Bayesian approaches have become increasingly popular in causal inference problems due to their conceptual simplicity, excellent performance and in-built uncertainty quantification ('posterior credible sets'). We investigate Bayesian inference for average treatment effects from observational data, which is a challenging problem due to the missing counterfactuals and selection bias. Working in the standard potential outcomes framework, we propose a data-driven modification to an arbitrary (nonparametric) prior based on the propensity score that corrects for the first-order posterior bias, thereby improving performance. We illustrate our method for Gaussian process (GP) priors using (semi-)synthetic data. Our experiments demonstrate significant improvement in both estimation accuracy and uncertainty quantification compared to the unmodified GP, rendering our approach highly competitive with the state-of-the-art.

In particular, I welcome the comparison to BCF and find it quite interesting that it performs better on the semi-synthetic data but not the synthetic! On re-reading the paper and supplement, as well as the response, I do think the way you have incorporated the propensity score is quite clever. I'm quite happy to revise my score up to 7. ----- The authors consider the important problem of heterogeneous treatment effect estimation. They specifically propose a non-parametric Bayesian procedure, placing a Gaussian process prior on the potential outcome function m(x,r). They note that the natural approach (i.e.

Overall, the reviewers found this a valuable addition to the causal inference literature. While we would have liked to see more comparisons, we feel that that by incorporating the BCF simulations, and the clarifications mentioned in the rebuttal, this paper will be a welcome addition to the conference.

Bayesian approaches have become increasingly popular in causal inference problems due to their conceptual simplicity, excellent performance and in-built uncertainty quantification ('posterior credible sets'). We investigate Bayesian inference for average treatment effects from observational data, which is a challenging problem due to the missing counterfactuals and selection bias. Working in the standard potential outcomes framework, we propose a data-driven modification to an arbitrary (nonparametric) prior based on the propensity score that corrects for the first-order posterior bias, thereby improving performance. We illustrate our method for Gaussian process (GP) priors using (semi-)synthetic data. Our experiments demonstrate significant improvement in both estimation accuracy and uncertainty quantification compared to the unmodified GP, rendering our approach highly competitive with the state-of-the-art.

Bayesian approaches have become increasingly popular in causal inference problems due to their conceptual simplicity, excellent performance and in-built uncertainty quantification ('posterior credible sets'). We investigate Bayesian inference for average treatment effects from observational data, which is a challenging problem due to the missing counterfactuals and selection bias. Working in the standard potential outcomes framework, we propose a data-driven modification to an arbitrary (nonparametric) prior based on the propensity score that corrects for the first-order posterior bias, thereby improving performance. We illustrate our method for Gaussian process (GP) priors using (semi-)synthetic data. Our experiments demonstrate significant improvement in both estimation accuracy and uncertainty quantification compared to the unmodified GP, rendering our approach highly competitive with the state-of-the-art.