Evaluating Causal Inference Methods

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.04208v2
• Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 02:33:47 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Causal Inference Methods
• Authors: Harsh Parikh, Carlos Varjao, Louise Xu, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen
• Abstract summary: We introduce a deep generative model-based framework, Credence, to validate causal inference methods. Our work introduces a deep generative model-based framework, Credence, to validate causal inference methods.
• Score: 0.4588028371034407
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The fundamental challenge of drawing causal inference is that counterfactual outcomes are not fully observed for any unit. Furthermore, in observational studies, treatment assignment is likely to be confounded. Many statistical methods have emerged for causal inference under unconfoundedness conditions given pre-treatment covariates, including propensity score-based methods, prognostic score-based methods, and doubly robust methods. Unfortunately for applied researchers, there is no `one-size-fits-all' causal method that can perform optimally universally. In practice, causal methods are primarily evaluated quantitatively on handcrafted simulated data. Such data-generative procedures can be of limited value because they are typically stylized models of reality. They are simplified for tractability and lack the complexities of real-world data. For applied researchers, it is critical to understand how well a method performs for the data at hand. Our work introduces a deep generative model-based framework, Credence, to validate causal inference methods. The framework's novelty stems from its ability to generate synthetic data anchored at the empirical distribution for the observed sample, and therefore virtually indistinguishable from the latter. The approach allows the user to specify ground truth for the form and magnitude of causal effects and confounding bias as functions of covariates. Thus simulated data sets are used to evaluate the potential performance of various causal estimation methods when applied to data similar to the observed sample. We demonstrate Credence's ability to accurately assess the relative performance of causal estimation techniques in an extensive simulation study and two real-world data applications from Lalonde and Project STAR studies.

Related papers

• Demystifying amortized causal discovery with transformers [21.058343547918053]
  Supervised learning approaches for causal discovery from observational data often achieve competitive performance. In this work, we investigate CSIvA, a transformer-based model promising to train on synthetic data and transfer to real data. We bridge the gap with existing identifiability theory and show that constraints on the training data distribution implicitly define a prior on the test observations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T08:17:49Z)
• Advancing Counterfactual Inference through Nonlinear Quantile Regression [77.28323341329461]
  We propose a framework for efficient and effective counterfactual inference implemented with neural networks. The proposed approach enhances the capacity to generalize estimated counterfactual outcomes to unseen data. Empirical results conducted on multiple datasets offer compelling support for our theoretical assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T08:30:51Z)
• Learning Robust Statistics for Simulation-based Inference under Model Misspecification [23.331522354991527]
  We propose the first general approach to handle model misspecification that works across different classes of simulation-based inference methods. We show that our method yields robust inference in misspecified scenarios, whilst still being accurate when the model is well-specified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T09:06:26Z)
• Testing for Overfitting [0.0]
  We discuss the overfitting problem and explain why standard and concentration results do not hold for evaluation with training data. We introduce and argue for a hypothesis test by means of which both model performance may be evaluated using training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-09T22:49:55Z)
• B-Learner: Quasi-Oracle Bounds on Heterogeneous Causal Effects Under Hidden Confounding [51.74479522965712]
  We propose a meta-learner called the B-Learner, which can efficiently learn sharp bounds on the CATE function under limits on hidden confounding. We prove its estimates are valid, sharp, efficient, and have a quasi-oracle property with respect to the constituent estimators under more general conditions than existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-20T18:07:19Z)
• CausalBench: A Large-scale Benchmark for Network Inference from Single-cell Perturbation Data [61.088705993848606]
  We introduce CausalBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating causal inference methods on real-world interventional data. CaulBench incorporates biologically-motivated performance metrics, including new distribution-based interventional metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T13:04:07Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Predictive Fairness [60.0947291284978]
  Mitigating bias in training on biased datasets is an important open problem. We examine the performance of various debiasing methods across multiple tasks. We find that data conditions have a strong influence on relative model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T05:40:13Z)
• Double Robust Representation Learning for Counterfactual Prediction [68.78210173955001]
  We propose a novel scalable method to learn double-robust representations for counterfactual predictions. We make robust and efficient counterfactual predictions for both individual and average treatment effects. The algorithm shows competitive performance with the state-of-the-art on real world and synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-15T16:39:26Z)
• How and Why to Use Experimental Data to Evaluate Methods for Observational Causal Inference [7.551130027327462]
  We describe and analyze observational sampling from randomized controlled trials (OSRCT) This method can be used to create constructed observational data sets with corresponding unbiased estimates of treatment effect. We then perform a large-scale evaluation of seven causal inference methods over 37 data sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T21:44:01Z)
• Good Classifiers are Abundant in the Interpolating Regime [64.72044662855612]
  We develop a methodology to compute precisely the full distribution of test errors among interpolating classifiers. We find that test errors tend to concentrate around a small typical value $varepsilon*$, which deviates substantially from the test error of worst-case interpolating model. Our results show that the usual style of analysis in statistical learning theory may not be fine-grained enough to capture the good generalization performance observed in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-22T21:12:31Z)
• MissDeepCausal: Causal Inference from Incomplete Data Using Deep Latent Variable Models [14.173184309520453]
  State-of-the-art methods for causal inference don't consider missing values. Missing data require an adapted unconfoundedness hypothesis. Latent confounders whose distribution is learned through variational autoencoders adapted to missing values are considered.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-25T12:58:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.