Hyperparameter Tuning and Model Evaluation in Causal Effect Estimation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.01412v1
• Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 17:03:02 GMT
• Title: Hyperparameter Tuning and Model Evaluation in Causal Effect Estimation
• Authors: Damian Machlanski, Spyridon Samothrakis, Paul Clarke
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 2.7823528791601686
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The performance of most causal effect estimators relies on accurate predictions of high-dimensional non-linear functions of the observed data. The remarkable flexibility of modern Machine Learning (ML) methods is perfectly suited to this task. However, data-driven hyperparameter tuning of ML methods requires effective model evaluation to avoid large errors in causal estimates, a task made more challenging because causal inference involves unavailable counterfactuals. Multiple performance-validation metrics have recently been proposed such that practitioners now not only have to make complex decisions about which causal estimators, ML learners and hyperparameters to choose, but also about which evaluation metric to use. This paper, motivated by unclear recommendations, investigates the interplay between the four different aspects of model evaluation for causal effect estimation. We develop a comprehensive experimental setup that involves many commonly used causal estimators, ML methods and evaluation approaches and apply it to four well-known causal inference benchmark datasets. Our results suggest that optimal hyperparameter tuning of ML learners is enough to reach state-of-the-art performance in effect estimation, regardless of estimators and learners. We conclude that most causal estimators are roughly equivalent in performance if tuned thoroughly enough. We also find hyperparameter tuning and model evaluation are much more important than causal estimators and ML methods. Finally, from the significant gap we find in estimation performance of popular evaluation metrics compared with optimal model selection choices, 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.

Related papers

• 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)
• End-to-End Learning for Fair Multiobjective Optimization Under Uncertainty [55.04219793298687]
  The Predict-Then-Forecast (PtO) paradigm in machine learning aims to maximize downstream decision quality. This paper extends the PtO methodology to optimization problems with nondifferentiable Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) objectives. It shows how optimization of OWA functions can be effectively integrated with parametric prediction for fair and robust optimization under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T16:33:35Z)
• Hyperparameter Tuning for Causal Inference with Double Machine Learning: A Simulation Study [4.526082390949313]
  We empirically assess the relationship between the predictive performance of machine learning methods and the resulting causal estimation. We conduct an extensive simulation study using data from the 2019 Atlantic Causal Inference Conference Data Challenge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T09:01:51Z)
• Exploring validation metrics for offline model-based optimisation with diffusion models [50.404829846182764]
  In model-based optimisation (MBO) we are interested in using machine learning to design candidates that maximise some measure of reward with respect to a black box function called the (ground truth) oracle. While an approximation to the ground oracle can be trained and used in place of it during model validation to measure the mean reward over generated candidates, the evaluation is approximate and vulnerable to adversarial examples. This is encapsulated under our proposed evaluation framework which is also designed to measure extrapolation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-19T16:57:37Z)
• An evaluation framework for comparing causal inference models [3.1372269816123994]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-31T21:04:20Z)
• Learning to Estimate Without Bias [57.82628598276623]
  Gauss theorem states that the weighted least squares estimator is a linear minimum variance unbiased estimation (MVUE) in linear models. In this paper, we take a first step towards extending this result to non linear settings via deep learning with bias constraints. A second motivation to BCE is in applications where multiple estimates of the same unknown are averaged for improved performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-24T10:23:51Z)
• Expected Validation Performance and Estimation of a Random Variable's Maximum [48.83713377993604]
  We analyze three statistical estimators for expected validation performance. We find the unbiased estimator has the highest variance, and the estimator with the smallest variance has the largest bias. We find that the two biased estimators lead to the fewest incorrect conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-01T18:48:47Z)
• Nonparametric inverse probability weighted estimators based on the highly adaptive lasso [0.966840768820136]
  Inparametric inverse probability weighted estimators are known to be inefficient and suffer from the curse of dimensionality. We propose a class of nonparametric inverse probability weighted estimators in which the weighting mechanism is estimated via undersmoothing of the highly adaptive lasso. Our developments have broad implications for the construction of efficient inverse probability weighted estimators in large statistical models and a variety of problem settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-22T17:49:46Z)
• 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)
• Localized Debiased Machine Learning: Efficient Inference on Quantile Treatment Effects and Beyond [69.83813153444115]
  We consider an efficient estimating equation for the (local) quantile treatment effect ((L)QTE) in causal inference. Debiased machine learning (DML) is a data-splitting approach to estimating high-dimensional nuisances. We propose localized debiased machine learning (LDML), which avoids this burdensome step.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-30T14:42:52Z)

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.