Falsification before Extrapolation in Causal Effect Estimation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.13708v2
• Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 02:01:29 GMT
• Title: Falsification before Extrapolation in Causal Effect Estimation
• Authors: Zeshan Hussain, Michael Oberst, Ming-Chieh Shih, David Sontag
• Abstract summary: Causal effects in populations are often estimated using observational datasets. We propose a meta-algorithm that attempts to reject observational estimates that are biased.
• Score: 6.715453431174765
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard when developing policy guidelines. However, RCTs are often narrow, and lack data on broader populations of interest. Causal effects in these populations are often estimated using observational datasets, which may suffer from unobserved confounding and selection bias. Given a set of observational estimates (e.g. from multiple studies), we propose a meta-algorithm that attempts to reject observational estimates that are biased. We do so using validation effects, causal effects that can be inferred from both RCT and observational data. After rejecting estimators that do not pass this test, we generate conservative confidence intervals on the extrapolated causal effects for subgroups not observed in the RCT. Under the assumption that at least one observational estimator is asymptotically normal and consistent for both the validation and extrapolated effects, we provide guarantees on the coverage probability of the intervals output by our algorithm. To facilitate hypothesis testing in settings where causal effect transportation across datasets is necessary, we give conditions under which a doubly-robust estimator of group average treatment effects is asymptotically normal, even when flexible machine learning methods are used for estimation of nuisance parameters. We illustrate the properties of our approach on semi-synthetic and real world datasets, and show that it compares favorably to standard meta-analysis techniques.

Related papers

• Risk and cross validation in ridge regression with correlated samples [72.59731158970894]
  We provide training examples for the in- and out-of-sample risks of ridge regression when the data points have arbitrary correlations. We further extend our analysis to the case where the test point has non-trivial correlations with the training set, setting often encountered in time series forecasting. We validate our theory across a variety of high dimensional data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T17:27:29Z)
• Adaptive-TMLE for the Average Treatment Effect based on Randomized Controlled Trial Augmented with Real-World Data [0.0]
  We consider the problem of estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) when both randomized control trial (RCT) data and real-world data (RWD) are available. We introduce an adaptive targeted minimum loss-based estimation framework to estimate them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-12T07:10:26Z)
• RCT Rejection Sampling for Causal Estimation Evaluation [25.845034753006367]
  Confounding is a significant obstacle to unbiased estimation of causal effects from observational data. We build on a promising empirical evaluation strategy that simplifies evaluation design and uses real data. We show our algorithm indeed results in low bias when oracle estimators are evaluated on confounded samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-27T20:11:07Z)
• 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)
• Falsification of Internal and External Validity in Observational Studies via Conditional Moment Restrictions [6.9347431938654465]
  Given data from both an RCT and an observational study, assumptions on internal and external validity have an observable, testable implication. We show that expressing these CMRs with respect to the causal effect, or "causal contrast", as opposed to individual counterfactual means, provides a more reliable falsification test.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-30T18:16:16Z)
• Near-optimal inference in adaptive linear regression [60.08422051718195]
  Even simple methods like least squares can exhibit non-normal behavior when data is collected in an adaptive manner. We propose a family of online debiasing estimators to correct these distributional anomalies in at least squares estimation. We demonstrate the usefulness of our theory via applications to multi-armed bandit, autoregressive time series estimation, and active learning with exploration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T21:05:11Z)
• Efficient Causal Inference from Combined Observational and Interventional Data through Causal Reductions [68.6505592770171]
  Unobserved confounding is one of the main challenges when estimating causal effects. We propose a novel causal reduction method that replaces an arbitrary number of possibly high-dimensional latent confounders. We propose a learning algorithm to estimate the parameterized reduced model jointly from observational and interventional data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-08T14:29:07Z)
• CDSM -- Casual Inference using Deep Bayesian Dynamic Survival Models [3.9169188005935927]
  We have developed a causal dynamic survival model (CDSM) that uses the potential outcomes framework with the Bayesian recurrent sub-networks to estimate the difference in survival curves. Using simulated survival datasets, CDSM has shown good causal effect estimation performance across scenarios of sample dimension, event rate, confounding and overlapping.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-26T09:15:49Z)
• Enabling Counterfactual Survival Analysis with Balanced Representations [64.17342727357618]
  Survival data are frequently encountered across diverse medical applications, i.e., drug development, risk profiling, and clinical trials. We propose a theoretically grounded unified framework for counterfactual inference applicable to survival outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-14T01:15:00Z)
• Conformal Inference of Counterfactuals and Individual Treatment Effects [6.810856082577402]
  We propose a conformal inference-based approach that can produce reliable interval estimates for counterfactuals and individual treatment effects. Existing methods suffer from a significant coverage deficit even in simple models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-11T01:03:32Z)
• 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)

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.