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
Overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates
Estimating causal effects under exogeneity hinges on two key assumptions: unconfoundedness and overlap. Researchers often argue that unconfoundedness is more plausible when more covariates are included in the analysis. Less discussed is the fact that covariate overlap is more difficult to satisfy in this setting. In this paper, we explore the implications of overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates and formalize curse-of-dimensionality argument, suggesting that these assumptions are stronger than investigators likely realize. Our key innovation is to explore how strict overlap restricts global discrepancies between the covariate distributions in the treated and control populations. Exploiting results from information theory, we derive explicit bounds on the average imbalance in covariate means under strict overlap and show that these bounds become more restrictive as the dimension grows large. We discuss how these implications interact with assumptions and procedures commonly deployed in observational causal inference, including sparsity and trimming.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1713152
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10167777
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of econometrics
- ISSN:
- 0304-4076
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
A powerful tool for the analysis of nonrandomized observational studies has been the potential outcomes model. Utilization of this framework allows analysts to estimate average treatment effects. This article considers the situation in which high-dimensional covariates are present and revisits the standard assumptions made in causal inference. We show that by employing a flexible Gaussian process framework, the assumption of strict overlap leads to very restrictive assumptions about the distribution of covariates, results for which can be characterized using classical results from Gaussian random measures as well as reproducing kernel Hilbert space theory. In addition, we propose a strategy for data-adaptive causal effect estimation that does not rely on the strict overlap assumption. These findings reveal under a focused framework the stringency that accompanies the use of the treatment positivity assumption in high-dimensional settings.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
-
more » « less
Abstract Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) admit unconfounded design-based inference – randomization largely justifies the assumptions underlying statistical effect estimates – but often have limited sample sizes. However, researchers may have access to big observational data on covariates and outcomes from RCT nonparticipants. For example, data from A/B tests conducted within an educational technology platform exist alongside historical observational data drawn from student logs. We outline a design-based approach to using such observational data for variance reduction in RCTs. First, we use the observational data to train a machine learning algorithm predicting potential outcomes using covariates and then use that algorithm to generate predictions for RCT participants. Then, we use those predictions, perhaps alongside other covariates, to adjust causal effect estimates with a flexible, design-based covariate-adjustment routine. In this way, there is no danger of biases from the observational data leaking into the experimental estimates, which are guaranteed to be exactly unbiased regardless of whether the machine learning models are “correct” in any sense or whether the observational samples closely resemble RCT samples. We demonstrate the method in analyzing 33 randomized A/B tests and show that it decreases standard errors relative to other estimators, sometimes substantially.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- The DOI is not currently available.
