Additionally, experiments have shown that depersonalization symptoms can arise as a reaction to alcohol consumption (Raimo et al., 1999), and they are increasingly recognized as a significant prognostic factor in the course of depression (Michal et al., 2024). Despite these findings, little research has explored the mediating role of depersonalization symptoms in the causal pathway from alcohol consumption to depression. In this paper, we propose a methodological framework to evaluate the indirect effect of alcohol consumption on depression, with depersonalization acting as a mediator. To ground our analysis, we use data from a cross-sectional survey conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic by Dom ınguez-Espinosa et al. (2023) as a running example. In observational studies, the population average causal effect (ACE) and the natural indirect effect (NIE) are the most commonly used measures of total and mediation effects, respectively, to compare the outcomes of different intervention policies. For instance, in our running example, these two measures compare the depression outcomes between individuals engaging in hazardous versus non-hazardous alcohol consumption. However, clinical practice imposes ethical constraints, as healthcare professionals would not prescribe harmful levels of alcohol consumption. As a result, hypothetical interventions involving dangerous exposure levels are unrealistic. To address this situation with potentially harmful exposure, Hubbard and Van der Laan (2008) propose the population intervention effect (PIE), which contrasts outcomes between the natural population and a hypothetical population where no one is exposed to the harmful exposure level.

In this paper, we explore optimal treatment allocation policies that target distributional welfare. Most literature on treatment choice has considered utilitarian welfare based on the conditional average treatment effect (ATE). While average welfare is intuitive, it may yield undesirable allocations especially when individuals are heterogeneous (e.g., with outliers) - the very reason individualized treatments were introduced in the first place. This observation motivates us to propose an optimal policy that allocates the treatment based on the conditional \emph{quantile of individual treatment effects} (QoTE). Depending on the choice of the quantile probability, this criterion can accommodate a policymaker who is either prudent or negligent. The challenge of identifying the QoTE lies in its requirement for knowledge of the joint distribution of the counterfactual outcomes, which is generally hard to recover even with experimental data. Therefore, we introduce minimax optimal policies that are robust to model uncertainty. We then propose a range of identifying assumptions under which we can point or partially identify the QoTE. We establish the asymptotic bound on the regret of implementing the proposed policies. We consider both stochastic and deterministic rules. In simulations and two empirical applications, we compare optimal decisions based on the QoTE with decisions based on other criteria.

A common concern when a policymaker draws causal inferences from and makes decisions based on observational data is that the measured covariates are insufficiently rich to account for all sources of confounding, i.e., the standard no confoundedness assumption fails to hold. The recently proposed proximal causal inference framework shows that proxy variables that abound in real-life scenarios can be leveraged to identify causal effects and therefore facilitate decision-making. Building upon this line of work, we propose a novel optimal individualized treatment regime based on so-called outcome and treatment confounding bridges. We then show that the value function of this new optimal treatment regime is superior to that of existing ones in the literature. Theoretical guarantees, including identification, superiority, excess value bound, and consistency of the estimated regime, are established. Furthermore, we demonstrate the proposed optimal regime via numerical experiments and a real data application.

Recently, there has been a surge in methodological development for the difference-in-differences (DiD) approach to evaluate causal effects. Standard methods in the literature rely on the parallel trends assumption to identify the average treatment effect on the treated. However, the parallel trends assumption may be violated in the presence of unmeasured confounding, and the average treatment effect on the treated may not be useful in learning a treatment assignment policy for the entire population. In this article, we propose a general instrumented DiD approach for learning the optimal treatment policy. Specifically, we establish identification results using a binary instrumental variable (IV) when the parallel trends assumption fails to hold. Additionally, we construct a Wald estimator, novel inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimators, and a class of semiparametric efficient and multiply robust estimators, with theoretical guarantees on consistency and asymptotic normality, even when relying on flexible machine learning algorithms for nuisance parameters estimation. Furthermore, we extend the instrumented DiD to the panel data setting. We evaluate our methods in extensive simulations and a real data application.

Efficiently and flexibly estimating treatment effect heterogeneity is an important task in a wide To identify causal effects, the aforementioned approaches variety of settings ranging from medicine to marketing, operate under the exchangeability assumption, i.e., the assertion and there are a considerable number of that conditional on observed covariates, the treatment promising conditional average treatment effect assignment is as good as random. We propose a CATE estimators currently available. These, however, estimator, which using the framework of Tchetgen Tchetgen typically rely on the assumption that the measured et al. (2020), allows one to estimate causal effects in covariates are enough to justify conditional settings where conditional exchangeability fails, but one has exchangeability. We propose the P-learner, motivated measured a set of sufficient proxy variables. Our practical by the Rand DR-learner, a tailored twostage approach is motivated by the generic Neyman-orthogonal loss function for learning heterogeneous (Chernozhukov et al., 2018a) loss function from Nie & Wager treatment effects in settings where exchangeability (2021) and Kennedy (2020) that decouples nuisance given observed covariates is an implausible assumption, estimation and CATE estimation into two stages that can be and we wish to rely on proxy variables estimated (and tuned with cross-validation) by flexible lossminimizing for causal inference.

Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) has demonstrated great potentials in solving sequential decision making problems in many applications. Despite its promising performance, practical gaps exist when deploying DRL in real-world scenarios. One main barrier is the over-fitting issue that leads to poor generalizability of the policy learned by DRL. In particular, for offline DRL with observational data, model selection is a challenging task as there is no ground truth available for performance demonstration, in contrast with the online setting with simulated environments. In this work, we propose a pessimistic model selection (PMS) approach for offline DRL with a theoretical guarantee, which features a provably effective framework for finding the best policy among a set of candidate models. Two refined approaches are also proposed to address the potential bias of DRL model in identifying the optimal policy. Numerical studies demonstrated the superior performance of our approach over existing methods.

Unmeasured confounding is a threat to causal inference and gives rise to biased estimates. In this article, we consider the problem of individualized decision-making under partial identification. Firstly, we argue that when faced with unmeasured confounding, one should pursue individualized decision-making using partial identification in a comprehensive manner. We establish a formal link between individualized decision-making under partial identification and classical decision theory by considering a lower bound perspective of value/utility function. Secondly, building on this unified framework, we provide a novel minimax solution (i.e., a rule that minimizes the maximum regret for so-called opportunists) for individualized decision-making/policy assignment. Lastly, we provide an interesting paradox drawing on novel connections between two challenging domains, that is, individualized decision-making and unmeasured confounding. Although motivated by instrumental variable bounds, we emphasize that the general framework proposed in this article would in principle apply for a rich set of bounds that might be available under partial identification.