Many modern methods for prediction leverage nearest neighbor search to find past training examples most similar to a test example, an idea that dates back in text to at least the 11th century and has stood the test of time. This monograph aims to explain the success of these methods, both in theory, for which we cover foundational nonasymptotic statistical guarantees on nearest-neighbor-based regression and classification, and in practice, for which we gather prominent methods for approximate nearest neighbor search that have been essential to scaling prediction systems reliant on nearest neighbor analysis to handle massive datasets. Furthermore, we discuss connections to learning distances for use with nearest neighbor methods, including how random decision trees and ensemble methods learn nearest neighbor structure, as well as recent developments in crowdsourcing and graphons. In terms of theory, our focus is on nonasymptotic statistical guarantees, which we state in the form of how many training data and what algorithm parameters ensure that a nearest neighbor prediction method achieves a user-specified error tolerance. We begin with the most general of such results for nearest neighbor and related kernel regression and classification in general metric spaces. In such settings in which we assume very little structure, what enables successful prediction is smoothness in the function being estimated for regression, and a low probability of landing near the decision boundary for classification. In practice, these conditions could be difficult to verify for a real dataset. We then cover recent guarantees on nearest neighbor prediction in the three case studies of time series forecasting, recommending products to people over time, and delineating human organs in medical images by looking at image patches. In these case studies, clustering structure enables successful prediction.

We show that a gradient-descent with a simple, universal rule for step-size selection provably finds $k$-SVD, i.e., the $k\geq 1$ largest singular values and corresponding vectors, of any matrix, despite nonconvexity. There has been substantial progress towards this in the past few years where existing results are able to establish such guarantees for the \emph{exact-parameterized} and \emph{over-parameterized} settings, with choice of oracle-provided step size. But guarantees for generic setting with a step size selection that does not require oracle-provided information has remained a challenge. We overcome this challenge and establish that gradient descent with an appealingly simple adaptive step size (akin to preconditioning) and random initialization enjoys global linear convergence for generic setting. Our convergence analysis reveals that the gradient method has an attracting region, and within this attracting region, the method behaves like Heron's method (a.k.a. the Babylonian method). Empirically, we validate the theoretical results. The emergence of modern compute infrastructure for iterative optimization coupled with this work is likely to provide means to solve $k$-SVD for very large matrices.

We introduce a novel framework for human-AI collaboration in prediction and decision tasks. Our approach leverages human judgment to distinguish inputs which are algorithmically indistinguishable, or "look the same" to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human-AI collaboration in prediction and decision tasks, as experts often form judgments by drawing on information which is not encoded in an algorithm's training data. Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side information", and further provides a simple but principled method for selectively incorporating human feedback into algorithmic predictions. We show that this method provably improves the performance of any feasible algorithmic predictor and precisely quantify this improvement. We demonstrate the utility of our framework in a case study of emergency room triage decisions, where we find that although algorithmic risk scores are highly competitive with physicians, there is strong evidence that physician judgments provide signal which could not be replicated by any predictive algorithm. This insight yields a range of natural decision rules which leverage the complementary strengths of human experts and predictive algorithms.

We study a class of structured Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) known as Exo-MDPs. They are characterized by a partition of the state space into two components: the exogenous states evolve stochastically in a manner not affected by the agent's actions, whereas the endogenous states can be affected by actions, and evolve according to deterministic dynamics involving both the endogenous and exogenous states. Exo-MDPs provide a natural model for various applications, including inventory control, portfolio management, power systems, and ride-sharing, among others. While seemingly restrictive on the surface, our first result establishes that any discrete MDP can be represented as an Exo-MDP. The underlying argument reveals how transition and reward dynamics can be written as linear functions of the exogenous state distribution, showing how Exo-MDPs are instances of linear mixture MDPs, thereby showing a representational equivalence between discrete MDPs, Exo-MDPs, and linear mixture MDPs. The connection between Exo-MDPs and linear mixture MDPs leads to algorithms that are near sample-optimal, with regret guarantees scaling with the (effective) size of the exogenous state space $d$, independent of the sizes of the endogenous state and action spaces, even when the exogenous state is {\em unobserved}. When the exogenous state is unobserved, we establish a regret upper bound of $O(H^{3/2}d\sqrt{K})$ with $K$ trajectories of horizon $H$ and unobserved exogenous state of dimension $d$. We also establish a matching regret lower bound of $\Omega(H^{3/2}d\sqrt{K})$ for non-stationary Exo-MDPs and a lower bound of $\Omega(Hd\sqrt{K})$ for stationary Exo-MDPs. We complement our theoretical findings with an experimental study on inventory control problems.

We are interested in developing a data-driven method to evaluate race-induced biases in law enforcement systems. While the recent works have addressed this question in the context of police-civilian interactions using police stop data, they have two key limitations. First, bias can only be properly quantified if true criminality is accounted for in addition to race, but it is absent in prior works. Second, law enforcement systems are multi-stage and hence it is important to isolate the true source of bias within the "causal chain of interactions" rather than simply focusing on the end outcome; this can help guide reforms. In this work, we address these challenges by presenting a multi-stage causal framework incorporating criminality. We provide a theoretical characterization and an associated data-driven method to evaluate (a) the presence of any form of racial bias, and (b) if so, the primary source of such a bias in terms of race and criminality. Our framework identifies three canonical scenarios with distinct characteristics: in settings like (1) airport security, the primary source of observed bias against a race is likely to be bias in law enforcement against innocents of that race; (2) AI-empowered policing, the primary source of observed bias against a race is likely to be bias in law enforcement against criminals of that race; and (3) police-civilian interaction, the primary source of observed bias against a race could be bias in law enforcement against that race or bias from the general public in reporting against the other race. Through an extensive empirical study using police-civilian interaction data and 911 call data, we find an instance of such a counter-intuitive phenomenon: in New Orleans, the observed bias is against the majority race and the likely reason for it is the over-reporting (via 911 calls) of incidents involving the minority race by the general public.

We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach focuses on the use of human judgment to distinguish inputs which `look the same' to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human/AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often have access to information -- particularly subjective information -- which is not encoded in the algorithm's training data. We use this insight to develop a set of principled algorithms for selectively incorporating human feedback only when it improves the performance of any feasible predictor. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts on average, human judgment can significantly improve algorithmic predictions on specific instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.

The well-established practice of time series analysis involves estimating deterministic, non-stationary trend and seasonality components followed by learning the residual stochastic, stationary components. Recently, it has been shown that one can learn the deterministic non-stationary components accurately using multivariate Singular Spectrum Analysis (mSSA) in the absence of a correlated stationary component; meanwhile, in the absence of deterministic non-stationary components, the Autoregressive (AR) stationary component can also be learnt readily, e.g. via Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). However, a theoretical underpinning of multi-stage learning algorithms involving both deterministic and stationary components has been absent in the literature despite its pervasiveness. We resolve this open question by establishing desirable theoretical guarantees for a natural two-stage algorithm, where mSSA is first applied to estimate the non-stationary components despite the presence of a correlated stationary AR component, which is subsequently learned from the residual time series. We provide a finite-sample forecasting consistency bound for the proposed algorithm, SAMoSSA, which is data-driven and thus requires minimal parameter tuning. To establish theoretical guarantees, we overcome three hurdles: (i) we characterize the spectra of Page matrices of stable AR processes, thus extending the analysis of mSSA; (ii) we extend the analysis of AR process identification in the presence of arbitrary bounded perturbations; (iii) we characterize the out-of-sample or forecasting error, as opposed to solely considering model identification. Through representative empirical studies, we validate the superior performance of SAMoSSA compared to existing baselines. Notably, SAMoSSA's ability to account for AR noise structure yields improvements ranging from 5% to 37% across various benchmark datasets.

The study of ground reaction forces (GRF) is used to characterize the mechanical loading experienced by individuals in movements such as running, which is clinically applicable to identify athletes at risk for stress-related injuries. Our aim in this paper is to determine if data collected with inertial measurement units (IMUs), that can be worn by athletes during outdoor runs, can be used to predict GRF with sufficient accuracy to allow the analysis of its derived biomechanical variables (e.g., contact time and loading rate). In this paper, we consider lightweight approaches in contrast to state-of-the-art prediction using LSTM neural networks. Specifically, we compare use of LSTMs to k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) regression as well as propose a novel solution, SVD Embedding Regression (SER), using linear regression between singular value decomposition embeddings of IMUs data (input) and GRF data (output). We evaluate the accuracy of these techniques when using training data collected from different athletes, from the same athlete, or both, and we explore the use of acceleration and angular velocity data from sensors at different locations (sacrum and shanks). Our results illustrate that simple machine learning methods such as SER and KNN can be similarly accurate or more accurate than LSTM neural networks, with much faster training times and hyperparameter optimization; in particular, SER and KNN are more accurate when personal training data are available, and KNN comes with benefit of providing provenance of prediction. Notably, the use of personal data reduces prediction errors of all methods for most biomechanical variables.

High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained human experts. A common source of concern about automation in these settings is that experts may exercise intuition that is difficult to model and/or have access to information (e.g., conversations with a patient) that is simply unavailable to a would-be algorithm. This raises a natural question whether human experts add value which could not be captured by an algorithmic predictor. We develop a statistical framework under which we can pose this question as a natural hypothesis test. Indeed, as our framework highlights, detecting human expertise is more subtle than simply comparing the accuracy of expert predictions to those made by a particular learning algorithm. Instead, we propose a simple procedure which tests whether expert predictions are statistically independent from the outcomes of interest after conditioning on the available inputs (`features'). A rejection of our test thus suggests that human experts may add value to any algorithm trained on the available data, and has direct implications for whether human-AI `complementarity' is achievable in a given prediction task. We highlight the utility of our procedure using admissions data collected from the emergency department of a large academic hospital system, where we show that physicians' admit/discharge decisions for patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) appear to be incorporating information that is not available to a standard algorithmic screening tool. This is despite the fact that the screening tool is arguably more accurate than physicians' discretionary decisions, highlighting that -- even absent normative concerns about accountability or interpretability -- accuracy is insufficient to justify algorithmic automation.

Given an observational study with $n$ independent but heterogeneous units, our goal is to learn the counterfactual distribution for each unit using only one $p$-dimensional sample per unit containing covariates, interventions, and outcomes. Specifically, we allow for unobserved confounding that introduces statistical biases between interventions and outcomes as well as exacerbates the heterogeneity across units. Modeling the conditional distribution of the outcomes as an exponential family, we reduce learning the unit-level counterfactual distributions to learning $n$ exponential family distributions with heterogeneous parameters and only one sample per distribution. We introduce a convex objective that pools all $n$ samples to jointly learn all $n$ parameter vectors, and provide a unit-wise mean squared error bound that scales linearly with the metric entropy of the parameter space. For example, when the parameters are $s$-sparse linear combination of $k$ known vectors, the error is $O(s\log k/p)$. En route, we derive sufficient conditions for compactly supported distributions to satisfy the logarithmic Sobolev inequality. As an application of the framework, our results enable consistent imputation of sparsely missing covariates.