In many areas, practitioners seek to use observational data to learn a treatment assignment policy that satisfies application‐specific constraints, such as budget, fairness, simplicity, or other functional form constraints. For example, policies may be restricted to take the form of decision trees based on a limited set of easily observable individual characteristics. We propose a new approach to this problem motivated by the theory of semiparametrically efficient estimation. Our method can be used to optimize either binary treatments or infinitesimal nudges to continuous treatments, and can leverage observational data where causal effects are identified using a variety of strategies, including selection on observables and instrumental variables. Given a doubly robust estimator of the causal effect of assigning everyone to treatment, we develop an algorithm for choosing whom to treat, and establish strong guarantees for the asymptotic utilitarian regret of the resulting policy.
more »
« less
Confounding-Robust Policy Improvement
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
- Award ID(s):
- 1656996
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10092526
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Advances in neural information processing systems
- Volume:
- 31
- ISSN:
- 1049-5258
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Identifying cause-effect relations among variables is a key step in the decision-making process. Whereas causal inference requires randomized experiments, researchers and policy makers are increasingly using observational studies to test causal hypotheses due to the wide availability of data and the infeasibility of experiments. The matching method is the most used technique to make causal inference from observational data. However, the pair assignment process in one-to-one matching creates uncertainty in the inference because of different choices made by the experimenter. Recently, discrete optimization models have been proposed to tackle such uncertainty; however, they produce 0-1 nonlinear problems and lack scalability. In this work, we investigate this emerging data science problem and develop a unique computational framework to solve the robust causal inference test instances from observational data with continuous outcomes. In the proposed framework, we first reformulate the nonlinear binary optimization problems as feasibility problems. By leveraging the structure of the feasibility formulation, we develop greedy schemes that are efficient in solving robust test problems. In many cases, the proposed algorithms achieve a globally optimal solution. We perform experiments on real-world data sets to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms and compare our results with the state-of-the-art solver. Our experiments show that the proposed algorithms significantly outperform the exact method in terms of computation time while achieving the same conclusion for causal tests. Both numerical experiments and complexity analysis demonstrate that the proposed algorithms ensure the scalability required for harnessing the power of big data in the decision-making process. Finally, the proposed framework not only facilitates robust decision making through big-data causal inference, but it can also be utilized in developing efficient algorithms for other nonlinear optimization problems such as quadratic assignment problems. History: Accepted by Ram Ramesh, Area Editor for Data Science and Machine Learning. Funding: This work was supported by the Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation of the National Science Foundation [Grant 2047094]. Supplemental Material: The online supplements are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2022.1226 .more » « less
-
Cause-and-effect relations are one of the most valuable types of knowledge sought after throughout the data-driven sciences since they translate into stable and generalizable explanations as well as efficient and robust decision-making capabilities. Inferring these relations from data, however, is a challenging task. Two of the most common barriers to this goal are known as confounding and selection biases. The former stems from the systematic bias introduced during the treatment assignment, while the latter comes from the systematic bias during the collection of units into the sample. In this paper, we consider the problem of identifiability of causal effects when both confounding and selection biases are simultaneously present. We first investigate the problem of identifiability when all the available data is biased. We prove that the algorithm proposed by [Bareinboim and Tian, 2015] is, in fact, complete, namely, whenever the algorithm returns a failure condition, no identifiability claim about the causal relation can be made by any other method. We then generalize this setting to when, in addition to the biased data, another piece of external data is available, without bias. It may be the case that a subset of the covariates could be measured without bias (e.g., from census). We examine the problem of identifiability when a combination of biased and unbiased data is available. We propose a new algorithm that subsumes the current state-of-the-art method based on the back-door criterion.more » « less
-
This paper evaluates the effects of being an only child in a family on psychological health, leveraging data on the One-Child Policy in China. We use an instrumental variable approach to address the potential unmeasured confounding between the fertility decision and psychological health, where the instrumental variable is an index on the intensity of the implementation of the One-Child Policy. We establish an analytical link between the local instrumental variable approach and principal stratification to accommodate the continuous instrumental variable. Within the principal stratification framework, we postulate a Bayesian hierarchical model to infer various causal estimands of policy interest while adjusting for the clustering data structure. We apply the method to the data from the China Family Panel Studies and find small but statistically significant negative effects of being an only child on self-reported psychological health for some subpopulations. Our analysis reveals treatment effect heterogeneity with respect to both observed and unobserved characteristics. In particular, urban males suffer the most from being only children, and the negative effect has larger magnitude if the families were more resistant to the One-Child Policy. We also conduct sensitivity analysis to assess the key instrumental variable assumption.more » « less
-
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
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
