Bayesian X-Learner: Calibrated Posterior Inference for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects under Heavy-Tailed Outcomes

Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimation in practice demands three properties simultaneously: heterogeneous effects τ(x), calibrated uncertainty over them, and robustness to the heavy tails that contaminate real outcome data. Meta-learners (Künzel et al., 2019) give (i); causal forests and BART give (i)-(ii) with Gaussian-tail assumptions; no widely used tool gives all three. We present Bayesian X-Learner, an X-Learner built on cross-fitted doubly robust pseudo-outcomes (Kennedy, 2020) with a full MCMC posterior over τ(x) via a Welsch redescending pseudo-likelihood. On Hill's IHDP benchmark the default configuration attains mean εPEHE = 0.56 on 5 replications (lowest mean; differences from S-/T-/X-learners, full-config Causal BART, and a causal forest baseline are not significant at α = 0.05, and rank ordering is unstable at 10 replications -- IHDP comparisons are competitive rather than dominant). On contaminated "whale" DGPs with up to 20-25% tail density, a one-flag extension (contamination_severity) that selects a Huberδ nuisance loss per Huber's minimax-δ relation recovers RMSE 0.13 with tight credible intervals (single-cross-fit 30-seed coverage 83% [Wilson 66%, 93%] at 20% density; modularBayes pooling with Bayesian-bootstrap nuisance draws restores nominal 95% coverage). We validate on the Hillstrom email-marketing RCT (N = 42,613), demonstrating consistent behaviour on real heavy-tailed outcome data, and report covariate-stratified τ(x) coverage across covariate quintiles to substantiate calibration for heterogeneous effects beyond scalar summaries. We draw a clean distinction between tails-as-contamination (handled by Welsch + Huber nuisance) and tails-as-signal (handled by a tail-aware CATE basis); an empirical probe confirms a tail-aware basis recovers τtail with full subgroup coverage, while the library's Hill-estimator path is contamination-directed and should not be used for heterogeneous τ. We map six empirical boundaries (contamination ceiling, clean-data efficiency cost, basis sensitivity, sample size, treatment type, compute) and show where other tools are preferable. Code and reproducible benchmarks are released.