An evaluation framework for comparing causal inference models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00115v1
• Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:04:20 GMT
• Title: An evaluation framework for comparing causal inference models
• Authors: Niki Kiriakidou, Christos Diou
• Abstract summary: We use the proposed evaluation methodology to compare several state-of-the-art causal effect estimation models. The main motivation behind this approach is the elimination of the influence of a small number of instances or simulation on the benchmarking process.
• Score: 3.1372269816123994
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Estimation of causal effects is the core objective of many scientific disciplines. However, it remains a challenging task, especially when the effects are estimated from observational data. Recently, several promising machine learning models have been proposed for causal effect estimation. The evaluation of these models has been based on the mean values of the error of the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) as well as of the Precision in Estimation of Heterogeneous Effect (PEHE). In this paper, we propose to complement the evaluation of causal inference models using concrete statistical evidence, including the performance profiles of Dolan and Mor{\'e}, as well as non-parametric and post-hoc statistical tests. The main motivation behind this approach is the elimination of the influence of a small number of instances or simulation on the benchmarking process, which in some cases dominate the results. We use the proposed evaluation methodology to compare several state-of-the-art causal effect estimation models.

Related papers

• Causal Fine-Tuning and Effect Calibration of Non-Causal Predictive Models [1.3124513975412255]
  This paper proposes techniques to enhance the performance of non-causal models for causal inference using data from randomized experiments. In domains like advertising, customer retention, and precision medicine, non-causal models that predict outcomes under no intervention are often used to score individuals and rank them according to the expected effectiveness of an intervention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T20:18:16Z)
• C-XGBoost: A tree boosting model for causal effect estimation [8.246161706153805]
  Causal effect estimation aims at estimating the Average Treatment Effect as well as the Conditional Average Treatment Effect of a treatment to an outcome from the available data. We propose a new causal inference model, named C-XGBoost, for the prediction of potential outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-31T17:43:37Z)
• Estimating Causal Effects with Double Machine Learning -- A Method Evaluation [5.904095466127043]
  We review one of the most prominent methods - "double/debiased machine learning" (DML) Our findings indicate that the application of a suitably flexible machine learning algorithm within DML improves the adjustment for various nonlinear confounding relationships. When estimating the effects of air pollution on housing prices, we find that DML estimates are consistently larger than estimates of less flexible methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T13:21:33Z)
• Benchmarking Bayesian Causal Discovery Methods for Downstream Treatment Effect Estimation [137.3520153445413]
  A notable gap exists in the evaluation of causal discovery methods, where insufficient emphasis is placed on downstream inference. We evaluate seven established baseline causal discovery methods including a newly proposed method based on GFlowNets. The results of our study demonstrate that some of the algorithms studied are able to effectively capture a wide range of useful and diverse ATE modes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-11T02:58:10Z)
• Hyperparameter Tuning and Model Evaluation in Causal Effect Estimation [2.7823528791601686]
  This paper investigates the interplay between the four different aspects of model evaluation for causal effect estimation. We find that most causal estimators are roughly equivalent in performance if tuned thoroughly enough. We call for more research into causal model evaluation to unlock the optimum performance not currently being delivered even by state-of-the-art procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-02T17:03:02Z)
• Data-Driven Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects [15.140272661540655]
  Estimating how a treatment affects different individuals, known as heterogeneous treatment effect estimation, is an important problem in empirical sciences. We provide a survey of state-of-the-art data-driven methods for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation using machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-16T21:36:49Z)
• 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)
• Measuring Causal Effects of Data Statistics on Language Model's `Factual' Predictions [59.284907093349425]
  Large amounts of training data are one of the major reasons for the high performance of state-of-the-art NLP models. We provide a language for describing how training data influences predictions, through a causal framework. Our framework bypasses the need to retrain expensive models and allows us to estimate causal effects based on observational data alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-28T17:36:24Z)
• Estimation of Bivariate Structural Causal Models by Variational Gaussian Process Regression Under Likelihoods Parametrised by Normalising Flows [74.85071867225533]
  Causal mechanisms can be described by structural causal models. One major drawback of state-of-the-art artificial intelligence is its lack of explainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-06T14:52:58Z)
• Performance metrics for intervention-triggering prediction models do not reflect an expected reduction in outcomes from using the model [71.9860741092209]
  Clinical researchers often select among and evaluate risk prediction models. Standard metrics calculated from retrospective data are only related to model utility under certain assumptions. When predictions are delivered repeatedly throughout time, the relationship between standard metrics and utility is further complicated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-02T16:26:49Z)
• Machine learning for causal inference: on the use of cross-fit estimators [77.34726150561087]
  Doubly-robust cross-fit estimators have been proposed to yield better statistical properties. We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of several estimators for the average causal effect (ACE) When used with machine learning, the doubly-robust cross-fit estimators substantially outperformed all of the other estimators in terms of bias, variance, and confidence interval coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-21T23:09:55Z)

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.