Decision-making in various fields, such as medicine, is heavily based on conditional average treatment effects (CATEs). Practitioners commonly make decisions by checking whether the estimated CATE is positive, even though the decision-making performance of modern CATE estimators (meta-learners) is poorly understood. In this paper, we study optimal decision-making based on two-stage meta-learners (e.g., DR-learner), which estimate CATE via a second-stage regression. We show that these meta-learners can be suboptimal when used for decision-making in common settings where the second-stage regression is over a restricted function class (e.g., when using regularization or employing fairness/interpretability constraints). Intuitively, this occurs because such estimators prioritize CATE accuracy in regions far away from the decision boundary, which is ultimately irrelevant to decision-making. As a remedy, we propose a novel two-stage learning objective that re-targets the CATE to balance CATE estimation error and decision performance. We then propose a neural method that optimizes an adaptively-smoothed approximation of our learning objective. Finally, we confirm the effectiveness of our method both empirically and theoretically.

Decision-making across various fields, such as medicine, heavily relies on conditional average treatment effects (CATEs). Practitioners commonly make decisions by checking whether the estimated CATE is positive, even though the decision-making performance of modern CATE estimators is poorly understood from a theoretical perspective. In this paper, we study optimal decision-making based on two-stage CATE estimators (e.g., DR-learner), which are considered state-of-the-art and widely used in practice. We prove that, while such estimators may be optimal for estimating CATE, they can be suboptimal when used for decision-making. Intuitively, this occurs because such estimators prioritize CATE accuracy in regions far away from the decision boundary, which is ultimately irrelevant to decision-making. As a remedy, we propose a novel two-stage learning objective that retargets the CATE to balance CATE estimation error and decision performance. We then propose a neural method that optimizes an adaptively-smoothed approximation of our learning objective. Finally, we confirm the effectiveness of our method both empirically and theoretically. In sum, our work is the first to show how state-of-the-art CATE estimators can be adapted for optimal decision-making.

Randomization tests and flexible treatment-effect models offer complementary strengths for analyzing data from randomized panel experiments: the former provide valid inference under the known assignment mechanism, while the latter can capture complex patterns of effect heterogeneity. We develop model-assisted randomization tests that combine these strengths without sample splitting. The key idea is to estimate an unsigned version of the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) from the covariance structure of residualized outcomes, while leaving the realized assignments for randomization inference. The remaining sign can be chosen to best fit the observed outcomes. We establish identification and consistency for the proposed unsigned CATE estimators, as well as validity for the CATE-assisted randomization tests. Across synthetic and semi-synthetic experiments, the CATE-assisted randomization tests control Type I error and achieve higher power than covariate-adjusted and sample-split alternatives. Finally, we show that the assignment-free CATE estimates can be used to discover heterogeneous subgroups and test subgroup-specific treatment effects.

Predicting how different interventions will causally affect a specific individual is important in a variety of domains such as personalized medicine, public policy, and online marketing. There are a large number of methods to predict the effect of an existing intervention based on historical data from individuals who received it. However, in many settings it is important to predict the effects of novel interventions (e.g., a newly invented drug), which these methods do not address. Here, we consider zero-shot causal learning: predicting the personalized effects of a novel intervention. We propose CaML, a causal meta-learning framework which formulates the personalized prediction of each intervention's effect as a task. CaML trains a single meta-model across thousands of tasks, each constructed by sampling an intervention, its recipients, and its nonrecipients. By leveraging both intervention information (e.g., a drug's attributes) and individual features (e.g., a patient's history), CaML is able to predict the personalized effects of novel interventions that do not exist at the time of training. Experimental results on real world datasets in large-scale medical claims and cell-line perturbations demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. Most strikingly, CaML's zero-shot predictions outperform even strong baselines trained directly on data from the test interventions.

The growing demand for personalized decision-making has led to a surge of interest in estimating the Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE). Various types of CATE estimators have been developed with advancements in machine learning and causal inference. However, selecting the desirable CATE estimator through a conventional model validation procedure remains impractical due to the absence of counterfactual outcomes in observational data.

Numerous algorithms have been developed for Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimation. In this paper, we first highlight a common issue where many algorithms exhibit inconsistent learning behavior for the same instance across different group assignments. We introduce a metric to quantify and visualize this inconsistency. Next, we present a theoretical analysis showing that this inconsistency indeed contributes to higher test errors and cannot be resolved through conventional machine learning techniques. To address this problem, we propose a general method called \textbf{Consistent Labeling Across Group Assignments} (CLAGA), which eliminates the inconsistency and is applicable to any existing CATE estimation algorithm. Experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate significant performance improvements with CLAGA.

The growing demand for personalized decision-making has led to a surge of interest in estimating the Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE). Various types of CATE estimators have been developed with advancements in machine learning and causal inference. However, selecting the desirable CATE estimator through a conventional model validation procedure remains impractical due to the absence of counterfactual outcomes in observational data. First, they must determine the metric form and the underlying machine learning models for fitting nuisance parameters (e.g., outcome function, propensity function, and plug-in learner). Second, they lack a specific focus on selecting a robust CATE estimator.

To test scientific theories and develop individualized treatment rules, researchers often wish to learn heterogeneous treatment effects that can be consistently found across diverse populations and contexts. We consider the problem of generalizing heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) based on data from multiple sites. A key challenge is that a target population may differ from the source sites in unknown and unobservable ways. This means that the estimates from site-specific models lack external validity, and a simple pooled analysis risks bias. We develop a robust CATE (conditional average treatment effect) estimation methodology with multisite data from heterogeneous populations. We propose a minimax-regret framework that learns a generalizable CATE model by minimizing the worst-case regret over a class of target populations whose CATE can be represented as convex combinations of site-specific CATEs. Using robust optimization, the proposed methodology accounts for distribution shifts in both individual covariates and treatment effect heterogeneity across sites. We show that the resulting CATE model has an interpretable closed-form solution, expressed as a weighted average of site-specific CATE models. Thus, researchers can utilize a flexible CATE estimation method within each site and aggregate site-specific estimates to produce the final model. Through simulations and a real-world application, we show that the proposed methodology improves the robustness and generalizability of existing approaches.