Ground truth labels/outcomes are critical for advancing scientific and engineering applications, e.g., evaluating the treatment effect of an intervention or performance of a predictive model. Since randomly sampling inputs for labeling can be prohibitively expensive, we introduce an adaptive labeling framework where measurement effort can be reallocated in batches. We formulate this problem as a Markov decision process where posterior beliefs evolve over time as batches of labels are collected (state transition), and batches (actions) are chosen to minimize uncertainty at the end of data collection. We design a computational framework that is agnostic to different uncertainty quantification approaches including those based on deep learning, and allows a diverse array of policy gradient approaches by relying on continuous policy parameterizations. On real and synthetic datasets, we demonstrate even a one-step lookahead policy can substantially outperform common adaptive labeling heuristics, highlighting the virtue of planning. On the methodological side, we note that standard REINFORCE-style policy gradient estimators can suffer high variance since they rely only on zeroth order information. We propose a direct backpropagation-based approach, Smoothed-Autodiff, based on a carefully smoothed version of the original non-differentiable MDP. Our method enjoys low variance at the price of introducing bias, and we theoretically and empirically show that this trade-off can be favorable.

Machine learning models frequently experience performance drops under distribution shifts. The underlying cause of such shifts may be multiple simultaneous factors such as changes in data quality, differences in specific covariate distributions, or changes in the relationship between label and features. When a model does fail during deployment, attributing performance change to these factors is critical for the model developer to identify the root cause and take mitigating actions. In this work, we introduce the problem of attributing performance differences between environments to distribution shifts in the underlying data generating mechanisms. We formulate the problem as a cooperative game where the players are distributions. We define the value of a set of distributions to be the change in model performance when only this set of distributions has changed between environments, and derive an importance weighting method for computing the value of an arbitrary set of distributions. The contribution of each distribution to the total performance change is then quantified as its Shapley value. We demonstrate the correctness and utility of our method on synthetic, semi-synthetic, and real-world case studies, showing its effectiveness in attributing performance changes to a wide range of distribution shifts.

A collection of the extended abstracts that were presented at the 2nd Machine Learning for Health symposium (ML4H 2022), which was held both virtually and in person on November 28, 2022, in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Machine Learning for Health (ML4H) is a longstanding venue for research into machine learning for health, including both theoretical works and applied works. ML4H 2022 featured two submission tracks: a proceedings track, which encompassed full-length submissions of technically mature and rigorous work, and an extended abstract track, which would accept less mature, but innovative research for discussion. All the manuscripts submitted to ML4H Symposium underwent a double-blind peer-review process. Extended abstracts included in this collection describe innovative machine learning research focused on relevant problems in health and biomedicine.

Assessing the effects of a policy based on observational data from a different policy is a common problem across several high-stake decision-making domains, and several off-policy evaluation (OPE) techniques have been proposed. However, these methods largely formulate OPE as a problem disassociated from the process used to generate the data (i.e. structural assumptions in the form of a causal graph). We argue that explicitly highlighting this association has important implications on our understanding of the fundamental limits of OPE. First, this implies that current formulation of OPE corresponds to a narrow set of tasks, i.e. a specific causal estimand which is focused on prospective evaluation of policies over populations or sub-populations. Second, we demonstrate how this association motivates natural desiderata to consider a general set of causal estimands, particularly extending the role of OPE for counterfactual off-policy evaluation at the level of individuals of the population. A precise description of the causal estimand highlights which OPE estimands are identifiable from observational data under the stated generative assumptions. For those OPE estimands that are not identifiable, the causal perspective further highlights where more experimental data is necessary, and highlights situations where human expertise can aid identification and estimation. Furthermore, many formalisms of OPE overlook the role of uncertainty entirely in the estimation process.We demonstrate how specifically characterising the causal estimand highlights the different sources of uncertainty and when human expertise can naturally manage this uncertainty. We discuss each of these aspects as actionable desiderata for future OPE research at scale and in-line with practical utility.

We propose SLTD (`Sequential Learning-to-Defer') a framework for learning-to-defer pre-emptively to an expert in sequential decision-making settings. SLTD measures the likelihood of improving value of deferring now versus later based on the underlying uncertainty in dynamics. In particular, we focus on the non-stationarity in the dynamics to accurately learn the deferral policy. We demonstrate our pre-emptive deferral can identify regions where the current policy has a low probability of improving outcomes. SLTD outperforms existing non-sequential learning-to-defer baselines, whilst reducing overall uncertainty on multiple synthetic and real-world simulators with non-stationary dynamics. We further derive and decompose the propagated (long-term) uncertainty for interpretation by the domain expert to provide an indication of when the model's performance is reliable.

Counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples have emerged as critical research areas for addressing the explainability and robustness goals of machine learning (ML). While counterfactual explanations were developed with the goal of providing recourse to individuals adversely impacted by algorithmic decisions, adversarial examples were designed to expose the vulnerabilities of ML models. While prior research has hinted at the commonalities between these frameworks, there has been little to no work on systematically exploring the connections between the literature on counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples. In this work, we make one of the first attempts at formalizing the connections between counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples. More specifically, we theoretically analyze salient counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods, and highlight the conditions under which they behave similarly. Our analysis demonstrates that several popular counterfactual explanation and adversarial example generation methods such as the ones proposed by Wachter et. al. and Carlini and Wagner (with mean squared error loss), and C-CHVAE and natural adversarial examples by Zhao et. al. are equivalent. We also bound the distance between counterfactual explanations and adversarial examples generated by Wachter et. al. and DeepFool methods for linear models. Finally, we empirically validate our theoretical findings using extensive experimentation with synthetic and real world datasets.

Machine learning models are often trained on data from one distribution and deployed on others. So it becomes important to design models that are robust to distribution shifts. Most of the existing work focuses on optimizing for either adversarial shifts or interventional shifts. Adversarial methods lack expressivity in representing plausible shifts as they consider shifts to joint distributions in the data. Interventional methods allow more expressivity but provide robustness to unbounded shifts, resulting in overly conservative models. In this work, we combine the complementary strengths of the two approaches and propose a new formulation, RISe, for designing robust models against a set of distribution shifts that are at the intersection of adversarial and interventional shifts. We employ the distributionally robust optimization framework to optimize the resulting objective in both supervised and reinforcement learning settings. Extensive experimentation with synthetic and real world datasets from healthcare demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed approach.

As predictive models are increasingly being deployed in high-stakes decision making (e.g., loan approvals), there has been growing interest in post hoc techniques which provide recourse to affected individuals. These techniques generate recourses under the assumption that the underlying predictive model does not change. However, in practice, models are often regularly updated for a variety of reasons (e.g., dataset shifts), thereby rendering previously prescribed recourses ineffective. To address this problem, we propose a novel framework, RObust Algorithmic Recourse (ROAR), that leverages adversarial training for finding recourses that are robust to model shifts. To the best of our knowledge, this work proposes the first solution to this critical problem. We also carry out detailed theoretical analysis which underscores the importance of constructing recourses that are robust to model shifts: 1) we derive a lower bound on the probability of invalidation of recourses generated by existing approaches which are not robust to model shifts. 2) we prove that the additional cost incurred due to the robust recourses output by our framework is bounded. Experimental evaluation on multiple synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed framework and supports our theoretical findings.

Reliable treatment effect estimation from observational data depends on the availability of all confounding information. While much work has targeted treatment effect estimation from observational data, there is relatively little work in the setting of confounding variable missingness, where collecting more information on confounders is often costly or time-consuming. In this work, we frame this challenge as a problem of feature acquisition of confounding features for causal inference. Our goal is to prioritize acquiring values for a fixed and known subset of missing confounders in samples that lead to efficient average treatment effect estimation. We propose two acquisition strategies based on i) covariate balancing (CB), and ii) reducing statistical estimation error on observed factual outcome error (OE). We compare CB and OE on five common causal effect estimation methods, and demonstrate improved sample efficiency of OE over baseline methods under various settings. We also provide visualizations for further analysis on the difference between our proposed methods.

The use of machine learning (ML) in health care raises numerous ethical concerns, especially as models can amplify existing health inequities. Here, we outline ethical considerations for equitable ML in the advancement of health care. Specifically, we frame ethics of ML in health care through the lens of social justice. We describe ongoing efforts and outline challenges in a proposed pipeline of ethical ML in health, ranging from problem selection to post-deployment considerations. We close by summarizing recommendations to address these challenges.