We study the problem of learning personalized decision policies from observational data while accounting for possible unobserved confounding in the data-generating process. Unlike previous approaches that assume unconfoundedness, i.e., no unobserved confounders affected both treatment assignment and outcomes, we calibrate policy learning for realistic violations of this unverifiable assumption with uncertainty sets motivated by sensitivity analysis in causal inference. Our framework for confounding-robust policy improvement optimizes the minimax regret of a candidate policy against a baseline or reference "status quo" policy, over an uncertainty set around nominal propensity weights. We prove that if the uncertainty set is well-specified, robust policy learning can do no worse than the baseline, and only improve if the data supports it. We characterize the adversarial subproblem and use efficient algorithmic solutions to optimize over parametrized spaces of decision policies such as logistic treatment assignment. We assess our methods on synthetic data and a large clinical trial, demonstrating that confounded selection can hinder policy learning and lead to unwarranted harm, while our robust approach guarantees safety and focuses on well-evidenced improvement.
more »
« less
Interval Estimation of Individual-Level Causal Effects Under Unobserved Confounding
We study the problem of learning conditional average treatment effects (CATE) from observational data with unobserved confounders. The CATE function maps baseline covariates to individual causal effect predictions and is key for personalized assessments. Recent work has focused on how to learn CATE under unconfoundedness, i.e., when there are no unobserved confounders. Since CATE may not be identified when unconfoundedness is violated, we develop a functional interval estimator that predicts bounds on the individual causal effects under realistic violations of unconfoundedness. Our estimator takes the form of a weighted kernel estimator with weights that vary adversarially. We prove that our estimator is sharp in that it converges exactly to the tightest bounds possible on CATE when there may be unobserved confounders. Further, we study personalized decision rules derived from our estimator and prove that they achieve optimal minimax regret asymptotically. We assess our approach in a simulation study as well as demonstrate its application in the case of hormone replacement therapy by comparing conclusions from a real observational study and clinical trial.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1656996
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10092364
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of Machine Learning Research
- Volume:
- 89
- ISSN:
- 2640-3498
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 2281-2290
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Propensity score weighting is a tool for causal inference to adjust for measured confounders in observational studies. In practice, data often present complex structures, such as clustering, which make propensity score modeling and estimation challenging. In addition, for clustered data, there may be unmeasured cluster-level covariates that are related to both the treatment assignment and outcome. When such unmeasured cluster-specific confounders exist and are omitted in the propensity score model, the subsequent propensity score adjustment may be biased. In this article, we propose a calibration technique for propensity score estimation under the latent ignorable treatment assignment mechanism, i. e., the treatment-outcome relationship is unconfounded given the observed covariates and the latent cluster-specific confounders. We impose novel balance constraints which imply exact balance of the observed confounders and the unobserved cluster-level confounders between the treatment groups. We show that the proposed calibrated propensity score weighting estimator is doubly robust in that it is consistent for the average treatment effect if either the propensity score model is correctly specified or the outcome follows a linear mixed effects model. Moreover, the proposed weighting method can be combined with sampling weights for an integrated solution to handle confounding and sampling designs for causal inference with clustered survey data. In simulation studies, we show that the proposed estimator is superior to other competitors. We estimate the effect of School Body Mass Index Screening on prevalence of overweight and obesity for elementary schools in Pennsylvania.more » « less
-
Estimating an individual treatment effect (ITE) is essential to personalized decision making. However, existing methods for estimating the ITE often rely on unconfoundedness, an assumption that is fundamentally untestable with observed data. To assess the robustness of individual-level causal conclusion with unconfoundedness, this article proposes a method for sensitivity analysis of the ITE, a way to estimate a range of the ITE under unobserved confounding. The method we develop quantifies unmeasured confounding through a marginal sensitivity model, and adapts the framework of conformal inference to estimate an ITE interval at a given confounding strength. In particular, we formulate this sensitivity analysis as a conformal inference problem under distribution shift, and we extend existing methods of covariate-shifted conformal inference to this more general setting. The resulting predictive interval has guaranteed nominal coverage of the ITE and provides this coverage with distribution-free and nonasymptotic guarantees.We evaluate the method on synthetic data and illustrate its application in an observational study. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.more » « less
-
Estimating an individual treatment effect (ITE) is essential to personalized decision making. However, existing methods for estimating the ITE often rely on unconfoundedness, an assumption that is fundamentally untestable with observed data. To assess the robustness of individual-level causal conclusion with unconfoundedness, this article proposes a method for sensitivity analysis of the ITE, a way to estimate a range of the ITE under unobserved confounding. The method we develop quantifies unmeasured confounding through a marginal sensitivity model, and adapts the framework of conformal inference to estimate an ITE interval at a given confounding strength. In particular, we formulate this sensitivity analysis as a conformal inference problem under distribution shift, and we extend existing methods of covariate-shifted conformal inference to this more general setting. The resulting predictive interval has guaranteed nominal coverage of the ITE and provides this coverage with distribution-free and nonasymptotic guarantees.We evaluate the method on synthetic data and illustrate its application in an observational study. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.more » « less
-
Analyzing the causal impact of different policies in reducing the spread of COVID-19 is of critical importance. The main challenge here is the existence of unobserved confounders (e.g., vigilance of residents) which influence both the presence of policies and the spread of COVID-19. Besides, as the confounders may be time-varying, it is even more difficult to capture them. Fortunately, the increasing prevalence of web data from various online applications provides an important resource of time-varying observational data, and enhances the opportunity to capture the confounders from them, e.g., the vigilance of residents over time can be reflected by the popularity of Google searches about COVID-19 at different time periods. In this paper, we study the problem of assessing the causal effects of different COVID-19 related policies on the outbreak dynamics in different counties at any given time period. To this end, we integrate COVID-19 related observational data covering different U.S. counties over time, and then develop a neural network based causal effect estimation framework which learns the representations of time-varying (unobserved) confounders from the observational data. Experimental results indicate the effectiveness of our proposed framework in quantifying the causal impact of policies at different granularities, ranging from a category of policies with a certain goal to a specific policy type. Compared with baseline methods, our assessment of policies is more consistent with existing epidemiological studies of COVID-19. Besides, our assessment also provides insights for future policy-making.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
