We investigate how to exploit structural similarities of an individual's potential outcomes (POs) under different treatments to obtain better estimates of conditional average treatment effects in finite samples. Especially when it is unknown whether a treatment has an effect at all, it is natural to hypothesize that the POs are similar -- yet, some existing strategies for treatment effect estimation employ regularization schemes that implicitly encourage heterogeneity even when it does not exist and fail to fully make use of shared structure. In this paper, we investigate and compare three end-to-end learning strategies to overcome this problem -- based on regularization, reparametrization and a flexible multi-task architecture -- each encoding inductive bias favoring shared behavior across POs. To build understanding of their relative strengths, we implement all strategies using neural networks and conduct a wide range of semi-synthetic experiments. We observe that all three approaches can lead to substantial improvements upon numerous baselines and gain insight into performance differences across various experimental settings.

In many social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences, treatment effect estimation is a crucial step in understanding the impact of an intervention, policy, or treatment. In recent years, an increasing emphasis has been placed on heterogeneity in treatment effects, leading to the development of various methods for estimating Conditional Average Treatment Effects (CATE). These approaches hinge on a crucial identifying condition of no unmeasured confounding, an assumption that is not always guaranteed in observational studies or randomized control trials with non-compliance. In this paper, we proposed a general framework for estimating CATE with a possible unmeasured confounder using Instrumental Variables. We also construct estimators that exhibit greater efficiency and robustness against various scenarios of model misspecification.

Heterogeneous treatment effect estimation in high-stakes applications demands models that simultaneously optimize precision, interpretability, and calibration. Many existing tree-based causal inference techniques, however, exhibit high estimation errors when applied to observational data because they struggle to capture complex interactions among factors and rely on static regularization schemes. In this work, we propose Dynamic Regularized Causal Boosted Decision Trees (CBDT), a novel framework that integrates variance regularization and average treatment effect calibration into the loss function of gradient boosted decision trees. Our approach dynamically updates the regularization parameters using gradient statistics to better balance the bias-variance tradeoff. Extensive experiments on standard benchmark datasets and real-world clinical data demonstrate that the proposed method significantly improves estimation accuracy while maintaining reliable coverage of true treatment effects. In an intensive care unit patient triage study, the method successfully identified clinically actionable rules and achieved high accuracy in treatment effect estimation. The results validate that dynamic regularization can effectively tighten error bounds and enhance both predictive performance and model interpretability.

We investigate how to exploit structural similarities of an individual's potential outcomes (POs) under different treatments to obtain better estimates of conditional average treatment effects in finite samples. Especially when it is unknown whether a treatment has an effect at all, it is natural to hypothesize that the POs are similar -- yet, some existing strategies for treatment effect estimation employ regularization schemes that implicitly encourage heterogeneity even when it does not exist and fail to fully make use of shared structure. In this paper, we investigate and compare three end-to-end learning strategies to overcome this problem -- based on regularization, reparametrization and a flexible multi-task architecture -- each encoding inductive bias favoring shared behavior across POs. To build understanding of their relative strengths, we implement all strategies using neural networks and conduct a wide range of semi-synthetic experiments. We observe that all three approaches can lead to substantial improvements upon numerous baselines and gain insight into performance differences across various experimental settings.

This paper proposes an approach to heterogeneous treatment effect estimation (what it calls "uplift modeling") from separate populations. A simple version of the setup of this paper is as follows. We have two populations, k 1, 2, with different probabilities of treatment conditional on observed features, Pk[T X] (the paper also allows for the case where these need to be estimated). We have access to covariate-outcome pairs (X, Y) drawn from both populations, so we can estimate Ek[Y X]. We assume potential outcomes Y(-1), Y(1), and assume that E[Y(T) X] doesn't depend on setup k. What we would really want is to estimate a conditional average treatment effect tau(x) E[Y(1) - Y(-1) X x].

There is a growing interest in estimating heterogeneous treatment effects across individuals using their high-dimensional feature attributes. Achieving high performance in such high-dimensional heterogeneous treatment effect estimation is challenging because in this setup, it is usual that some features induce sample selection bias while others do not but are predictive of potential outcomes. To avoid losing such predictive feature information, existing methods learn separate feature representations using inverse probability weighting (IPW). However, due to their numerically unstable IPW weights, these methods suffer from estimation bias under a finite sample setup. To develop a numerically robust estimator by weighted representation learning, we propose a differentiable Pareto-smoothed weighting framework that replaces extreme weight values in an end-to-end fashion. Our experimental results show that by effectively correcting the weight values, our proposed method outperforms the existing ones, including traditional weighting schemes. Our code is available at https://github.com/ychika/DPSW.

Causal machine learning methods which flexibly generate heterogeneous treatment effect estimates could be very useful tools for governments trying to make and implement policy. However, as the critical artificial intelligence literature has shown, governments must be very careful of unintended consequences when using machine learning models. One way to try and protect against unintended bad outcomes is with AI Fairness methods which seek to create machine learning models where sensitive variables like race or gender do not influence outcomes. In this paper we argue that standard AI Fairness approaches developed for predictive machine learning are not suitable for all causal machine learning applications because causal machine learning generally (at least so far) uses modelling to inform a human who is the ultimate decision-maker while AI Fairness approaches assume a model that is making decisions directly. We define these scenarios as indirect and direct decision-making respectively and suggest that policy-making is best seen as a joint decision where the causal machine learning model usually only has indirect power. We lay out a definition of fairness for this scenario - a model that provides the information a decision-maker needs to accurately make a value judgement about just policy outcomes - and argue that the complexity of causal machine learning models can make this difficult to achieve. The solution here is not traditional AI Fairness adjustments, but careful modelling and awareness of some of the decision-making biases that these methods might encourage which we describe.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects is crucial for informing personalized treatment strategies and policies. While multiple studies can improve the accuracy and generalizability of results, leveraging them for estimation is statistically challenging. Existing approaches often assume identical heterogeneous treatment effects across studies, but this may be violated due to various sources of between-study heterogeneity, including differences in study design, confounders, and sample characteristics. To this end, we propose a unifying framework for multi-study heterogeneous treatment effect estimation that is robust to between-study heterogeneity in the nuisance functions and treatment effects. Our approach, the multi-study R-learner, extends the R-learner to obtain principled statistical estimation with modern machine learning (ML) in the multi-study setting. The multi-study R-learner is easy to implement and flexible in its ability to incorporate ML for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects, nuisance functions, and membership probabilities, which borrow strength across heterogeneous studies. It achieves robustness in confounding adjustment through its loss function and can leverage both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. We provide asymptotic guarantees for the proposed method in the case of series estimation and illustrate using real cancer data that it has the lowest estimation error compared to existing approaches in the presence of between-study heterogeneity.

This article proposes a meta-learning method for estimating the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) from a few observational data. The proposed method learns how to estimate CATEs from multiple tasks and uses the knowledge for unseen tasks. In the proposed method, based on the meta-learner framework, we decompose the CATE estimation problem into sub-problems. For each sub-problem, we formulate our estimation models using neural networks with task-shared and task-specific parameters. With our formulation, we can obtain optimal task-specific parameters in a closed form that are differentiable with respect to task-shared parameters, making it possible to perform effective meta-learning. The task-shared parameters are trained such that the expected CATE estimation performance in few-shot settings is improved by minimizing the difference between a CATE estimated with a large amount of data and one estimated with just a few data. Our experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms the existing meta-learning approaches and CATE estimation methods.

We study the problem of inferring heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) from time-to-event data in the presence of competing events. Albeit its great practical relevance, this problem has received little attention compared to its counterparts studying HTE estimation without time-to-event data or competing events. We take an outcome modeling approach to estimating HTEs, and consider how and when existing prediction models for time-to-event data can be used as plug-in estimators for potential outcomes. We then investigate whether competing events present new challenges for HTE estimation -- in addition to the standard confounding problem --, and find that, because there are multiple definitions of causal effects in this setting -- namely total, direct and separable effects --, competing events can act as an additional source of covariate shift depending on the desired treatment effect interpretation and associated estimand. We theoretically analyze and empirically illustrate when and how these challenges play a role when using generic machine learning prediction models for the estimation of HTEs.