Model Selection in Time Series Studies of Influenza-Associated Mortality

Background: Poisson regression modeling has been widely used to estimate influenza-associated disease burden, as it has the advantage of adjusting for multiple seasonal confounders. However, few studies have discussed how to judge the adequacy of confounding adjustment. This study aims to compare the performance of commonly adopted model selection criteria in terms of providing a reliable and valid estimate for the health impact of influenza. Methods: We assessed four model selection criteria: quasi Akaike information criterion (QAIC), quasi Bayesian information criterion (QBIC), partial autocorrelation functions of residuals (PACF), and generalized cross-validation (GCV), by separately applying them to select the Poisson model best fitted to the mortality datasets that were simulated under the different assumptions of seasonal confounding. The performance of these criteria was evaluated by the bias and root-mean-square error (RMSE) of estimates from the pre-determined coefficients of influenza proxy variable. These four criteria were subsequently applied to an empirical hospitalization dataset to confirm the findings of simulation study. Results: GCV consistently provided smaller biases and RMSEs for the influenza coefficient estimates than QAIC, QBIC and PACF, under the different simulation scenarios. Sensitivity analysis of different pre-determined influenza coefficients, study periods and lag weeks showed that GCV consistently outperformed the other criteria. Similar results were found in applying these selection criteria to estimate influenza-associated hospitalization. Conclusions: GCV criterion is recommended for selection of Poisson models to estimate influenza-associated mortality and morbidity burden with proper adjustment for confounding. These findings shall help standardize the Poisson modeling approach for influenza disease burden studies. © 2012 Wang et al.published_or_final_versio

Relaxation Penalties and Priors for Plausible Modeling of Nonidentified Bias Sources

In designed experiments and surveys, known laws or design feat ures provide checks on the most relevant aspects of a model and identify the target parameters. In contrast, in most observational studies in the health and social sciences, the primary study data do not identify and may not even bound target parameters. Discrepancies between target and analogous identified parameters (biases) are then of paramount concern, which forces a major shift in modeling strategies. Conventional approaches are based on conditional testing of equality constraints, which correspond to implausible point-mass priors. When these constraints are not identified by available data, however, no such testing is possible. In response, implausible constraints can be relaxed into penalty functions derived from plausible prior distributions. The resulting models can be fit within familiar full or partial likelihood frameworks. The absence of identification renders all analyses part of a sensitivity analysis. In this view, results from single models are merely examples of what might be plausibly inferred. Nonetheless, just one plausible inference may suffice to demonstrate inherent limitations of the data. Points are illustrated with misclassified data from a study of sudden infant death syndrome. Extensions to confounding, selection bias and more complex data structures are outlined.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/09-STS291 the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Achieving Causal Fairness in Recommendation

Recommender systems provide personalized services for users seeking information and play an increasingly important role in online applications. While most research papers focus on inventing machine learning algorithms to fit user behavior data and maximizing predictive performance in recommendation, it is also very important to develop fairness-aware machine learning algorithms such that the decisions made by them are not only accurate but also meet desired fairness requirements. In personalized recommendation, although there are many works focusing on fairness and discrimination, how to achieve user-side fairness in bandit recommendation from a causal perspective still remains a challenging task. Besides, the deployed systems utilize user-item interaction data to train models and then generate new data by online recommendation. This feedback loop in recommendation often results in various biases in observational data. The goal of this dissertation is to address challenging issues in achieving causal fairness in recommender systems: achieving user-side fairness and counterfactual fairness in bandit-based recommendation, mitigating confounding and sample selection bias simultaneously in recommendation and robustly improving bandit learning process with biased offline data. In this dissertation, we developed the following algorithms and frameworks for research problems related to causal fairness in recommendation. • We developed a contextual bandit algorithm to achieve group level user-side fairness and two UCB-based causal bandit algorithms to achieve counterfactual individual fairness for personalized recommendation; • We derived sufficient and necessary graphical conditions for identifying and estimating three causal quantities under the presence of confounding and sample selection biases and proposed a framework for leveraging the causal bound derived from the confounded and selection biased offline data to robustly improve online bandit learning process; • We developed a framework for discrimination analysis with the benefit of multiple causes of the outcome variable to deal with hidden confounding; • We proposed a new causal-based fairness notion and developed algorithms for determining whether an individual or a group of individuals is discriminated in terms of equality of effort

Achieving Causal Fairness in Recommendation

Recommender systems provide personalized services for users seeking information and play an increasingly important role in online applications. While most research papers focus on inventing machine learning algorithms to fit user behavior data and maximizing predictive performance in recommendation, it is also very important to develop fairness-aware machine learning algorithms such that the decisions made by them are not only accurate but also meet desired fairness requirements. In personalized recommendation, although there are many works focusing on fairness and discrimination, how to achieve user-side fairness in bandit recommendation from a causal perspective still remains a challenging task. Besides, the deployed systems utilize user-item interaction data to train models and then generate new data by online recommendation. This feedback loop in recommendation often results in various biases in observational data. The goal of this dissertation is to address challenging issues in achieving causal fairness in recommender systems: achieving user-side fairness and counterfactual fairness in bandit-based recommendation, mitigating confounding and sample selection bias simultaneously in recommendation and robustly improving bandit learning process with biased offline data. In this dissertation, we developed the following algorithms and frameworks for research problems related to causal fairness in recommendation. • We developed a contextual bandit algorithm to achieve group level user-side fairness and two UCB-based causal bandit algorithms to achieve counterfactual individual fairness for personalized recommendation; • We derived sufficient and necessary graphical conditions for identifying and estimating three causal quantities under the presence of confounding and sample selection biases and proposed a framework for leveraging the causal bound derived from the confounded and selection biased offline data to robustly improve online bandit learning process; • We developed a framework for discrimination analysis with the benefit of multiple causes of the outcome variable to deal with hidden confounding; • We proposed a new causal-based fairness notion and developed algorithms for determining whether an individual or a group of individuals is discriminated in terms of equality of effort