The estimation of average treatment effects (ATEs), defined as the difference in expected outcomes between treatment and control groups, is a central topic in causal inference. This study develops semiparametric efficient estimators for ATE in a setting where only a treatment group and an unlabeled group--consisting of units whose treatment status is unknown--are observed. This scenario constitutes a variant of learning from positive and unlabeled data (PU learning) and can be viewed as a special case of ATE estimation with missing data. For this setting, we derive the semiparametric efficiency bounds, which characterize the lowest achievable asymptotic variance for regular estimators. We then construct semiparametric efficient ATE estimators that attain these bounds. Our results contribute to the literature on causal inference with missing data and weakly supervised learning.

This paper studies how to integrate historical control data with experimental data to enhance A/B testing, while addressing the distributional shift between historical and experimental datasets. We propose a pessimistic data integration method that combines two causal effect estimators constructed based on experimental and historical datasets. Our main idea is to conceptualize the weight function for this combination as a policy so that existing pessimistic policy learning algorithms are applicable to learn the optimal weight that minimizes the resulting weighted estimator's mean squared error. Additionally, we conduct comprehensive theoretical and empirical analyses to compare our method against various baseline estimators across five scenarios. Both our theoretical and numerical findings demonstrate that the proposed estimator achieves near-optimal performance across all scenarios.

This study investigates treatment effect estimation in the semi-supervised setting, where we can use not only the standard triple of covariates, treatment indicator, and outcome, but also unlabeled auxiliary covariates. For this problem, we develop efficiency bounds and efficient estimators whose asymptotic variance aligns with the efficiency bound. In the analysis, we introduce two different data-generating processes: the one-sample setting and the two-sample setting. The one-sample setting considers the case where we can observe treatment indicators and outcomes for a part of the dataset, which is also called the censoring setting. In contrast, the two-sample setting considers two independent datasets with labeled and unlabeled data, which is also called the case-control setting or the stratified setting. In both settings, we find that by incorporating auxiliary covariates, we can lower the efficiency bound and obtain an estimator with an asymptotic variance smaller than that without such auxiliary covariates.

This paper offers a detailed investigation of switchback designs in A/B testing, which alternate between baseline and new policies over time. Our aim is to thoroughly evaluate the effects of these designs on the accuracy of their resulting average treatment effect (ATE) estimators. We propose a novel "weak signal analysis" framework, which substantially simplifies the calculations of the mean squared errors (MSEs) of these ATEs in Markov decision process environments. Our findings suggest that (i) when the majority of reward errors are positively correlated, the switchback design is more efficient than the alternating-day design which switches policies in a daily basis. Additionally, increasing the frequency of policy switches tends to reduce the MSE of the ATE estimator. (ii) When the errors are uncorrelated, however, all these designs become asymptotically equivalent. (iii) In cases where the majority of errors are negative correlated, the alternating-day design becomes the optimal choice. These insights are crucial, offering guidelines for practitioners on designing experiments in A/B testing. Our analysis accommodates a variety of policy value estimators, including model-based estimators, least squares temporal difference learning estimators, and double reinforcement learning estimators, thereby offering a comprehensive understanding of optimal design strategies for policy evaluation in reinforcement learning.

While many areas of machine learning have benefited from the increasing availability of large and varied datasets, the benefit to causal inference has been limited given the strong assumptions needed to ensure identifiability of causal effects; these are often not satisfied in real-world datasets. For example, many large observational datasets (e.g., case-control studies in epidemiology, click-through data in recommender systems) suffer from selection bias on the outcome, which makes the average treatment effect (ATE) unidentifiable. We propose a general algorithm to estimate causal effects from \emph{multiple} data sources, where the ATE may be identifiable only in some datasets but not others. The key idea is to construct control variates using the datasets in which the ATE is not identifiable. We show theoretically that this reduces the variance of the ATE estimate. We apply this framework to inference from observational data under outcome selection bias, assuming access to an auxiliary small dataset from which we can obtain a consistent estimate of the ATE. We construct a control variate by taking the difference of the odds ratio estimates from the two datasets. Across simulations and two case studies with real data, we show that this control variate can significantly reduce the variance of the ATE estimate.

Valid causal inference in observational studies often requires controlling for confounders. However, in practice measurements of confounders may be noisy, and can lead to biased estimates of causal effects. We show that we can reduce bias induced by measurement noise using a large number of noisy measurements of the underlying confounders. We propose the use of matrix factorization to infer the confounders from noisy covariates. This flexible and principled framework adapts to missing values, accommodates a wide variety of data types, and can enhance a wide variety of causal inference methods. We bound the error for the induced average treatment effect estimator and show it is consistent in a linear regression setting, using Exponential Family Matrix Completion preprocessing. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed procedure in numerical experiments with both synthetic data and real clinical data.

Valid causal inference in observational studies often requires controlling for confounders. However, in practice measurements of confounders may be noisy, and can lead to biased estimates of causal effects. We show that we can reduce bias induced by measurement noise using a large number of noisy measurements of the underlying confounders. We propose the use of matrix factorization to infer the confounders from noisy covariates. This flexible and principled framework adapts to missing values, accommodates a wide variety of data types, and can enhance a wide variety of causal inference methods. We bound the error for the induced average treatment effect estimator and show it is consistent in a linear regression setting, using Exponential Family Matrix Completion preprocessing. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed procedure in numerical experiments with both synthetic data and real clinical data.