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.
The vast majority of literature on evaluating the significance of a treatment effect based on observational data has been confined to discrete treatments. These methods are not applicable to drawing inference for a continuous treatment, which arises in many important applications. To adjust for confounders when evaluating a continuous treatment, existing inference methods often rely on discretizing the treatment or using (possibly misspecified) parametric models for the effect curve. Recently, Kennedy et al. (2017) proposed nonparametric doubly robust estimation for a continuous treatment effect in observational studies. However, inference for the continuous treatment effect is a harder problem. To the best of our knowledge, a completely nonparametric doubly robust approach for inference in this setting is not yet available. We develop such a nonparametric doubly robust procedure in this paper for making inference on the continuous treatment effect curve. Using empirical process techniques for local U- and V-processes, we establish the test statistic's asymptotic distribution. Furthermore, we propose a wild bootstrap procedure for implementing the test in practice. We illustrate the new method via simulations and a study of a constructed dataset relating the effect of nurse staffing hours on hospital performance. We implement our doubly robust dose response test in the R package DRDRtest on CRAN.
Average treatment effect (ATE) estimation is an essential problem in the causal inference literature, which has received significant recent attention, especially with the presence of high-dimensional confounders. We consider the ATE estimation problem in high dimensions when the observed outcome (or label) itself is possibly missing. The labeling indicator's conditional propensity score is allowed to depend on the covariates, and also decay uniformly with sample size - thus allowing for the unlabeled data size to grow faster than the labeled data size. Such a setting fills in an important gap in both the semi-supervised (SS) and missing data literatures. We consider a missing at random (MAR) mechanism that allows selection bias - this is typically forbidden in the standard SS literature, and without a positivity condition - this is typically required in the missing data literature. We first propose a general doubly robust 'decaying' MAR (DR-DMAR) SS estimator for the ATE, which is constructed based on flexible (possibly non-parametric) nuisance estimators. The general DR-DMAR SS estimator is shown to be doubly robust, as well as asymptotically normal (and efficient) when all the nuisance models are correctly specified. Additionally, we propose a bias-reduced DR-DMAR SS estimator based on (parametric) targeted bias-reducing nuisance estimators along with a special asymmetric cross-fitting strategy. We demonstrate that the bias-reduced ATE estimator is asymptotically normal as long as either the outcome regression or the propensity score model is correctly specified. Moreover, the required sparsity conditions are weaker than all the existing doubly robust causal inference literature even under the regular supervised setting - this is a special degenerate case of our setting. Lastly, this work also contributes to the growing literature on generalizability in causal inference.
Probabilistic logical rule learning has shown great strength in logical rule mining and knowledge graph completion. It learns logical rules to predict missing edges by reasoning on existing edges in the knowledge graph. However, previous efforts have largely been limited to only modeling chain-like Horn clauses such as $R_1(x,z)\land R_2(z,y)\Rightarrow H(x,y)$. This formulation overlooks additional contextual information from neighboring sub-graphs of entity variables $x$, $y$ and $z$. Intuitively, there is a large gap here, as local sub-graphs have been found to provide important information for knowledge graph completion. Inspired by these observations, we propose Logical Entity RePresentation (LERP) to encode contextual information of entities in the knowledge graph. A LERP is designed as a vector of probabilistic logical functions on the entity's neighboring sub-graph. It is an interpretable representation while allowing for differentiable optimization. We can then incorporate LERP into probabilistic logical rule learning to learn more expressive rules. Empirical results demonstrate that with LERP, our model outperforms other rule learning methods in knowledge graph completion and is comparable or even superior to state-of-the-art black-box methods. Moreover, we find that our model can discover a more expressive family of logical rules. LERP can also be further combined with embedding learning methods like TransE to make it more interpretable.
In experimental and observational studies, there is often interest in understanding the mechanism through which an intervention program improves the final outcome. Causal mediation analyses have been developed for this purpose but are primarily considered for the case of perfect treatment compliance, with a few exceptions that require the exclusion restriction assumption. In this article, we consider a semiparametric framework for assessing causal mediation in the presence of treatment noncompliance without the exclusion restriction. We propose a set of assumptions to identify the natural mediation effects for the entire study population and further, for the principal natural mediation effects within subpopulations characterized by the potential compliance behavior. We derive the efficient influence functions for the principal natural mediation effect estimands and motivate a set of multiply robust estimators for inference. The multiply robust estimators remain consistent to their respective estimands under four types of misspecification of the working models and are efficient when all nuisance models are correctly specified. We further introduce a nonparametric extension of the proposed estimators by incorporating machine learners to estimate the nuisance functions. Sensitivity analysis methods are also discussed for addressing key identification assumptions. We demonstrate the proposed methods via simulations and an application to a real data example.
Semi-supervised (SS) inference has received much attention in recent years. Apart from a moderate-sized labeled data, L, the SS setting is characterized by an additional, much larger sized, unlabeled data, U. The setting of |U| >> |L|, makes SS inference unique and different from the standard missing data problems, owing to natural violation of the so-called "positivity" or "overlap" assumption. However, most of the SS literature implicitly assumes L and U to be equally distributed, i.e., no selection bias in the labeling. Inferential challenges in missing at random (MAR) type labeling allowing for selection bias, are inevitably exacerbated by the decaying nature of the propensity score (PS). We address this gap for a prototype problem, the estimation of the response's mean. We propose a double robust SS (DRSS) mean estimator and give a complete characterization of its asymptotic properties. The proposed estimator is consistent as long as either the outcome or the PS model is correctly specified. When both models are correctly specified, we provide inference results with a non-standard consistency rate that depends on the smaller size |L|. The results are also extended to causal inference with imbalanced treatment groups. Further, we provide several novel choices of models and estimators of the decaying PS, including a novel offset logistic model and a stratified labeling model. We present their properties under both high and low dimensional settings. These may be of independent interest. Lastly, we present extensive simulations and also a real data application.
Causal discovery and causal reasoning are classically treated as separate and consecutive tasks: one first infers the causal graph, and then uses it to estimate causal effects of interventions. However, such a two-stage approach is uneconomical, especially in terms of actively collected interventional data, since the causal query of interest may not require a fully-specified causal model. From a Bayesian perspective, it is also unnatural, since a causal query (e.g., the causal graph or some causal effect) can be viewed as a latent quantity subject to posterior inference -- other unobserved quantities that are not of direct interest (e.g., the full causal model) ought to be marginalized out in this process and contribute to our epistemic uncertainty. In this work, we propose Active Bayesian Causal Inference (ABCI), a fully-Bayesian active learning framework for integrated causal discovery and reasoning, which jointly infers a posterior over causal models and queries of interest. In our approach to ABCI, we focus on the class of causally-sufficient, nonlinear additive noise models, which we model using Gaussian processes. We sequentially design experiments that are maximally informative about our target causal query, collect the corresponding interventional data, and update our beliefs to choose the next experiment. Through simulations, we demonstrate that our approach is more data-efficient than several baselines that only focus on learning the full causal graph. This allows us to accurately learn downstream causal queries from fewer samples while providing well-calibrated uncertainty estimates for the quantities of interest.
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.
Understanding causality helps to structure interventions to achieve specific goals and enables predictions under interventions. With the growing importance of learning causal relationships, causal discovery tasks have transitioned from using traditional methods to infer potential causal structures from observational data to the field of pattern recognition involved in deep learning. The rapid accumulation of massive data promotes the emergence of causal search methods with brilliant scalability. Existing summaries of causal discovery methods mainly focus on traditional methods based on constraints, scores and FCMs, there is a lack of perfect sorting and elaboration for deep learning-based methods, also lacking some considers and exploration of causal discovery methods from the perspective of variable paradigms. Therefore, we divide the possible causal discovery tasks into three types according to the variable paradigm and give the definitions of the three tasks respectively, define and instantiate the relevant datasets for each task and the final causal model constructed at the same time, then reviews the main existing causal discovery methods for different tasks. Finally, we propose some roadmaps from different perspectives for the current research gaps in the field of causal discovery and point out future research directions.
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.