Paper:
Optimization over Continuous and Multi-dimensional Decisions with Observational Data
We consider the optimization of an uncertain objective over continuous and multidimensional decision spaces in problems in which we are only provided with observational data. We propose a novel algorithmic framework that is tractable, asymptotically consistent, and superior to comparable methods on example problems. Our approach leverages predictive machine learning methods and incorporates information on the uncertainty of the predicted outcomes for the purpose of prescribing decisions. We demonstrate the efficacy of our method on examples involving both synthetic and real data sets.

Review:
This paper explores off-policy learning. It proposes an optimization framework that incorporates information on the uncertainty of the predicted outcomes to learn better policies. It is based on the fact that minimizing only the cost function would result in a low bias but high variance estimator. Their idea is to add the estimator’s variance and bias as penalty terms to the objective function to trade-off between learning estimators with small cost and those with high variance/bias.   However, it is not clear whether  the findings are novel, as Swaminathan and Joachims [21] also consider incorporating the variance of response into the objective function to attain models that exhibit lower variance. While the authors also mention that Swaminathan and Joachims [21] assume that the underlying mechanism of action selection (i.e., propensities) is known, their proposed Counterfactual Risk Minimization framework is independent of how the response variable (u in [21]) is defined (i.e., whether it requires the propensity score) and therefore does not rely on this assumption. The authors needs to better explain how their work differs from that of [21].  Unfortunately, many parts of the paper are quite hard to follow. The authors should clarify the following points: L22: Is the cost function known/given? e.g., Is it c = (y - \hat{y})^2, where y is the true outcome and \hat{y} is the predicted outcome by a regression fit? Or is it determined arbitrarily? It is very important to define the cost clearly, as the rest of the equations are heavily dependent on it … The experiments do not shed light on what the cost function is either. L117: “The first step …” → Are there any next steps? My understanding is that learning the predictive model is intertwined with optimizing for z since there is nothing else to learn other than c (and consequently w due to the way it’s defined in L149.5) in equation (2). L169-170: If we could find a model that predicts the counterfactual outcomes accurately, we could use that to select the best z; the problem is that, due to sample selection bias (i.e., dependence of z on x), we cannot be sure that the regression fit would give accurate estimates of the counterfactuals. Therefore, it is wrong to base the model selection on this. Unless the above mentioned points are clarified, it is hard to judge the quality of this work.   Minor points: L40: parameters are “learned”; objective function is “optimized”. L120-123: Unclear nomenclature: what is the “response variable”? What is “prediction of the algorithm”? and what is the “training response”? L128: “reduces bias of the predictions” → predictions of what? outcome or cost? L142.5: Did you mean B(x,z) := \sum_{i} || \hat{\mu(x,z)} - \mu(x,z) ||_2 ? L160-161: Isn’t this the role of the predictive model? Isn’t this already done?  Typos: L124: satisfies → to satisfy L211: probably → probable  ==== In light of the authors’ discussion in the rebuttal, I am convinced that the contribution of this paper is novel (compared to [21]).   Regarding my L169-170 comment -- although the authors indicated that they get good empirical results: I am still not convinced that this way of tuning parameters is valid. That is, tuning hyperparameters based on predicted counterfactuals, especially when the sample selection bias is not accounted for in prediction procedure. I expect this method to fail in case of a high selection bias in data and suspect that this was not the case in the paper’s experiments.  In general, it was difficult to understand some main parts of the submission. I believe the paper would benefit from being modified for more clarity and better flow.  Given the author’s comments, I am willing to revise my score to 5.