What's the Harm? Sharp Bounds on the Fraction Negatively Affected by Treatment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10327v1
• Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 17:36:33 GMT
• Title: What's the Harm? Sharp Bounds on the Fraction Negatively Affected by Treatment
• Authors: Nathan Kallus
• Abstract summary: We develop a robust inference algorithm that is efficient almost regardless of how and how fast these functions are learned. We demonstrate our method in simulation studies and in a case study of career counseling for the unemployed.
• Score: 58.442274475425144
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The fundamental problem of causal inference -- that we never observe counterfactuals -- prevents us from identifying how many might be negatively affected by a proposed intervention. If, in an A/B test, half of users click (or buy, or watch, or renew, etc.), whether exposed to the standard experience A or a new one B, hypothetically it could be because the change affects no one, because the change positively affects half the user population to go from no-click to click while negatively affecting the other half, or something in between. While unknowable, this impact is clearly of material importance to the decision to implement a change or not, whether due to fairness, long-term, systemic, or operational considerations. We therefore derive the tightest-possible (i.e., sharp) bounds on the fraction negatively affected (and other related estimands) given data with only factual observations, whether experimental or observational. Naturally, the more we can stratify individuals by observable covariates, the tighter the sharp bounds. Since these bounds involve unknown functions that must be learned from data, we develop a robust inference algorithm that is efficient almost regardless of how and how fast these functions are learned, remains consistent when some are mislearned, and still gives valid conservative bounds when most are mislearned. Our methodology altogether therefore strongly supports credible conclusions: it avoids spuriously point-identifying this unknowable impact, focusing on the best bounds instead, and it permits exceedingly robust inference on these. We demonstrate our method in simulation studies and in a case study of career counseling for the unemployed.

Related papers

• 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)
• Monotonicity and Double Descent in Uncertainty Estimation with Gaussian Processes [52.92110730286403]
  It is commonly believed that the marginal likelihood should be reminiscent of cross-validation metrics and that both should deteriorate with larger input dimensions. We prove that by tuning hyper parameters, the performance, as measured by the marginal likelihood, improves monotonically with the input dimension. We also prove that cross-validation metrics exhibit qualitatively different behavior that is characteristic of double descent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T08:09:33Z)
• Active Bayesian Causal Inference [72.70593653185078]
  We propose Active Bayesian Causal Inference (ABCI), a fully-Bayesian active learning framework for integrated causal discovery and reasoning. ABCI jointly infers a posterior over causal models and queries of interest. We show that our approach is more data-efficient than several baselines that only focus on learning the full causal graph.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T22:38:57Z)
• Treatment Effect Risk: Bounds and Inference [58.442274475425144]
  Since the average treatment effect measures the change in social welfare, even if positive, there is a risk of negative effect on, say, some 10% of the population. In this paper we consider how to nonetheless assess this important risk measure, formalized as the conditional value at risk (CVaR) of the ITE distribution. Some bounds can also be interpreted as summarizing a complex CATE function into a single metric and are of interest independently of being a bound.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-15T17:21:26Z)
• Causal Effect Estimation using Variational Information Bottleneck [19.6760527269791]
  Causal inference is to estimate the causal effect in a causal relationship when intervention is applied. We propose a method to estimate Causal Effect by using Variational Information Bottleneck (CEVIB)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-26T13:46:12Z)
• Causal Inference Under Unmeasured Confounding With Negative Controls: A Minimax Learning Approach [84.29777236590674]
  We study the estimation of causal parameters when not all confounders are observed and instead negative controls are available. Recent work has shown how these can enable identification and efficient estimation via two so-called bridge functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T17:59:19Z)
• A Class of Algorithms for General Instrumental Variable Models [29.558215059892206]
  Causal treatment effect estimation is a key problem that arises in a variety of real-world settings. We provide a method for causal effect bounding in continuous distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T12:32:24Z)

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.