Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a flexible means to generate synthetic tabular data, yet existing approaches often fail to preserve key causal parameters such as the average treatment effect (ATE). In this technical exploration, we first demonstrate that state-of-the-art synthetic data generators, both GAN- and LLM-based, can achieve high predictive fidelity while substantially misestimating causal effects. To address this gap, we propose a hybrid generation framework that combines model-based covariate synthesis (monitored via distance-to-closest-record filtering) with separately learned propensity and outcome models, thereby ensuring that (W, A, Y) triplets retain their underlying causal structure. We further introduce a synthetic pairing strategy to mitigate positivity violations and a realistic evaluation protocol that leverages unlimited synthetic samples to benchmark traditional estimators (IPTW, AIPW, substitution) under complex covariate distributions. This work lays the groundwork for LLM-powered data pipelines that support robust causal analysis. Our code is available at https://github.com/Xyc-arch/llm-synthetic-for-causal-inference.git.

Generating synthetic datasets that accurately reflect real-world observational data is critical for evaluating causal estimators, but remains a challenging task. Existing generative methods offer a solution by producing synthetic datasets anchored in the observed data (source data) while allowing variation in key parameters such as the treatment effect and amount of confounding bias. However, existing methods typically require users to provide point estimates of such parameters (rather than distributions) and fixed estimates (rather than estimates that can be improved with reference to the source data). This denies users the ability to express uncertainty over parameter values and removes the potential for posterior inference, potentially leading to unreliable estimator comparisons. We introduce simulation-based inference for causal evaluation (SBICE), a framework that models generative parameters as uncertain and infers their posterior distribution given a source dataset. Leveraging techniques in simulation-based inference, SBICE identifies parameter configurations that produce synthetic datasets closely aligned with the source data distribution. Empirical results demonstrate that SBICE improves the reliability of estimator evaluations by generating more realistic datasets, which supports a robust and data-consistent approach to causal benchmarking under uncertainty.

In Influence Maximization (IM), the objective is to -- given a budget -- select the optimal set of entities in a network to target with a treatment so as to maximize the total effect. For instance, in marketing, the objective is to target the set of customers that maximizes the total response rate, resulting from both direct treatment effects on targeted customers and indirect, spillover, effects that follow from targeting these customers. Recently, new methods to estimate treatment effects in the presence of network interference have been proposed. However, the issue of how to leverage these models to make better treatment allocation decisions has been largely overlooked. Traditionally, in Uplift Modeling (UM), entities are ranked according to estimated treatment effect, and the top entities are allocated treatment. Since, in a network context, entities influence each other, the UM ranking approach will be suboptimal. The problem of finding the optimal treatment allocation in a network setting is combinatorial and generally has to be solved heuristically. To fill the gap between IM and UM, we propose OTAPI: Optimizing Treatment Allocation in the Presence of Interference to find solutions to the IM problem using treatment effect estimates. OTAPI consists of two steps. First, a causal estimator is trained to predict treatment effects in a network setting. Second, this estimator is leveraged to identify an optimal treatment allocation by integrating it into classic IM algorithms. We demonstrate that this novel method outperforms classic IM and UM approaches on both synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets.

Observational cohort studies are increasingly being used for comparative effectiveness research to assess the safety of therapeutics. Recently, various doubly robust methods have been proposed for average treatment effect estimation by combining the treatment model and the outcome model via different vehicles, such as matching, weighting, and regression. The key advantage of doubly robust estimators is that they require either the treatment model or the outcome model to be correctly specified to obtain a consistent estimator of average treatment effects, and therefore lead to a more accurate and often more precise inference. However, little work has been done to understand how doubly robust estimators differ due to their unique strategies of using the treatment and outcome models and how machine learning techniques can be combined to boost their performance. Here we examine multiple popular doubly robust methods and compare their performance using different treatment and outcome modeling via extensive simulations and a real-world application. We found that incorporating machine learning with doubly robust estimators such as the targeted maximum likelihood estimator gives the best overall performance. Practical guidance on how to apply doubly robust estimators is provided.

Increasing the success rate of a process, i.e. the percentage of cases that end in a positive outcome, is a recurrent process improvement goal. At runtime, there are often certain actions (a.k.a. treatments) that workers may execute to lift the probability that a case ends in a positive outcome. For example, in a loan origination process, a possible treatment is to issue multiple loan offers to increase the probability that the customer takes a loan. Each treatment has a cost. Thus, when defining policies for prescribing treatments to cases, managers need to consider the net gain of the treatments. Also, the effect of a treatment varies over time: treating a case earlier may be more effective than later in a case. This paper presents a prescriptive monitoring method that automates this decision-making task. The method combines causal inference and reinforcement learning to learn treatment policies that maximize the net gain. The method leverages a conformal prediction technique to speed up the convergence of the reinforcement learning mechanism by separating cases that are likely to end up in a positive or negative outcome, from uncertain cases. An evaluation on two real-life datasets shows that the proposed method outperforms a state-of-the-art baseline.

The performance of most causal effect estimators relies on accurate predictions of high-dimensional non-linear functions of the observed data. The remarkable flexibility of modern Machine Learning (ML) methods is perfectly suited to this task. However, data-driven hyperparameter tuning of ML methods requires effective model evaluation to avoid large errors in causal estimates, a task made more challenging because causal inference involves unavailable counterfactuals. Multiple performance-validation metrics have recently been proposed such that practitioners now not only have to make complex decisions about which causal estimators, ML learners and hyperparameters to choose, but also about which evaluation metric to use. This paper, motivated by unclear recommendations, investigates the interplay between the four different aspects of model evaluation for causal effect estimation. We develop a comprehensive experimental setup that involves many commonly used causal estimators, ML methods and evaluation approaches and apply it to four well-known causal inference benchmark datasets. Our results suggest that optimal hyperparameter tuning of ML learners is enough to reach state-of-the-art performance in effect estimation, regardless of estimators and learners. We conclude that most causal estimators are roughly equivalent in performance if tuned thoroughly enough. We also find hyperparameter tuning and model evaluation are much more important than causal estimators and ML methods. Finally, from the significant gap we find in estimation performance of popular evaluation metrics compared with optimal model selection choices, we call for more research into causal model evaluation to unlock the optimum performance not currently being delivered even by state-of-the-art procedures.

Recently, many causal estimators for Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) and instrumental variable (IV) problems have been published and open sourced, allowing to estimate granular impact of both randomized treatments (such as A/B tests) and of user choices on the outcomes of interest. However, the practical application of such models has been hampered by the lack of a valid way to score the performance of such models out of sample, in order to select the best one for a given application. We address that gap by proposing novel scoring approaches for both the CATE case and an important subset of instrumental variable problems, namely those where the instrumental variable is customer access to a product feature, and the treatment is the customer's choice to use that feature. Being able to score model performance out of sample allows us to apply hyperparameter optimization methods to causal model selection and tuning. We implement that in an open source package that relies on DoWhy and EconML libraries for implementation of causal inference models (and also includes a Transformed Outcome model implementation), and on FLAML for hyperparameter optimization and for component models used in the causal models. We demonstrate on synthetic data that optimizing the proposed scores is a reliable method for choosing the model and its hyperparameter values, whose estimates are close to the true impact, in the randomized CATE and IV cases. Further, we provide examples of applying these methods to real customer data from Wise.

Consider a situation where a new patient arrives in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and is monitored by multiple sensors. We wish to assess relevant unmeasured physiological variables (e.g., cardiac contractility and output and vascular resistance) that have a strong effect on the patients diagnosis and treatment. We do not have any information about this specific patient, but, extensive offline information is available about previous patients, that may only be partially related to the present patient (a case of dataset shift). This information constitutes our prior knowledge, and is both partial and approximate. The basic question is how to best use this prior knowledge, combined with online patient data, to assist in diagnosing the current patient most effectively. Our proposed approach consists of three stages: (i) Use the abundant offline data in order to create both a non-causal and a causal estimator for the relevant unmeasured physiological variables. (ii) Based on the non-causal estimator constructed, and a set of measurements from a new group of patients, we construct a causal filter that provides higher accuracy in the prediction of the hidden physiological variables for this new set of patients. (iii) For any new patient arriving in the ICU, we use the constructed filter in order to predict relevant internal variables. Overall, this strategy allows us to make use of the abundantly available offline data in order to enhance causal estimation for newly arriving patients. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this methodology on a (non-medical) real-world task, in situations where the offline data is only partially related to the new observations. We provide a mathematical analysis of the merits of the approach in a linear setting of Kalman filtering and smoothing, demonstrating its utility.

The Doubly Robust (DR) estimation of ATE can be carried out in 2 steps, where in the first step, the treatment and outcome are modeled, and in the second step the predictions are inserted into the DR estimator. The model misspecification in the first step has led researchers to utilize Machine Learning algorithms instead of parametric algorithms. However, existence of strong confounders and/or Instrumental Variables (IVs) can lead the complex ML algorithms to provide perfect predictions for the treatment model which can violate the positivity assumption and elevate the variance of DR estimators. Thus the ML algorithms must be controlled to avoid perfect predictions for the treatment model while still learn the relationship between the confounders and the treatment and outcome. We use two Neural network architectures and investigate how their hyperparameters should be tuned in the presence of confounders and IVs to achieve a low bias-variance tradeoff for ATE estimators such as DR estimator. Through simulation results, we will provide recommendations as to how NNs can be employed for ATE estimation.

Causal models are notoriously difficult to validate because they make untestable assumptions regarding confounding. New scientific experiments offer the possibility of evaluating causal models using prediction performance. Prediction performance measures are typically robust to violations in causal assumptions. However prediction performance does depend on the selection of training and test sets. In particular biased training sets can lead to optimistic assessments of model performance. In this work, we revisit the prediction performance of several recently proposed causal models tested on a genetic perturbation data set of Kemmeren [Kemmeren et al., 2014]. We find that sample selection bias is likely a key driver of model performance. We propose using a less-biased evaluation set for assessing prediction performance on Kemmeren and compare models on this new set. In this setting, the causal model tested have similar performance to standard association based estimators such as Lasso. Finally we compare the performance of causal estimators in simulation studies which reproduce the Kemmeren structure of genetic knockout experiments but without any sample selection bias. These results provide an improved understanding of the performance of several causal models and offer guidance on how future studies should use Kemmeren.