mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Statistical Performance Guarantee for Subgroup Identification with Generic Machine Learning

arXiv 2310.07973 ↗First posted 12 Oct 2023stat.ME math.OC stat.APcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Across a wide array of disciplines, many researchers use machine learning (ML) algorithms to identify a subgroup of individuals who are likely to benefit from a treatment the most (``exceptional responders'') or those who are harmed by it. A common approach to this subgroup identification problem consists of two steps. First, researchers estimate the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) using an ML algorithm. Next, they use the estimated CATE to select those individuals who are predicted to be most affected by the treatment, either positively or negatively. Unfortunately, CATE estimates are often biased and noisy. In addition, utilizing the same data to both identify a subgroup and estimate its group average treatment effect results in a multiple testing problem. To address these challenges, we develop uniform confidence bands for estimation of the group average treatment effect sorted by generic ML algorithm (GATES). Using these uniform confidence bands, researchers can identify, with a statistical guarantee, a subgroup whose GATES exceeds a certain effect size, regardless of how this effect size is chosen. The validity of the proposed methodology depends solely on randomization of treatment and random sampling of units. Importantly, our method does not require modeling assumptions and avoids a computationally intensive resampling procedure. A simulation study shows that the proposed uniform confidence bands are reasonably informative and have an appropriate empirical coverage even when the sample size is as small as 100. We analyze a clinical trial of late-stage prostate cancer and find a relatively large proportion of exceptional responders.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2023.

Builds on

10 of 51 references.

References · 10

  1. 2015Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forestscited by 597
  2. 2015Recursive Partitioning for Heterogeneous Causal Effectscited by 254
  3. 2017Automated versus do-it-yourself methods for causal inference: Lessons learned from a data analysis competitioncited by 106
  4. 2017Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effectscited by 41
  5. 2021Evaluating Treatment Prioritization Rules via Rank-Weighted Average Treatment Effectscited by 29
  6. 2020Experimental Evaluation of Algorithm-Assisted Human Decision-Making: Application to Pretrial Public Safety Assessmentcited by 18
  7. 2019Experimental Evaluation of Individualized Treatment Rulescited by 16
  8. 2022Policy Learning with Asymmetric Counterfactual Utilitiescited by 9
  9. 2022Statistical Inference for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Discovered by Generic Machine Learning in Randomized Experimentscited by 7
  10. 2023Minimax optimal subgroup identificationcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.