Kentaro Hoffman

Harsh Parikh, Kentaro Hoffman, Haoqi Sun et al.

Epileptiform activity (EA) is associated with worse outcomes including increased risk of disability and death. However, the effect of EA on the neurologic outcome is confounded by the feedback between treatment with anti-seizure medications (ASM) and EA burden. A randomized clinical trial is challenging due to the sequential nature of EA-ASM feedback, as well as ethical reasons. However, some mechanistic knowledge is available, e.g., how drugs are absorbed. This knowledge together with observational data could provide a more accurate effect estimate using causal inference. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study with 995 patients with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at discharge as the outcome and the EA burden defined as the mean or maximum proportion of time spent with EA in six-hour windows in the first 24 hours of electroencephalography as the exposure. We estimated the change in discharge mRS if everyone in the dataset had experienced a certain EA burden and were untreated. We combined pharmacological modeling with an interpretable matching method to account for confounding and EA-ASM feedback. Our matched groups' quality was validated by the neurologists. Having a maximum EA burden greater than 75% when untreated had a 22% increased chance of a poor outcome (severe disability or death), and mild but long-lasting EA increased the risk of a poor outcome by 14%. The effect sizes were heterogeneous depending on pre-admission profile, e.g., patients with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) or acquired brain injury (ABI) were more affected. Interventions should put a higher priority on patients with an average EA burden higher than 10%, while treatment should be more conservative when the maximum EA burden is low.

Simon D. Nguyen, Hayden McTavish, Kentaro Hoffman et al.

Active learning reduces labeling costs by selecting samples that maximize information gain. A dominant framework, Query-by-Committee (QBC), typically relies on perturbation-based diversity by inducing model disagreement through random feature subsetting or data blinding. While this approximates one notion of epistemic uncertainty, it sacrifices direct characterization of the plausible hypothesis space. We propose the complementary approach: Rashomon Ensembled Active Learning (REAL) which constructs a committee by exhaustively enumerating the Rashomon Set of all near-optimal models. To address functional redundancy within this set, we adopt a PAC-Bayesian framework using a Gibbs posterior to weight committee members by their empirical risk. Leveraging recent algorithmic advances, we exactly enumerate this set for the class of sparse decision trees. Across synthetic and established active learning baselines, REAL outperforms randomized ensembles, particularly in moderately noisy environments where it strategically leverages expanded model multiplicity to achieve faster convergence.

Simon D. Nguyen, Troy Russo, Kentaro Hoffman et al.

Active learning for regression reduces labeling costs by selecting the most informative samples. Improved Greedy Sampling is a prominent method that balances feature-space diversity and output-space uncertainty using a static, multiplicative rule. We propose Weighted improved Greedy Sampling (WiGS), which replaces this framework with a dynamic, additive criterion. We formulate weight selection as a reinforcement learning problem, enabling an agent to adapt the exploration-investigation balance throughout learning. Experiments on 18 benchmark datasets and a synthetic environment show WiGS outperforms iGS and other baseline methods in both accuracy and labeling efficiency, particularly in domains with irregular data density where the baseline's multiplicative rule ignores high-error samples in dense regions.

Shuxian Fan, Adam Visokay, Kentaro Hoffman et al.

In settings where most deaths occur outside the healthcare system, verbal autopsies (VAs) are a common tool to monitor trends in causes of death (COD). VAs are interviews with a surviving caregiver or relative that are used to predict the decedent's COD. Turning VAs into actionable insights for researchers and policymakers requires two steps (i) predicting likely COD using the VA interview and (ii) performing inference with predicted CODs (e.g. modeling the breakdown of causes by demographic factors using a sample of deaths). In this paper, we develop a method for valid inference using outcomes (in our case COD) predicted from free-form text using state-of-the-art NLP techniques. This method, which we call multiPPI++, extends recent work in "prediction-powered inference" to multinomial classification. We leverage a suite of NLP techniques for COD prediction and, through empirical analysis of VA data, demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in handling transportability issues. multiPPI++ recovers ground truth estimates, regardless of which NLP model produced predictions and regardless of whether they were produced by a more accurate predictor like GPT-4-32k or a less accurate predictor like KNN. Our findings demonstrate the practical importance of inference correction for public health decision-making and suggests that if inference tasks are the end goal, having a small amount of contextually relevant, high quality labeled data is essential regardless of the NLP algorithm.

Kentaro Hoffman, Stephen Salerno, Awan Afiaz et al.

As artificial intelligence and machine learning tools become more accessible, and scientists face new obstacles to data collection (e.g. rising costs, declining survey response rates), researchers increasingly use predictions from pre-trained algorithms as outcome variables. Though appealing for financial and logistical reasons, using standard tools for inference can misrepresent the association between independent variables and the outcome of interest when the true, unobserved outcome is replaced by a predicted value. In this paper, we characterize the statistical challenges inherent to this so-called ``inference with predicted data'' problem and elucidate three potential sources of error: (i) the relationship between predicted outcomes and their true, unobserved counterparts, (ii) robustness of the machine learning model to resampling or uncertainty about the training data, and (iii) appropriately propagating not just bias but also uncertainty from predictions into the ultimate inference procedure.

Simon Nguyen, Kentaro Hoffman, Tyler McCormick

Collecting labeled data for machine learning models is often expensive and time-consuming. Active learning addresses this challenge by selectively labeling the most informative observations, but when initial labeled data is limited, it becomes difficult to distinguish genuinely informative points from those appearing uncertain primarily due to noise. Ensemble methods like random forests are a powerful approach to quantifying this uncertainty but do so by aggregating all models indiscriminately. This includes poor performing models and redundant models, a problem that worsens in the presence of noisy data. We introduce UNique Rashomon Ensembled Active Learning (UNREAL), which selectively ensembles only distinct models from the Rashomon set, which is the set of nearly optimal models. Restricting ensemble membership to high-performing models with different explanations helps distinguish genuine uncertainty from noise-induced variation. We show that UNREAL achieves faster theoretical convergence rates than traditional active learning approaches and demonstrates empirical improvements of up to 20% in predictive accuracy across five benchmark datasets, while simultaneously enhancing model interpretability.

Stephen Salerno, Kentaro Hoffman, Awan Afiaz et al.

As artificial intelligence and machine learning tools become more accessible, and scientists face new obstacles to data collection (e.g., rising costs, declining survey response rates), researchers increasingly use predictions from pre-trained algorithms as substitutes for missing or unobserved data. Though appealing for financial and logistical reasons, using standard tools for inference can misrepresent the association between independent variables and the outcome of interest when the true, unobserved outcome is replaced by a predicted value. In this paper, we characterize the statistical challenges inherent to drawing inference with predicted data (IPD) and show that high predictive accuracy does not guarantee valid downstream inference. We show that all such failures reduce to statistical notions of (i) bias, when predictions systematically shift the estimand or distort relationships among variables, and (ii) variance, when uncertainty from the prediction model and the intrinsic variability of the true data are ignored. We then review recent methods for conducting IPD and discuss how this framework is deeply rooted in classical statistical theory. We then comment on some open questions and interesting avenues for future work in this area, and end with some comments on how to use predicted data in scientific studies that is both transparent and statistically principled.