We design a weighting scheme to mitigate multiple selection biases inherited in EHRs of COVID patients.

This paper studies bandit problems where an agent has access to offline data that might be utilized to potentially improve the estimation of each arm's reward distribution. A major obstacle in this setting is the existence of compound biases from the observational data. Ignoring these biases and blindly fitting a model with the biased data could even negatively affect the online learning phase. In this work, we formulate this problem from a causal perspective. First, we categorize the biases into confounding bias and selection bias based on the causal structure they imply. Next, we extract the causal bound for each arm that is robust towards compound biases from biased observational data. The derived bounds contain the ground truth mean reward and can effectively guide the bandit agent to learn a nearly-optimal decision policy. We also conduct regret analysis in both contextual and non-contextual bandit settings and show that prior causal bounds could help consistently reduce the asymptotic regret.

News sources undergo the process of selecting newsworthy information when covering a certain topic. The process inevitably exhibits selection biases, i.e. news sources' typical patterns of choosing what information to include in news coverage, due to their agenda differences. To understand the magnitude and implications of selection biases, one must first discover (1) on what topics do sources typically have diverging definitions of "newsworthy" information, and (2) do the content selection patterns correlate with certain attributes of the news sources, e.g. ideological leaning, etc. The goal of the paper is to investigate and discuss the challenges of building scalable NLP systems for discovering patterns of media selection biases directly from news content in massive-scale news corpora, without relying on labeled data. To facilitate research in this domain, we propose and study a conceptual framework, where we compare how sources typically mention certain controversial entities, and use such as indicators for the sources' content selection preferences. We empirically show the capabilities of the framework through a case study on NELA-2020, a corpus of 1.8M news articles in English from 519 news sources worldwide. We demonstrate an unsupervised representation learning method to capture the selection preferences for how sources typically mention controversial entities. Our experiments show that that distributional divergence of such representations, when studied collectively across entities and news sources, serve as good indicators for an individual source's ideological leaning. We hope our findings will provide insights for future research on media selection biases.

In health related machine learning applications, the training data often corresponds to a non-representative sample from the target populations where the learners will be deployed. In anticausal prediction tasks, selection biases often make the associations between confounders and the outcome variable unstable across different target environments. As a consequence, the predictions from confounded learners are often unstable, and might fail to generalize in shifted test environments. Stable prediction approaches aim to solve this problem by producing predictions that are stable across unknown test environments. These approaches, however, are sometimes applied to the training data alone with the hope that training an unconfounded model will be enough to generate stable predictions in shifted test sets. Here, we show that this is insufficient, and that improved stability can be achieved by deconfounding the test set features as well. We illustrate these observations using both synthetic data and real world data from a mobile health study.

Many real datasets contain values missing not at random (MNAR). In this scenario, investigators often perform list-wise deletion, or delete samples with any missing values, before applying causal discovery algorithms. List-wise deletion is a sound and general strategy when paired with algorithms such as FCI and RFCI, but the deletion procedure also eliminates otherwise good samples that contain only a few missing values. In this report, we show that we can more efficiently utilize the observed values with test-wise deletion while still maintaining algorithmic soundness. Here, test-wise deletion refers to the process of list-wise deleting samples only among the variables required for each conditional independence (CI) test used in constraint-based searches. Test-wise deletion therefore often saves more samples than list-wise deletion for each CI test, especially when we have a sparse underlying graph. Our theoretical results show that test-wise deletion is sound under the justifiable assumption that none of the missingness mechanisms causally affect each other in the underlying causal graph. We also find that FCI and RFCI with test-wise deletion outperform their list-wise deletion and imputation counterparts on average when MNAR holds in both synthetic and real data.

Astrophysics and cosmology are rich with data. The advent of wide-area digital cameras on large aperture telescopes has led to ever more ambitious surveys of the sky. Data volumes of entire surveys a decade ago can now be acquired in a single night and real-time analysis is often desired. Thus, modern astronomy requires big data know-how, in particular it demands highly efficient machine learning and image analysis algorithms. But scalability is not the only challenge: Astronomy applications touch several current machine learning research questions, such as learning from biased data and dealing with label and measurement noise. We argue that this makes astronomy a great domain for computer science research, as it pushes the boundaries of data analysis. In the following, we will present this exciting application area for data scientists. We will focus on exemplary results, discuss main challenges, and highlight some recent methodological advancements in machine learning and image analysis triggered by astronomical applications.

Controlling for selection and confounding biases are two of the most challenging problems in the empirical sciences as well as in artificial intelligence tasks. Covariate adjustment (or, Backdoor Adjustment) is the most pervasive technique used for controlling confounding bias, but the same is oblivious to issues of sampling selection. In this paper, we introduce a generalized version of covariate adjustment that simultaneously controls for both confounding and selection biases. We first derive a sufficient and necessary condition for recovering causal effects using covariate adjustment from an observational distribution collected under preferential selection. We then relax this setting to consider cases when additional, unbiased measurements over a set of covariates are available for use (e.g., the age and gender distribution obtained from census data). Finally, we present a complete algorithm with polynomial delay to find all sets of admissible covariates for adjustment when confounding and selection biases are simultaneously present and unbiased data is available.

The discovery of causal relationships from purely observational data is a fundamental problem in science. The most elementary form of such a causal discovery problem is to decide whether X causes Y or, alternatively, Y causes X, given joint observations of two variables X, Y. An example is to decide whether altitude causes temperature, or vice versa, given only joint measurements of both variables. Even under the simplifying assumptions of no confounding, no feedback loops, and no selection bias, such bivariate causal discovery problems are challenging. Nevertheless, several approaches for addressing those problems have been proposed in recent years. We review two families of such methods: Additive Noise Methods (ANM) and Information Geometric Causal Inference (IGCI). We present the benchmark CauseEffectPairs that consists of data for 100 different cause-effect pairs selected from 37 datasets from various domains (e.g., meteorology, biology, medicine, engineering, economy, etc.) and motivate our decisions regarding the "ground truth" causal directions of all pairs. We evaluate the performance of several bivariate causal discovery methods on these real-world benchmark data and in addition on artificially simulated data. Our empirical results on real-world data indicate that certain methods are indeed able to distinguish cause from effect using only purely observational data, although more benchmark data would be needed to obtain statistically significant conclusions. One of the best performing methods overall is the additive-noise method originally proposed by Hoyer et al. (2009), which obtains an accuracy of 63+-10 % and an AUC of 0.74+-0.05 on the real-world benchmark. As the main theoretical contribution of this work we prove the consistency of that method.

Adjusted for chance measures are widely used to compare partitions/clusterings of the same data set. In particular, the Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) based on pair-counting, and the Adjusted Mutual Information (AMI) based on Shannon information theory are very popular in the clustering community. Nonetheless it is an open problem as to what are the best application scenarios for each measure and guidelines in the literature for their usage are sparse, with the result that users often resort to using both. Generalized Information Theoretic (IT) measures based on the Tsallis entropy have been shown to link pair-counting and Shannon IT measures. In this paper, we aim to bridge the gap between adjustment of measures based on pair-counting and measures based on information theory. We solve the key technical challenge of analytically computing the expected value and variance of generalized IT measures. This allows us to propose adjustments of generalized IT measures, which reduce to well known adjusted clustering comparison measures as special cases. Using the theory of generalized IT measures, we are able to propose the following guidelines for using ARI and AMI as external validation indices: ARI should be used when the reference clustering has large equal sized clusters; AMI should be used when the reference clustering is unbalanced and there exist small clusters.