Do Contemporary Causal Inference Models Capture Real-World Heterogeneity? Findings from a Large-Scale Benchmark

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.07021v2
• Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 04:09:35 GMT
• Title: Do Contemporary Causal Inference Models Capture Real-World Heterogeneity? Findings from a Large-Scale Benchmark
• Authors: Haining Yu, Yizhou Sun,
• Abstract summary: We present unexpected findings from a large-scale benchmark study evaluating Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimation algorithms. We find that 62% of CATE estimates have a higher Mean Squared Error (MSE) than a trivial zero-effect predictor, rendering them ineffective. These findings highlight significant challenges in current CATE models and underscore the need for broader evaluation and methodological improvements.
• Score: 39.06952509635041
• License:
• Abstract: We present unexpected findings from a large-scale benchmark study evaluating Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimation algorithms, i.e., CATE models. By running 16 modern CATE models on 12 datasets and 43,200 sampled variants generated through diverse observational sampling strategies, we find that: (a) 62\% of CATE estimates have a higher Mean Squared Error (MSE) than a trivial zero-effect predictor, rendering them ineffective; (b) in datasets with at least one useful CATE estimate, 80\% still have higher MSE than a constant-effect model; and (c) Orthogonality-based models outperform other models only 30\% of the time, despite widespread optimism about their performance. These findings highlight significant challenges in current CATE models and underscore the need for broader evaluation and methodological improvements. Our findings stem from a novel application of \textit{observational sampling}, originally developed to evaluate Average Treatment Effect (ATE) estimates from observational methods with experiment data. To adapt observational sampling for CATE evaluation, we introduce a statistical parameter, $Q$, equal to MSE minus a constant and preserves the ranking of models by their MSE. We then derive a family of sample statistics, collectively called $\hat{Q}$, that can be computed from real-world data. When used in observational sampling, $\hat{Q}$ is an unbiased estimator of $Q$ and asymptotically selects the model with the smallest MSE. To ensure the benchmark reflects real-world heterogeneity, we handpick datasets where outcomes come from field rather than simulation. By integrating observational sampling, new statistics, and real-world datasets, the benchmark provides new insights into CATE model performance and reveals gaps in capturing real-world heterogeneity, emphasizing the need for more robust benchmarks.

Related papers

• Supervised Score-Based Modeling by Gradient Boosting [49.556736252628745]
  We propose a Supervised Score-based Model (SSM) which can be viewed as a gradient boosting algorithm combining score matching. We provide a theoretical analysis of learning and sampling for SSM to balance inference time and prediction accuracy. Our model outperforms existing models in both accuracy and inference time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-02T07:06:53Z)
• Precise Model Benchmarking with Only a Few Observations [6.092112060364272]
  We propose an empirical Bayes (EB) estimator that balances direct and regression estimates for each subgroup separately. EB consistently provides more precise estimates of the LLM performance compared to the direct and regression approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T17:26:31Z)
• GREAT Score: Global Robustness Evaluation of Adversarial Perturbation using Generative Models [60.48306899271866]
  We present a new framework, called GREAT Score, for global robustness evaluation of adversarial perturbation using generative models. We show high correlation and significantly reduced cost of GREAT Score when compared to the attack-based model ranking on RobustBench. GREAT Score can be used for remote auditing of privacy-sensitive black-box models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T14:58:27Z)
• Learning from aggregated data with a maximum entropy model [73.63512438583375]
  We show how a new model, similar to a logistic regression, may be learned from aggregated data only by approximating the unobserved feature distribution with a maximum entropy hypothesis. We present empirical evidence on several public datasets that the model learned this way can achieve performances comparable to those of a logistic model trained with the full unaggregated data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-05T09:17:27Z)
• Data-Driven Sample Average Approximation with Covariate Information [0.0]
  We study optimization for data-driven decision-making when we have observations of the uncertain parameters within the optimization model together with concurrent observations of coparametrics. We investigate three data-driven frameworks that integrate a machine learning prediction model within a programming sample average approximation (SAA) for approximating the solution to this problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-27T14:45:04Z)
• fETSmcs: Feature-based ETS model component selection [8.99236558175168]
  We propose an efficient approach for ETS model selection by training classifiers on simulated data to predict appropriate model component forms for a given time series. We evaluate our approach on the widely used forecasting competition data set M4 in terms of both point forecasts and prediction intervals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-26T13:52:43Z)
• RIFLE: Imputation and Robust Inference from Low Order Marginals [10.082738539201804]
  We develop a statistical inference framework for regression and classification in the presence of missing data without imputation. Our framework, RIFLE, estimates low-order moments of the underlying data distribution with corresponding confidence intervals to learn a distributionally robust model. Our experiments demonstrate that RIFLE outperforms other benchmark algorithms when the percentage of missing values is high and/or when the number of data points is relatively small.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-01T23:17:30Z)
• Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theory [53.755064720563]
  We evaluate 29 datasets using predictions from 18 pretrained Transformer models on individual test examples. We find that Quoref, HellaSwag, and MC-TACO are best suited for distinguishing among state-of-the-art models. We also observe span selection task format, which is used for QA datasets like QAMR or SQuAD2.0, is effective in differentiating between strong and weak models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T22:33:53Z)
• Model-based metrics: Sample-efficient estimates of predictive model subpopulation performance [11.994417027132807]
  Machine learning models $-$ now commonly developed to screen, diagnose, or predict health conditions are evaluated with a variety of performance metrics. Subpopulation performance metrics are typically computed using only data from that subgroup, resulting in higher variance estimates for smaller groups. We propose using an evaluation model $-$ a model that describes the conditional distribution of the predictive model score $-$ to form model-based metric (MBM) estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-25T19:06:34Z)
• Robust Finite Mixture Regression for Heterogeneous Targets [70.19798470463378]
  We propose an FMR model that finds sample clusters and jointly models multiple incomplete mixed-type targets simultaneously. We provide non-asymptotic oracle performance bounds for our model under a high-dimensional learning framework. The results show that our model can achieve state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-12T03:27:07Z)

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.