治疗效果评估的特定任务实验设计

Beth D. Connolly, Kim Moore, Tobias Schwedes, Alexander Adam, Gary Willis, Ilya Feige, Christopher Frye
{"title":"治疗效果评估的特定任务实验设计","authors":"Beth D. Connolly, Kim Moore, Tobias Schwedes, Alexander Adam, Gary Willis, Ilya Feige, Christopher Frye","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2306.05484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding causality should be a core requirement of any attempt to build real impact through AI. Due to the inherent unobservability of counterfactuals, large randomised trials (RCTs) are the standard for causal inference. But large experiments are generically expensive, and randomisation carries its own costs, e.g. when suboptimal decisions are trialed. Recent work has proposed more sample-efficient alternatives to RCTs, but these are not adaptable to the downstream application for which the causal effect is sought. In this work, we develop a task-specific approach to experimental design and derive sampling strategies customised to particular downstream applications. Across a range of important tasks, real-world datasets, and sample sizes, our method outperforms other benchmarks, e.g. requiring an order-of-magnitude less data to match RCT performance on targeted marketing tasks.","PeriodicalId":74529,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Machine Learning. International Conference on Machine Learning","volume":"25 1","pages":"6384-6401"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Task-specific experimental design for treatment effect estimation\",\"authors\":\"Beth D. Connolly, Kim Moore, Tobias Schwedes, Alexander Adam, Gary Willis, Ilya Feige, Christopher Frye\",\"doi\":\"10.48550/arXiv.2306.05484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Understanding causality should be a core requirement of any attempt to build real impact through AI. Due to the inherent unobservability of counterfactuals, large randomised trials (RCTs) are the standard for causal inference. But large experiments are generically expensive, and randomisation carries its own costs, e.g. when suboptimal decisions are trialed. Recent work has proposed more sample-efficient alternatives to RCTs, but these are not adaptable to the downstream application for which the causal effect is sought. In this work, we develop a task-specific approach to experimental design and derive sampling strategies customised to particular downstream applications. Across a range of important tasks, real-world datasets, and sample sizes, our method outperforms other benchmarks, e.g. requiring an order-of-magnitude less data to match RCT performance on targeted marketing tasks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Machine Learning. International Conference on Machine Learning\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"6384-6401\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Machine Learning. International Conference on Machine Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.05484\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Machine Learning. International Conference on Machine Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.05484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理解因果关系应该是任何试图通过人工智能产生真正影响的核心要求。由于反事实的固有不可观察性,大型随机试验(rct)是因果推理的标准。但大型实验通常是昂贵的,随机化也有它自己的成本,例如,在试验次优决策时。最近的工作提出了更多的样本效率替代随机对照试验,但这些不适应下游应用的因果关系是寻求。在这项工作中,我们开发了一种特定任务的实验设计方法,并推导出针对特定下游应用定制的采样策略。在一系列重要任务、真实世界数据集和样本量方面,我们的方法优于其他基准测试,例如,在目标营销任务上,我们需要的数据比RCT少一个数量级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Task-specific experimental design for treatment effect estimation
Understanding causality should be a core requirement of any attempt to build real impact through AI. Due to the inherent unobservability of counterfactuals, large randomised trials (RCTs) are the standard for causal inference. But large experiments are generically expensive, and randomisation carries its own costs, e.g. when suboptimal decisions are trialed. Recent work has proposed more sample-efficient alternatives to RCTs, but these are not adaptable to the downstream application for which the causal effect is sought. In this work, we develop a task-specific approach to experimental design and derive sampling strategies customised to particular downstream applications. Across a range of important tasks, real-world datasets, and sample sizes, our method outperforms other benchmarks, e.g. requiring an order-of-magnitude less data to match RCT performance on targeted marketing tasks.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Differential Privacy, Linguistic Fairness, and Training Data Influence: Impossibility and Possibility Theorems for Multilingual Language Models Ske2Grid: Skeleton-to-Grid Representation Learning for Action Recognition Probabilistic Imputation for Time-series Classification with Missing Data Decoding Layer Saliency in Language Transformers Do You Remember? Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting for Fake Audio Detection
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1