{"id":564300,"date":"2019-02-01T08:02:16","date_gmt":"2019-02-01T16:02:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/?p=564300"},"modified":"2019-02-01T08:00:32","modified_gmt":"2019-02-01T16:00:32","slug":"getting-efficient-with-what-happens-if","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/blog\/getting-efficient-with-what-happens-if\/","title":{"rendered":"Getting efficient with \u201cWhat-happens-if \u2026\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
Causal inference (opens in new tab)<\/span><\/a> studies the relationship between causes and effects. For example, one kind of question that causal inference can answer is the \u201cWhat-happens-if \u2026\u201d question. What happens if I take a specific medication? What happens if I raise the price of a product? What happens if I go to the ER? What happens if I change a public policy?<\/p>\n Often, the answers to these questions vary based on context\u2014different patients might be more or less likely to experience side effects of a drug, and pricing effects can vary based on the market position of a product. Similarly, in the AI-infused experiences in our productivity products (opens in new tab)<\/span><\/a>, some models and choices work well for some groups but not necessarily the whole population (consider, for example, the different productivity needs of information consumers and producers, or of salespeople, financial analysts, and engineers.) Identifying this specific effect is what we call individual treatment effect (ITE<\/em>) discovery, and there are many approaches to discover the causal effect of a treatment for any individual in an observed population.<\/p>\n However, to calculate ITE, current approaches all assume that all the variables used to train the model continue to be available for individuals at test time. That is, if we want to estimate the effect of a drug for a new patient, the effect of lowering the price of a new product, or the effect of a policy change in a new city, then we must measure all aspects of the new context before we can start to predict the effect of the change.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, there are often significant practical constraints limiting the availability of data about new test cases. For example, a physical examination may be needed before deciding if a treatment will benefit a specific patient without having all relevant medical tests at his or her disposal. In this situation, the physician would prefer to identify and conduct the minimal set of necessary medical tests to accurately estimate the treatment effect for this patient. Similar situations arise with social workers, loan officers, judges and other decision-makers\u2014they need to identify a small set of information to gather in order to accurately estimate the effect of a decision. We call this ITE<\/em> prediction.<\/p>\n Maggie Makar, an MIT PhD student and recent Microsoft Research intern, will be presenting our research on solutions to this problem at the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (opens in new tab)<\/span><\/a> in Honolulu, Hawaii, January 27 \u2013 February 1.<\/p>\n In our research, we recognized that ITE discovery and ITE prediction are related but significantly different tasks. For an algorithm to execute reliable ITE discovery, it needs to perform two functions: adjustment for confounding and estimation of heterogeneous effects<\/em>. Adjustment for confounding accounts for situations where treatments are not randomly assigned in the training data and we must separate out the effect of a treatment from other causes of systematic differences in outcomes. For example, sicker patients who are more likely to die are also more likely to receive aggressive treatments.<\/p>\n