-
The Hardness of Validating Observational Studies with Experimental Data
Authors:
Jake Fawkes,
Michael O'Riordan,
Athanasios Vlontzos,
Oriol Corcoll,
Ciarán Mark Gilligan-Lee
Abstract:
Observational data is often readily available in large quantities, but can lead to biased causal effect estimates due to the presence of unobserved confounding. Recent works attempt to remove this bias by supplementing observational data with experimental data, which, when available, is typically on a smaller scale due to the time and cost involved in running a randomised controlled trial. In this…
▽ More
Observational data is often readily available in large quantities, but can lead to biased causal effect estimates due to the presence of unobserved confounding. Recent works attempt to remove this bias by supplementing observational data with experimental data, which, when available, is typically on a smaller scale due to the time and cost involved in running a randomised controlled trial. In this work, we prove a theorem that places fundamental limits on this ``best of both worlds'' approach. Using the framework of impossible inference, we show that although it is possible to use experimental data to \emph{falsify} causal effect estimates from observational data, in general it is not possible to \emph{validate} such estimates. Our theorem proves that while experimental data can be used to detect bias in observational studies, without additional assumptions on the smoothness of the correction function, it can not be used to remove it. We provide a practical example of such an assumption, developing a novel Gaussian Process based approach to construct intervals which contain the true treatment effect with high probability, both inside and outside of the support of the experimental data. We demonstrate our methodology on both simulated and semi-synthetic datasets and make the \href{https://github.com/Jakefawkes/Obs_and_exp_data}{code available}.
△ Less
Submitted 18 March, 2025;
originally announced March 2025.
-
The Fragility of Fairness: Causal Sensitivity Analysis for Fair Machine Learning
Authors:
Jake Fawkes,
Nic Fishman,
Mel Andrews,
Zachary C. Lipton
Abstract:
Fairness metrics are a core tool in the fair machine learning literature (FairML), used to determine that ML models are, in some sense, "fair". Real-world data, however, are typically plagued by various measurement biases and other violated assumptions, which can render fairness assessments meaningless. We adapt tools from causal sensitivity analysis to the FairML context, providing a general fram…
▽ More
Fairness metrics are a core tool in the fair machine learning literature (FairML), used to determine that ML models are, in some sense, "fair". Real-world data, however, are typically plagued by various measurement biases and other violated assumptions, which can render fairness assessments meaningless. We adapt tools from causal sensitivity analysis to the FairML context, providing a general framework which (1) accommodates effectively any combination of fairness metric and bias that can be posed in the "oblivious setting"; (2) allows researchers to investigate combinations of biases, resulting in non-linear sensitivity; and (3) enables flexible encoding of domain-specific constraints and assumptions. Employing this framework, we analyze the sensitivity of the most common parity metrics under 3 varieties of classifier across 14 canonical fairness datasets. Our analysis reveals the striking fragility of fairness assessments to even minor dataset biases. We show that causal sensitivity analysis provides a powerful and necessary toolkit for gauging the informativeness of parity metric evaluations. Our repository is available here: https://github.com/Jakefawkes/fragile_fair.
△ Less
Submitted 15 October, 2024; v1 submitted 12 October, 2024;
originally announced October 2024.
-
Is merging worth it? Securely evaluating the information gain for causal dataset acquisition
Authors:
Jake Fawkes,
Lucile Ter-Minassian,
Desi Ivanova,
Uri Shalit,
Chris Holmes
Abstract:
Merging datasets across institutions is a lengthy and costly procedure, especially when it involves private information. Data hosts may therefore want to prospectively gauge which datasets are most beneficial to merge with, without revealing sensitive information. For causal estimation this is particularly challenging as the value of a merge will depend not only on the reduction in epistemic uncer…
▽ More
Merging datasets across institutions is a lengthy and costly procedure, especially when it involves private information. Data hosts may therefore want to prospectively gauge which datasets are most beneficial to merge with, without revealing sensitive information. For causal estimation this is particularly challenging as the value of a merge will depend not only on the reduction in epistemic uncertainty but also the improvement in overlap. To address this challenge, we introduce the first cryptographically secure information-theoretic approach for quantifying the value of a merge in the context of heterogeneous treatment effect estimation. We do this by evaluating the Expected Information Gain (EIG) and utilising multi-party computation to ensure it can be securely computed without revealing any raw data. As we demonstrate, this can be used with differential privacy (DP) to ensure privacy requirements whilst preserving more accurate computation than naive DP alone. To the best of our knowledge, this work presents the first privacy-preserving method for dataset acquisition tailored to causal estimation. We demonstrate the effectiveness and reliability of our method on a range of simulated and realistic benchmarks. The code is available anonymously.
△ Less
Submitted 7 March, 2025; v1 submitted 11 September, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
-
The Role of Learning Algorithms in Collective Action
Authors:
Omri Ben-Dov,
Jake Fawkes,
Samira Samadi,
Amartya Sanyal
Abstract:
Collective action in machine learning is the study of the control that a coordinated group can have over machine learning algorithms. While previous research has concentrated on assessing the impact of collectives against Bayes (sub-)optimal classifiers, this perspective is limited in that it does not account for the choice of learning algorithm. Since classifiers seldom behave like Bayes classifi…
▽ More
Collective action in machine learning is the study of the control that a coordinated group can have over machine learning algorithms. While previous research has concentrated on assessing the impact of collectives against Bayes (sub-)optimal classifiers, this perspective is limited in that it does not account for the choice of learning algorithm. Since classifiers seldom behave like Bayes classifiers and are influenced by the choice of learning algorithms along with their inherent biases, in this work we initiate the study of how the choice of the learning algorithm plays a role in the success of a collective in practical settings. Specifically, we focus on distributionally robust optimization (DRO), popular for improving a worst group error, and on the ubiquitous stochastic gradient descent (SGD), due to its inductive bias for "simpler" functions. Our empirical results, supported by a theoretical foundation, show that the effective size and success of the collective are highly dependent on properties of the learning algorithm. This highlights the necessity of taking the learning algorithm into account when studying the impact of collective action in machine learning.
△ Less
Submitted 4 June, 2024; v1 submitted 10 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
Results on Counterfactual Invariance
Authors:
Jake Fawkes,
Robin J. Evans
Abstract:
In this paper we provide a theoretical analysis of counterfactual invariance. We present a variety of existing definitions, study how they relate to each other and what their graphical implications are. We then turn to the current major question surrounding counterfactual invariance, how does it relate to conditional independence? We show that whilst counterfactual invariance implies conditional i…
▽ More
In this paper we provide a theoretical analysis of counterfactual invariance. We present a variety of existing definitions, study how they relate to each other and what their graphical implications are. We then turn to the current major question surrounding counterfactual invariance, how does it relate to conditional independence? We show that whilst counterfactual invariance implies conditional independence, conditional independence does not give any implications about the degree or likelihood of satisfying counterfactual invariance. Furthermore, we show that for discrete causal models counterfactually invariant functions are often constrained to be functions of particular variables, or even constant.
△ Less
Submitted 17 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
-
Returning The Favour: When Regression Benefits From Probabilistic Causal Knowledge
Authors:
Shahine Bouabid,
Jake Fawkes,
Dino Sejdinovic
Abstract:
A directed acyclic graph (DAG) provides valuable prior knowledge that is often discarded in regression tasks in machine learning. We show that the independences arising from the presence of collider structures in DAGs provide meaningful inductive biases, which constrain the regression hypothesis space and improve predictive performance. We introduce collider regression, a framework to incorporate…
▽ More
A directed acyclic graph (DAG) provides valuable prior knowledge that is often discarded in regression tasks in machine learning. We show that the independences arising from the presence of collider structures in DAGs provide meaningful inductive biases, which constrain the regression hypothesis space and improve predictive performance. We introduce collider regression, a framework to incorporate probabilistic causal knowledge from a collider in a regression problem. When the hypothesis space is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space, we prove a strictly positive generalisation benefit under mild assumptions and provide closed-form estimators of the empirical risk minimiser. Experiments on synthetic and climate model data demonstrate performance gains of the proposed methodology.
△ Less
Submitted 21 June, 2023; v1 submitted 26 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
Doubly Robust Kernel Statistics for Testing Distributional Treatment Effects
Authors:
Jake Fawkes,
Robert Hu,
Robin J. Evans,
Dino Sejdinovic
Abstract:
With the widespread application of causal inference, it is increasingly important to have tools which can test for the presence of causal effects in a diverse array of circumstances. In this vein we focus on the problem of testing for \emph{distributional} causal effects, where the treatment affects not just the mean, but also higher order moments of the distribution, as well as multidimensional o…
▽ More
With the widespread application of causal inference, it is increasingly important to have tools which can test for the presence of causal effects in a diverse array of circumstances. In this vein we focus on the problem of testing for \emph{distributional} causal effects, where the treatment affects not just the mean, but also higher order moments of the distribution, as well as multidimensional or structured outcomes. We build upon a previously introduced framework, Counterfactual Mean Embeddings, for representing causal distributions within Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces (RKHS) by proposing new, improved, estimators for the distributional embeddings. These improved estimators are inspired by doubly robust estimators of the causal mean, using a similar form within the kernel space. We analyse these estimators, proving they retain the doubly robust property and have improved convergence rates compared to the original estimators. This leads to new permutation based tests for distributional causal effects, using the estimators we propose as tests statistics. We experimentally and theoretically demonstrate the validity of our tests.
△ Less
Submitted 7 November, 2023; v1 submitted 9 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
-
Selection, Ignorability and Challenges With Causal Fairness
Authors:
Jake Fawkes,
Robin Evans,
Dino Sejdinovic
Abstract:
In this paper we look at popular fairness methods that use causal counterfactuals. These methods capture the intuitive notion that a prediction is fair if it coincides with the prediction that would have been made if someone's race, gender or religion were counterfactually different. In order to achieve this, we must have causal models that are able to capture what someone would be like if we were…
▽ More
In this paper we look at popular fairness methods that use causal counterfactuals. These methods capture the intuitive notion that a prediction is fair if it coincides with the prediction that would have been made if someone's race, gender or religion were counterfactually different. In order to achieve this, we must have causal models that are able to capture what someone would be like if we were to counterfactually change these traits. However, we argue that any model that can do this must lie outside the particularly well behaved class that is commonly considered in the fairness literature. This is because in fairness settings, models in this class entail a particularly strong causal assumption, normally only seen in a randomised controlled trial. We argue that in general this is unlikely to hold. Furthermore, we show in many cases it can be explicitly rejected due to the fact that samples are selected from a wider population. We show this creates difficulties for counterfactual fairness as well as for the application of more general causal fairness methods.
△ Less
Submitted 2 March, 2022; v1 submitted 28 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
