fact that most decision-makers are experts is often overlooked, and "expertise" is seldom leveraged as an inductive bias. This is especially true for the literature on treatment effect estimation, where often the only assumption made about actions is that of overlap. In this paper, we argue that expertise - particularly the type of expertise the decision-makers of a domain are likely to have - can be informative in designing and selecting methods for treatment effect estimation. We formally define two types of expertise, predictive and prognostic, and demonstrate empirically that: (i) the prominent type of expertise in a domain significantly influences the performance of different methods in treatment effect estimation, and (ii) it is possible to predict the type of expertise present in a dataset, which can provide a quantitative basis for model selection.

Guneet S. Dhillon, Javier González, Teodora Pandeva et al. · oxford

While generative models, especially large language models (LLMs), are ubiquitous in today's world, principled mechanisms to assess their (in)correctness are limited. Using the conformal prediction framework, previous works construct sets of LLM responses where the probability of including an incorrect response, or error, is capped at a desired user-defined tolerance level. However, since these methods are based on p-values, they are susceptible to p-hacking, i.e., choosing the tolerance level post-hoc can invalidate the guarantees. We therefore leverage e-values to complement generative model outputs with e-scores as a measure of incorrectness. In addition to achieving the same statistical guarantees as before, e-scores provide users flexibility in adaptively choosing tolerance levels after observing the e-scores themselves, by upper bounding a post-hoc notion of error called size distortion. We experimentally demonstrate their efficacy in assessing LLM outputs for different correctness types: mathematical factuality and property constraints satisfaction.

Tobias Hatt, Jeroen Berrevoets, Alicia Curth et al.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects is an important problem across many domains. In order to accurately estimate such treatment effects, one typically relies on data from observational studies or randomized experiments. Currently, most existing works rely exclusively on observational data, which is often confounded and, hence, yields biased estimates. While observational data is confounded, randomized data is unconfounded, but its sample size is usually too small to learn heterogeneous treatment effects. In this paper, we propose to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects by combining large amounts of observational data and small amounts of randomized data via representation learning. In particular, we introduce a two-step framework: first, we use observational data to learn a shared structure (in form of a representation); and then, we use randomized data to learn the data-specific structures. We analyze the finite sample properties of our framework and compare them to several natural baselines. As such, we derive conditions for when combining observational and randomized data is beneficial, and for when it is not. Based on this, we introduce a sample-efficient algorithm, called CorNet. We use extensive simulation studies to verify the theoretical properties of CorNet and multiple real-world datasets to demonstrate our method's superiority compared to existing methods.

Jeroen Berrevoets, Alicia Curth, Ioana Bica et al.

Choosing the best treatment-plan for each individual patient requires accurate forecasts of their outcome trajectories as a function of the treatment, over time. While large observational data sets constitute rich sources of information to learn from, they also contain biases as treatments are rarely assigned randomly in practice. To provide accurate and unbiased forecasts, we introduce the Disentangled Counterfactual Recurrent Network (DCRN), a novel sequence-to-sequence architecture that estimates treatment outcomes over time by learning representations of patient histories that are disentangled into three separate latent factors: a treatment factor, influencing only treatment selection; an outcome factor, influencing only the outcome; and a confounding factor, influencing both. With an architecture that is completely inspired by the causal structure of treatment influence over time, we advance forecast accuracy and disease understanding, as our architecture allows for practitioners to infer which patient features influence which part in a patient's trajectory, contrasting other approaches in this domain. We demonstrate that DCRN outperforms current state-of-the-art methods in forecasting treatment responses, on both real and simulated data.

Alicia Curth, Changhee Lee, Mihaela van der Schaar

We study the problem of inferring heterogeneous treatment effects from time-to-event data. While both the related problems of (i) estimating treatment effects for binary or continuous outcomes and (ii) predicting survival outcomes have been well studied in the recent machine learning literature, their combination -- albeit of high practical relevance -- has received considerably less attention. With the ultimate goal of reliably estimating the effects of treatments on instantaneous risk and survival probabilities, we focus on the problem of learning (discrete-time) treatment-specific conditional hazard functions. We find that unique challenges arise in this context due to a variety of covariate shift issues that go beyond a mere combination of well-studied confounding and censoring biases. We theoretically analyse their effects by adapting recent generalization bounds from domain adaptation and treatment effect estimation to our setting and discuss implications for model design. We use the resulting insights to propose a novel deep learning method for treatment-specific hazard estimation based on balancing representations. We investigate performance across a range of experimental settings and empirically confirm that our method outperforms baselines by addressing covariate shifts from various sources.

Alicia Curth, Mihaela van der Schaar

The machine learning toolbox for estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects from observational data is expanding rapidly, yet many of its algorithms have been evaluated only on a very limited set of semi-synthetic benchmark datasets. In this paper, we show that even in arguably the simplest setting -- estimation under ignorability assumptions -- the results of such empirical evaluations can be misleading if (i) the assumptions underlying the data-generating mechanisms in benchmark datasets and (ii) their interplay with baseline algorithms are inadequately discussed. We consider two popular machine learning benchmark datasets for evaluation of heterogeneous treatment effect estimators -- the IHDP and ACIC2016 datasets -- in detail. We identify problems with their current use and highlight that the inherent characteristics of the benchmark datasets favor some algorithms over others -- a fact that is rarely acknowledged but of immense relevance for interpretation of empirical results. We close by discussing implications and possible next steps.

Alicia Curth, Mihaela van der Schaar

We investigate how to exploit structural similarities of an individual's potential outcomes (POs) under different treatments to obtain better estimates of conditional average treatment effects in finite samples. Especially when it is unknown whether a treatment has an effect at all, it is natural to hypothesize that the POs are similar - yet, some existing strategies for treatment effect estimation employ regularization schemes that implicitly encourage heterogeneity even when it does not exist and fail to fully make use of shared structure. In this paper, we investigate and compare three end-to-end learning strategies to overcome this problem - based on regularization, reparametrization and a flexible multi-task architecture - each encoding inductive bias favoring shared behavior across POs. To build understanding of their relative strengths, we implement all strategies using neural networks and conduct a wide range of semi-synthetic experiments. We observe that all three approaches can lead to substantial improvements upon numerous baselines and gain insight into performance differences across various experimental settings.

Alicia Curth, Mihaela van der Schaar

The need to evaluate treatment effectiveness is ubiquitous in most of empirical science, and interest in flexibly investigating effect heterogeneity is growing rapidly. To do so, a multitude of model-agnostic, nonparametric meta-learners have been proposed in recent years. Such learners decompose the treatment effect estimation problem into separate sub-problems, each solvable using standard supervised learning methods. Choosing between different meta-learners in a data-driven manner is difficult, as it requires access to counterfactual information. Therefore, with the ultimate goal of building better understanding of the conditions under which some learners can be expected to perform better than others a priori, we theoretically analyze four broad meta-learning strategies which rely on plug-in estimation and pseudo-outcome regression. We highlight how this theoretical reasoning can be used to guide principled algorithm design and translate our analyses into practice by considering a variety of neural network architectures as base-learners for the discussed meta-learning strategies. In a simulation study, we showcase the relative strengths of the learners under different data-generating processes.

Alicia Curth, Ahmed M. Alaa, Mihaela van der Schaar

We aim to construct a class of learning algorithms that are of practical value to applied researchers in fields such as biostatistics, epidemiology and econometrics, where the need to learn from incompletely observed information is ubiquitous. We propose a new framework for statistical machine learning of target functions arising as identifiable functionals from statistical models, which we call `IF-learning' due to its reliance on influence functions (IFs). This framework is problem- and model-agnostic and can be used to estimate a broad variety of target parameters of interest in applied statistics: we can consider any target function for which an IF of a population-averaged version exists in analytic form. Throughout, we put particular focus on so-called coarsening at random/doubly robust problems with partially unobserved information. This includes problems such as treatment effect estimation and inference in the presence of missing outcome data. Within this framework, we propose two general learning algorithms that build on the idea of nonparametric plug-in bias removal via IFs: the 'IF-learner' which uses pseudo-outcomes motivated by uncentered IFs for regression in large samples and outputs entire target functions without confidence bands, and the 'Group-IF-learner', which outputs only approximations to a function but can give confidence estimates if sufficient information on coarsening mechanisms is available. We apply both in a simulation study on inferring treatment effects.