Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Interpretable Off-Policy Learning via Hyperbox Search

Published 4 Mar 2022 in stat.ML and cs.LG | (2203.02473v2)

Abstract: Personalized treatment decisions have become an integral part of modern medicine. Thereby, the aim is to make treatment decisions based on individual patient characteristics. Numerous methods have been developed for learning such policies from observational data that achieve the best outcome across a certain policy class. Yet these methods are rarely interpretable. However, interpretability is often a prerequisite for policy learning in clinical practice. In this paper, we propose an algorithm for interpretable off-policy learning via hyperbox search. In particular, our policies can be represented in disjunctive normal form (i.e., OR-of-ANDs) and are thus intelligible. We prove a universal approximation theorem that shows that our policy class is flexible enough to approximate any measurable function arbitrarily well. For optimization, we develop a tailored column generation procedure within a branch-and-bound framework. Using a simulation study, we demonstrate that our algorithm outperforms state-of-the-art methods from interpretable off-policy learning in terms of regret. Using real-word clinical data, we perform a user study with actual clinical experts, who rate our policies as highly interpretable.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (54)
  1. Branching rules revisited. Operations Research Letters, 33(1):42–54, 2005.
  2. Interpretable machine learning in healthcare. International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics, pp.  559–560, 2018.
  3. Policy learning with observational data. Econometrica, 89(1):133–161, 2021.
  4. Efficient policy learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.02896, 78, 2017.
  5. Branch-and-price: Column generation for solving huge integer programs. Operations Research, 46(3):316–329, 1998.
  6. EconML: A Python Package for ML-Based Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Estimation. https://github.com/microsoft/EconML, 2019. Version 0.12.0.
  7. Efficient policy learning from surrogate-loss classification reductions. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 788–798, 2020.
  8. Optimal prescriptive trees. INFORMS Journal on Optimization, 1(2):164–183, 2019.
  9. The offset tree for learning with partial labels. International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pp.  129–138, 2009.
  10. Column-generation boosting methods for mixture of kernels. International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), pp.  521–526, 2004.
  11. A-learning for approximate planning. Ann Arbor, 1001:48109–2122, 2004.
  12. Learning optimal dynamic treatment regimes using causal tree methods in medicine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07124, 2022.
  13. Counterfactual reasoning and learning systems: The example of computational advertising. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14(65):3207–3260, 2013.
  14. Personalized medicine: progress and promise. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 12:217–244, 2011.
  15. A new initiative on precision medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 372(9):793–795, 2015.
  16. Boolean decision rules via column generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pp.  4655–4665, 2018.
  17. Linear programming boosting via column generation. Machine Learning, 46(1/3):225–254, 2002.
  18. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608v2, 2017.
  19. Doubly robust policy evaluation and optimization. Statistical Science, 29(4), 2014.
  20. The path to personalized medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 363(4):301–304, 2010.
  21. A trial comparing nucleoside monotherapy with combination therapy in hiv-infected adults with cd4 cell counts from 200 to 500 per cubic millimeter. aids clinical trials group study 175 study team. The New England Journal of Medicine, 335(15):1081–1090, 1996.
  22. A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260):663–685, 1952.
  23. Causal inference for statistics, social, and biomedical sciences: An introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015.
  24. Interpretable AI, L. Interpretable AI Documentation, 2022. URL https://www.interpretable.ai.
  25. Entropy learning for dynamic treatment regimes. Statistica Sinica, 29(4):1633–1655, 2019.
  26. Kallus, N. Balanced policy evaluation and learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 31, 2018.
  27. Confounding-robust policy improvement. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.08593, 2018.
  28. American joint committee on cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 66(5):370–374, 2016.
  29. Who should be treated? empirical welfare maximization methods for treatment choice. Econometrica, 86(2):591–616, 2018.
  30. Precision medicine. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 6:263–286, 2019.
  31. Tree-based methods for individualized treatment regimes. Biometrika, 102(3):501–514, 2015.
  32. Interactive model building for q-learning. Biometrika, 101(4):831–847, 2014.
  33. Learning cost-effective and interpretable treatment regimes. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.  166–175, 2017.
  34. Unbiased offline evaluation of contextual-bandit-based news article recommendation algorithms. International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), pp.  297–306, 2011.
  35. Learning hash functions using column generation. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 142–150, 2013.
  36. A combinatorial branch-and-bound algorithm for box search. Discrete Optimization, 13:36–48, 2014.
  37. Variable selection for optimal treatment decision. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 22(5):493–504, 2013.
  38. Murphy, S. A. Optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 65(2):331–355, 2003.
  39. Improved doubly robust estimation in learning optimal individualized treatment rules. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116(533):283–294, 2021.
  40. Performance guarantees for individualized treatment rules. Annals of Statistics, 39(2):1180–1210, 2011.
  41. Robins, J. M. Optimal structural nested models for optimal sequential decisions. Proceedings of the Second Seattle Symposium in Biostatistics, pp.  189–326, 2004.
  42. Rubin, D. B. Causal inference using potential outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469):322–331, 2005.
  43. Rudin, C. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5):206–215, 2019.
  44. Q- and a-learning methods for estimating optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Statistical Science, 29(4), 2014.
  45. Real Analysis: Measure Theory, Integration, and Hilbert Spaces. Princeton University Press, 2009.
  46. Data-efficient off-policy policy evaluation for reinforcement learning. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 2139–2148, 2016.
  47. A bayesian framework for learning rule sets for interpretable classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1):2357–2393, 2017.
  48. Estimating optimal treatment regimes from a classification perspective. Stat, 1(1):103–114, 2012.
  49. Using decision lists to construct interpretable and parsimonious treatment regimes. Biometrics, 71(4):895–904, 2015.
  50. Interpretable dynamic treatment regimes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(524):1541–1549, 2018.
  51. Estimating individualized treatment rules using outcome weighted learning. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107(499):1106–1118, 2012.
  52. Efficient augmentation and relaxation learning for individualized treatment rules using observational data. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(48):1–23, 2019.
  53. Residual weighted learning for estimating individualized treatment rules. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(517):169–187, 2017.
  54. Offline multi-action policy learning: Generalization and optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04778, 2018.
Citations (5)

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.