CounterFactual Regression with Importance Sampling Weights
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perhaps the most pressing concern of a patient diagnosed with cancer is her life expectancy under various treatment options. For a binary-treatment case, this translates into estimating the difference between the outcomes (e.g., survival time) of the two available treatment options – i.e., her Individual Treatment Effect (ITE). This is especially challenging to estimate from observational data, as that data has selection bias: the treatment assigned to a patient depends on that patient's attributes. In this work, we borrow ideas from domain adaptation to address the distributional shift between the source (outcome of the administered treatment, appearing in the observed training data) and target (outcome of the alternative treatment) that exists due to selection bias. We propose a context-aware importance sampling re-weighing scheme, built on top of a representation learning module, for estimating ITEs. Empirical results on two publicly available benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it