Generate to Discriminate: Expert Routing for Continual Learning

In many real-world settings, regulations and economic incentives permit the sharing of models but not data across institutional boundaries. In such scenarios, practitioners might hope to adapt models to new domains, without losing performance on previous domains (so-called catastrophic forgetting). While any single model may struggle to achieve this goal, learning an ensemble of domain-specific experts offers the potential to adapt more closely to each individual institution. However, a core challenge in this context is determining which expert to deploy at test time. In this paper, we propose Generate to Discriminate (G2D), a domain-incremental continual learning method that leverages synthetic data to train a domain-discriminator that routes samples at inference time to the appropriate expert. Surprisingly, we find that leveraging synthetic data in this capacity is more effective than using the samples to \textit{directly} train the downstream classifier (the more common approach to leveraging synthetic data in the lifelong learning literature). We observe that G2D outperforms competitive domain-incremental learning methods on tasks in both vision and language modalities, providing a new perspective on the use of synthetic data in the lifelong learning literature.

Comparing Targeting Strategies for Maximizing Social Welfare with Limited Resources

Machine learning is increasingly used to select which individuals receive limited-resource interventions in domains such as human services, education, development, and more. However, it is often not apparent what the right quantity is for models to predict. In particular, policymakers rarely have access to data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that would enable accurate estimates of treatment effects -- which individuals would benefit more from the intervention. Observational data is more likely to be available, creating a substantial risk of bias in treatment effect estimates. Practitioners instead commonly use a technique termed "risk-based targeting" where the model is just used to predict each individual's status quo outcome (an easier, non-causal task). Those with higher predicted risk are offered treatment. There is currently almost no empirical evidence to inform which choices lead to the most effect machine learning-informed targeting strategies in social domains. In this work, we use data from 5 real-world RCTs in a variety of domains to empirically assess such choices. We find that risk-based targeting is almost always inferior to targeting based on even biased estimates of treatment effects. Moreover, these results hold even when the policymaker has strong normative preferences for assisting higher-risk individuals. Our results imply that, despite the widespread use of risk prediction models in applied settings, practitioners may be better off incorporating even weak evidence about heterogeneous causal effects to inform targeting.

Failure Modes of LLMs for Causal Reasoning on Narratives

In this work, we investigate the causal reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) through the representative problem of inferring causal relationships from narratives. We find that even state-of-the-art language models rely on unreliable shortcuts, both in terms of the narrative presentation and their parametric knowledge. For example, LLMs tend to determine causal relationships based on the topological ordering of events (i.e., earlier events cause later ones), resulting in lower performance whenever events are not narrated in their exact causal order. Similarly, we demonstrate that LLMs struggle with long-term causal reasoning and often fail when the narratives are long and contain many events. Additionally, we show LLMs appear to rely heavily on their parametric knowledge at the expense of reasoning over the provided narrative. This degrades their abilities whenever the narrative opposes parametric knowledge. We extensively validate these failure modes through carefully controlled synthetic experiments, as well as evaluations on real-world narratives. Finally, we observe that explicitly generating a causal graph generally improves performance while naive chain-of-thought is ineffective. Collectively, our results distill precise failure modes of current state-of-the-art models and can pave the way for future techniques to enhance causal reasoning in LLMs.

Accounting for Missing Covariates in Heterogeneous Treatment Estimation

Many applications of causal inference require using treatment effects estimated on a study population to make decisions in a separate target population. We consider the challenging setting where there are covariates that are observed in the target population that were not seen in the original study. Our goal is to estimate the tightest possible bounds on heterogeneous treatment effects conditioned on such newly observed covariates. We introduce a novel partial identification strategy based on ideas from ecological inference; the main idea is that estimates of conditional treatment effects for the full covariate set must marginalize correctly when restricted to only the covariates observed in both populations. Furthermore, we introduce a bias-corrected estimator for these bounds and prove that it enjoys fast convergence rates and statistical guarantees (e.g., asymptotic normality). Experimental results on both real and synthetic data demonstrate that our framework can produce bounds that are much tighter than would otherwise be possible.

Decision-Focused Uncertainty Quantification

There is increasing interest in ''decision-focused'' machine learning methods which train models to account for how their predictions are used in downstream optimization problems. Doing so can often improve performance on subsequent decision problems. However, current methods for uncertainty quantification do not incorporate any information at all about downstream decisions. We develop a framework based on conformal prediction to produce prediction sets that account for a downstream decision loss function, making them more appropriate to inform high-stakes decision-making. Our approach harnesses the strengths of conformal methods--modularity, model-agnosticism, and statistical coverage guarantees--while incorporating downstream decisions and user-specified utility functions. We prove that our methods retain standard coverage guarantees. Empirical evaluation across a range of datasets and utility metrics demonstrates that our methods achieve significantly lower decision loss compared to standard conformal methods. Additionally, we present a real-world use case in healthcare diagnosis, where our method effectively incorporates the hierarchical structure of dermatological diseases. It successfully generates sets with coherent diagnostic meaning, aiding the triage process during dermatology diagnosis and illustrating how our method can ground high-stakes decision-making on external domain knowledge.

Learning treatment effects while treating those in need

Many social programs attempt to allocate scarce resources to people with the greatest need. Indeed, public services increasingly use algorithmic risk assessments motivated by this goal. However, targeting the highest-need recipients often conflicts with attempting to evaluate the causal effect of the program as a whole, as the best evaluations would be obtained by randomizing the allocation. We propose a framework to design randomized allocation rules which optimally balance targeting high-need individuals with learning treatment effects, presenting policymakers with a Pareto frontier between the two goals. We give sample complexity guarantees for the policy learning problem and provide a computationally efficient strategy to implement it. We then apply our framework to data from human services in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Optimized policies can substantially mitigate the tradeoff between learning and targeting. For example, it is often possible to obtain 90% of the optimal utility in targeting high-need individuals while ensuring that the average treatment effect can be estimated with less than 2 times the samples that a randomized controlled trial would require. Mechanisms for targeting public services often focus on measuring need as accurately as possible. However, our results suggest that algorithmic systems in public services can be most impactful if they incorporate program evaluation as an explicit goal alongside targeting.

Decision-Focused Evaluation of Worst-Case Distribution Shift

Distribution shift is a key challenge for predictive models in practice, creating the need to identify potentially harmful shifts in advance of deployment. Existing work typically defines these worst-case shifts as ones that most degrade the individual-level accuracy of the model. However, when models are used to make a downstream population-level decision like the allocation of a scarce resource, individual-level accuracy may be a poor proxy for performance on the task at hand. We introduce a novel framework that employs a hierarchical model structure to identify worst-case distribution shifts in predictive resource allocation settings by capturing shifts both within and across instances of the decision problem. This task is more difficult than in standard distribution shift settings due to combinatorial interactions, where decisions depend on the joint presence of individuals in the allocation task. We show that the problem can be reformulated as a submodular optimization problem, enabling efficient approximations of worst-case loss. Applying our framework to real data, we find empirical evidence that worst-case shifts identified by one metric often significantly diverge from worst-case distributions identified by other metrics.

Orthogonal Causal Calibration

Estimates of causal parameters such as conditional average treatment effects and conditional quantile treatment effects play an important role in real-world decision making. Given this importance, one should ensure these estimators are calibrated. While there is a rich literature on calibrating estimators of non-causal parameters, very few methods have been derived for calibrating estimators of causal parameters, or more generally estimators of quantities involving nuisance parameters. In this work, we provide a general framework for calibrating predictors involving nuisance estimation. We consider a notion of calibration defined with respect to an arbitrary, nuisance-dependent loss $\ell$, under which we say an estimator $\theta$ is calibrated if its predictions cannot be changed on any level set to decrease loss. We prove generic upper bounds on the calibration error of any causal parameter estimate $\theta$ with respect to any loss $\ell$ using a concept called Neyman Orthogonality. Our bounds involve two decoupled terms - one measuring the error in estimating the unknown nuisance parameters, and the other representing the calibration error in a hypothetical world where the learned nuisance estimates were true. We use our bound to analyze the convergence of two sample splitting algorithms for causal calibration. One algorithm, which applies to universally orthogonalizable loss functions, transforms the data into generalized pseudo-outcomes and applies an off-the-shelf calibration procedure. The other algorithm, which applies to conditionally orthogonalizable loss functions, extends the classical uniform mass binning algorithm to include nuisance estimation. Our results are exceedingly general, showing that essentially any existing calibration algorithm can be used in causal settings, with additional loss only arising from errors in nuisance estimation.

Auditing Fairness under Unobserved Confounding

A fundamental problem in decision-making systems is the presence of inequity across demographic lines. However, inequity can be difficult to quantify, particularly if our notion of equity relies on hard-to-measure notions like risk (e.g., equal access to treatment for those who would die without it). Auditing such inequity requires accurate measurements of individual risk, which is difficult to estimate in the realistic setting of unobserved confounding. In the case that these unobservables "explain" an apparent disparity, we may understate or overstate inequity. In this paper, we show that one can still give informative bounds on allocation rates among high-risk individuals, even while relaxing or (surprisingly) even when eliminating the assumption that all relevant risk factors are observed. We utilize the fact that in many real-world settings (e.g., the introduction of a novel treatment) we have data from a period prior to any allocation, to derive unbiased estimates of risk. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework on a real-world study of Paxlovid allocation to COVID-19 patients, finding that observed racial inequity cannot be explained by unobserved confounders of the same strength as important observed covariates.

Outlier Ranking in Large-Scale Public Health Streams

Disease control experts inspect public health data streams daily for outliers worth investigating, like those corresponding to data quality issues or disease outbreaks. However, they can only examine a few of the thousands of maximally-tied outliers returned by univariate outlier detection methods applied to large-scale public health data streams. To help experts distinguish the most important outliers from these thousands of tied outliers, we propose a new task for algorithms to rank the outputs of any univariate method applied to each of many streams. Our novel algorithm for this task, which leverages hierarchical networks and extreme value analysis, performed the best across traditional outlier detection metrics in a human-expert evaluation using public health data streams. Most importantly, experts have used our open-source Python implementation since April 2023 and report identifying outliers worth investigating 9.1x faster than their prior baseline. Other organizations can readily adapt this implementation to create rankings from the outputs of their tailored univariate methods across large-scale streams.