It is crucial to successfully quantify causal effects of a policy intervention to determine whether the policy achieved the desired outcomes. We present a deterministic approach to a classical method of policy evaluation, synthetic control (Abadie and Gardeazabal, 2003), to estimate the unobservable outcome of a treatment unit using ellipsoidal optimal recovery (EOpR). EOpR provides policy evaluators with "worst-case" outcomes and "typical" outcomes to help in decision making. It is an approximation-theoretic technique that also relates to the theory of principal components, which recovers unknown observations given a learned signal class and a set of known observations. We show that EOpR can improve pre-treatment fit and bias of the post-treatment estimation relative to other econometrics methods. Beyond recovery of the unit of interest, an advantage of EOpR is that it produces worst-case estimates over the estimations produced by the recovery. We assess our approach on artificially-generated data, on datasets commonly used in the econometrics literature, and also derive results in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such an approach is novel in the econometrics literature for causality and policy evaluation.
相關內容
Making causal inferences from observational studies can be challenging when confounders are missing not at random. In such cases, identifying causal effects is often not guaranteed. Motivated by a real example, we consider a treatment-independent missingness assumption under which we establish the identification of causal effects when confounders are missing not at random. We propose a weighted estimating equation (WEE) approach for estimating model parameters and introduce three estimators for the average causal effect, based on regression, propensity score weighting, and doubly robust estimation. We evaluate the performance of these estimators through simulations, and provide a real data analysis to illustrate our proposed method.
We consider identification and inference about a counterfactual outcome mean when there is unmeasured confounding using tools from proximal causal inference (Miao et al. [2018], Tchetgen Tchetgen et al. [2020]). Proximal causal inference requires existence of solutions to at least one of two integral equations. We motivate the existence of solutions to the integral equations from proximal causal inference by demonstrating that, assuming the existence of a solution to one of the integral equations, $\sqrt{n}$-estimability of a linear functional (such as its mean) of that solution requires the existence of a solution to the other integral equation. Solutions to the integral equations may not be unique, which complicates estimation and inference. We construct a consistent estimator for the solution set for one of the integral equations and then adapt the theory of extremum estimators to find from the estimated set a consistent estimator for a uniquely defined solution. A debiased estimator for the counterfactual mean is shown to be root-$n$ consistent, regular, and asymptotically semiparametrically locally efficient under additional regularity conditions.
Studying causal effects of continuous treatments is important for gaining a deeper understanding of many interventions, policies, or medications, yet researchers are often left with observational studies for doing so. In the observational setting, confounding is a barrier to the estimation of causal effects. Weighting approaches seek to control for confounding by reweighting samples so that confounders are comparable across different treatment values. Yet, for continuous treatments, weighting methods are highly sensitive to model misspecification. In this paper we elucidate the key property that makes weights effective in estimating causal quantities involving continuous treatments. We show that to eliminate confounding, weights should make treatment and confounders independent on the weighted scale. We develop a measure that characterizes the degree to which a set of weights induces such independence. Further, we propose a new model-free method for weight estimation by optimizing our measure. We study the theoretical properties of our measure and our weights, and prove that our weights can explicitly mitigate treatment-confounder dependence. The empirical effectiveness of our approach is demonstrated in a suite of challenging numerical experiments, where we find that our weights are quite robust and work well under a broad range of settings.
Mendelian randomization (MR) is an instrumental variable (IV) approach to infer causal relationships between exposures and outcomes with genome-wide association studies (GWAS) summary data. However, the multivariable inverse-variance weighting (IVW) approach, which serves as the foundation for most MR approaches, cannot yield unbiased causal effect estimates in the presence of many weak IVs. To address this problem, we proposed the MR using Bias-corrected Estimating Equation (MRBEE) that can infer unbiased causal relationships with many weak IVs and account for horizontal pleiotropy simultaneously. While the practical significance of MRBEE was demonstrated in our parallel work (Lorincz-Comi (2023)), this paper established the statistical theories of multivariable IVW and MRBEE with many weak IVs. First, we showed that the bias of the multivariable IVW estimate is caused by the error-in-variable bias, whose scale and direction are inflated and influenced by weak instrument bias and sample overlaps of exposures and outcome GWAS cohorts, respectively. Second, we investigated the asymptotic properties of multivariable IVW and MRBEE, showing that MRBEE outperforms multivariable IVW regarding unbiasedness of causal effect estimation and asymptotic validity of causal inference. Finally, we applied MRBEE to examine myopia and revealed that education and outdoor activity are causal to myopia whereas indoor activity is not.
Recent years have seen a surge of interest in learning high-level causal representations from low-level image pairs under interventions. Yet, existing efforts are largely limited to simple synthetic settings that are far away from real-world problems. In this paper, we present Causal Triplet, a causal representation learning benchmark featuring not only visually more complex scenes, but also two crucial desiderata commonly overlooked in previous works: (i) an actionable counterfactual setting, where only certain object-level variables allow for counterfactual observations whereas others do not; (ii) an interventional downstream task with an emphasis on out-of-distribution robustness from the independent causal mechanisms principle. Through extensive experiments, we find that models built with the knowledge of disentangled or object-centric representations significantly outperform their distributed counterparts. However, recent causal representation learning methods still struggle to identify such latent structures, indicating substantial challenges and opportunities for future work. Our code and datasets will be available at //sites.google.com/view/causaltriplet.
We are interested in estimating the effect of a treatment applied to individuals at multiple sites, where data is stored locally for each site. Due to privacy constraints, individual-level data cannot be shared across sites; the sites may also have heterogeneous populations and treatment assignment mechanisms. Motivated by these considerations, we develop federated methods to draw inference on the average treatment effects of combined data across sites. Our methods first compute summary statistics locally using propensity scores and then aggregate these statistics across sites to obtain point and variance estimators of average treatment effects. We show that these estimators are consistent and asymptotically normal. To achieve these asymptotic properties, we find that the aggregation schemes need to account for the heterogeneity in treatment assignments and in outcomes across sites. We demonstrate the validity of our federated methods through a comparative study of two large medical claims databases.
The concept of causality plays an important role in human cognition . In the past few decades, causal inference has been well developed in many fields, such as computer science, medicine, economics, and education. With the advancement of deep learning techniques, it has been increasingly used in causal inference against counterfactual data. Typically, deep causal models map the characteristics of covariates to a representation space and then design various objective optimization functions to estimate counterfactual data unbiasedly based on the different optimization methods. This paper focuses on the survey of the deep causal models, and its core contributions are as follows: 1) we provide relevant metrics under multiple treatments and continuous-dose treatment; 2) we incorporate a comprehensive overview of deep causal models from both temporal development and method classification perspectives; 3) we assist a detailed and comprehensive classification and analysis of relevant datasets and source code.
Commonsense causality reasoning (CCR) aims at identifying plausible causes and effects in natural language descriptions that are deemed reasonable by an average person. Although being of great academic and practical interest, this problem is still shadowed by the lack of a well-posed theoretical framework; existing work usually relies on deep language models wholeheartedly, and is potentially susceptible to confounding co-occurrences. Motivated by classical causal principles, we articulate the central question of CCR and draw parallels between human subjects in observational studies and natural languages to adopt CCR to the potential-outcomes framework, which is the first such attempt for commonsense tasks. We propose a novel framework, ROCK, to Reason O(A)bout Commonsense K(C)ausality, which utilizes temporal signals as incidental supervision, and balances confounding effects using temporal propensities that are analogous to propensity scores. The ROCK implementation is modular and zero-shot, and demonstrates good CCR capabilities on various datasets.
This paper focuses on the expected difference in borrower's repayment when there is a change in the lender's credit decisions. Classical estimators overlook the confounding effects and hence the estimation error can be magnificent. As such, we propose another approach to construct the estimators such that the error can be greatly reduced. The proposed estimators are shown to be unbiased, consistent, and robust through a combination of theoretical analysis and numerical testing. Moreover, we compare the power of estimating the causal quantities between the classical estimators and the proposed estimators. The comparison is tested across a wide range of models, including linear regression models, tree-based models, and neural network-based models, under different simulated datasets that exhibit different levels of causality, different degrees of nonlinearity, and different distributional properties. Most importantly, we apply our approaches to a large observational dataset provided by a global technology firm that operates in both the e-commerce and the lending business. We find that the relative reduction of estimation error is strikingly substantial if the causal effects are accounted for correctly.
Causal inference is a critical research topic across many domains, such as statistics, computer science, education, public policy and economics, for decades. Nowadays, estimating causal effect from observational data has become an appealing research direction owing to the large amount of available data and low budget requirement, compared with randomized controlled trials. Embraced with the rapidly developed machine learning area, various causal effect estimation methods for observational data have sprung up. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive review of causal inference methods under the potential outcome framework, one of the well known causal inference framework. The methods are divided into two categories depending on whether they require all three assumptions of the potential outcome framework or not. For each category, both the traditional statistical methods and the recent machine learning enhanced methods are discussed and compared. The plausible applications of these methods are also presented, including the applications in advertising, recommendation, medicine and so on. Moreover, the commonly used benchmark datasets as well as the open-source codes are also summarized, which facilitate researchers and practitioners to explore, evaluate and apply the causal inference methods.
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191