Calibrated Inference for the Conditional Average Treatment Effect in the Few-Placebo Regime via Gaussian Processes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27473v1
• Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 11:18:42 GMT
• Title: Calibrated Inference for the Conditional Average Treatment Effect in the Few-Placebo Regime via Gaussian Processes
• Abstract summary: We study the few-placebo regime, in which one treatment arm is much smaller than the other.<n>We show that intervals under-cover: they contain the true effect less often than their nominal level.<n>We propose GP-CATE, which models each arm's outcome surface with a Gaussian process.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Estimating how much an intervention helps a given individual the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) is increasingly central to decision-making in medicine, economics, and policy, where an estimate is most useful when accompanied by a calibrated uncertainty interval. We study the few-placebo regime, in which one treatment arm is much smaller than the other, as arises in unequal-allocation trials and small-holdout $A/B$ tests. The standard estimator in this setting is the X-Learner, and a natural way to obtain credible intervals is to make its second stage Bayesian. We show that these intervals under-cover: they contain the true effect less often than their nominal level. We trace this to a structural cause the X-Learner's regression target inherits the bias of a nuisance model fitted to the small arm, so the posterior is centered away from the true effect and we find that the standard remedy, regressing an orthogonal doubly-robust score, is also unreliable here, since the regime's limited overlap leaves the estimator either highly variable or, once stabilized, biased once more. Both consequences reflect a pattern that extends beyond causal inference: a separately estimated variance is attached to a point estimate of a hard-to-learn quantity, and the point estimate's bias is not captured by that variance. We propose GP-CATE, which models each arm's outcome surface with a Gaussian process, so the scarce arm's uncertainty enters the posterior directly rather than as an unmodelled bias. Across synthetic and semi-synthetic benchmarks, GP-CATE attains calibrated coverage where the estimators we compare against including Causal Forest and BART do not, at the cost of intervals that are appropriately wide when the data are uninformative.

Related papers

• Attenuated Heterogeneity in Fixed-Effects Causal Forests, and a Cross-Fitted Correction [0.0]
  Causal forests estimate conditional average treatment effects by averaging honest leaf-level effects across trees.<n>We show that this averaging systematically attenuates the estimated heterogeneity.<n>We adapt the best-linear-predictor calibration of Chernozhukov et al., estimating the de-attenuation slope out-of-bag.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T20:18:11Z)
• Orthogonal machine learning for conditional odds and risk ratios [0.0]
  We review existing methods and propose novel ones, focusing on the odds ratio (OR) and the risk ratio (RR)<n>We derive orthogonal risk functions for the OR and RR and show that the associated pseudo-outcomes satisfy second-order conditional-mean remainder properties analogous to the ATE case.<n>We also evaluate estimators for the conditional ATE, OR, and RR in a comprehensive nonparametric Monte Carlo simulation study to compare them with common alternatives under hundreds of different data-generating distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T02:14:58Z)
• Cross-World Assumption and Refining Prediction Intervals for Individual Treatment Effects [6.083038976289835]
  For high-stakes decision-making, individual treatment effect estimates must be accompanied by valid prediction intervals.<n>For high-stakes decision-making, individual treatment effect estimates must be accompanied by valid prediction intervals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-16T18:58:18Z)
• Counterfactual Uncertainty Quantification of Factual Estimand of Efficacy from Before-and-After Treatment Repeated Measures Randomized Controlled Trials [1.3461364647443341]
  This article quantifies the uncertainty reduction achievable for textitcounterfactual estimand, and cautions against potential bias when the estimand uses Digital Twins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T18:01:02Z)
• Relaxed Quantile Regression: Prediction Intervals for Asymmetric Noise [51.87307904567702]
  Quantile regression is a leading approach for obtaining such intervals via the empirical estimation of quantiles in the distribution of outputs.<n>We propose Relaxed Quantile Regression (RQR), a direct alternative to quantile regression based interval construction that removes this arbitrary constraint.<n>We demonstrate that this added flexibility results in intervals with an improvement in desirable qualities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T13:36:38Z)
• A Stable and Efficient Covariate-Balancing Estimator for Causal Survival Effects [33.62020029799266]
  We address the problem of estimating survival causal effects in data with conditionally-independent censoring. This addresses the use of inverses of small estimated probabilities and the resulting amplification of estimation error. We validate our theoretical results in experiments on synthetic and semi-synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T00:04:29Z)
• Double Robust Bayesian Inference on Average Treatment Effects [2.458652618559425]
  We propose a double robust Bayesian inference procedure on the average treatment effect (ATE) under unconfoundedness.<n>For our new Bayesian approach, we first adjust the prior distributions of the conditional mean functions, and then correct the posterior distribution of the resulting ATE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-29T15:32:25Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• SLOE: A Faster Method for Statistical Inference in High-Dimensional Logistic Regression [68.66245730450915]
  We develop an improved method for debiasing predictions and estimating frequentist uncertainty for practical datasets. Our main contribution is SLOE, an estimator of the signal strength with convergence guarantees that reduces the computation time of estimation and inference by orders of magnitude.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-23T17:48:56Z)
• Increasing the efficiency of randomized trial estimates via linear adjustment for a prognostic score [59.75318183140857]
  Estimating causal effects from randomized experiments is central to clinical research. Most methods for historical borrowing achieve reductions in variance by sacrificing strict type-I error rate control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-17T21:10:10Z)
• The Counterfactual $\chi$-GAN [20.42556178617068]
  Causal inference often relies on the counterfactual framework, which requires that treatment assignment is independent of the outcome. This work proposes a generative adversarial network (GAN)-based model called the Counterfactual $chi$-GAN (cGAN)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-09T17:23:13Z)

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.