We propose a novel algorithmic framework that is tractable, asymptotically consistent,andsuperiortocomparable methodsonexampleproblems.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Lemma 2.Suppose Assumptions 1 and 2 hold.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Instrumental variables (IV) analysis is an important applied tool for areas such as healthcare and consumer economics. For IV analysis in high-dimensional settings, the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) using deep neural networks offers an efficient approach. With non-i.i.d. data sourced from scattered decentralized clients, federated learning is a popular paradigm for training the models while promising data privacy. However, to our knowledge, no federated algorithm for either GMM or IV analysis exists to date. In this work, we introduce federated instrumental variables analysis (FedIV) via federated generalized method of moments (FedGMM). We formulate FedGMM as a federated zero-sum game defined by a federated non-convex non-concave minimax optimization problem, which is solved using federated gradient descent ascent (FedGDA) algorithm. One key challenge arises in theoretically characterizing the federated local optimality. To address this, we present properties and existence results of clients' local equilibria via FedGDA limit points. Thereby, we show that the federated solution consistently estimates the local moment conditions of every participating client. The proposed algorithm is backed by extensive experiments to demonstrate the efficacy of our approach.

Reweighting a distribution to minimize a distance to a target distribution is a powerful and flexible strategy for estimating a wide range of causal effects, but can be challenging in practice because optimal weights typically depend on knowledge of the underlying data generating process. In this paper, we focus on design-based weights, which do not incorporate outcome information; prominent examples include prospective cohort studies, survey weighting, and the weighting portion of augmented weighting estimators. In such applications, we explore the central role of representation learning in finding desirable weights in practice. Unlike the common approach of assuming a well-specified representation, we highlight the error due to the choice of a representation and outline a general framework for finding suitable representations that minimize this error. Building on recent work that combines balancing weights and neural networks, we propose an end-to-end estimation procedure that learns a flexible representation, while retaining promising theoretical properties. We show that this approach is competitive in a range of common causal inference tasks.

The conditional average treatment effect (CATE) is the best measure of individual causal effects given baseline covariates. However, the CATE only captures the (conditional) average, and can overlook risks and tail events, which are important to treatment choice. In aggregate analyses, this is usually addressed by measuring the distributional treatment effect (DTE), such as differences in quantiles or tail expectations between treatment groups. Hypothetically, one can similarly fit conditional quantile regressions in each treatment group and take their difference, but this would not be robust to misspecification or provide agnostic best-in-class predictions. We provide a new robust and model-agnostic methodology for learning the conditional DTE (CDTE) for a class of problems that includes conditional quantile treatment effects, conditional super-quantile treatment effects, and conditional treatment effects on coherent risk measures given by $f$-divergences. Our method is based on constructing a special pseudo-outcome and regressing it on covariates using any regression learner. Our method is model-agnostic in that it can provide the best projection of CDTE onto the regression model class. Our method is robust in that even if we learn these nuisances nonparametrically at very slow rates, we can still learn CDTEs at rates that depend on the class complexity and even conduct inferences on linear projections of CDTEs. We investigate the behavior of our proposal in simulations, as well as in a case study of 401(k) eligibility effects on wealth.

We consider a personalized pricing problem in which we have data consisting of feature information, historical pricing decisions, and binary realized demand. The goal is to perform off-policy evaluation for a new personalized pricing policy that maps features to prices. Methods based on inverse propensity weighting (including doubly robust methods) for off-policy evaluation may perform poorly when the logging policy has little exploration or is deterministic, which is common in pricing applications. Building on the balanced policy evaluation framework of Kallus (2018), we propose a new approach tailored to pricing applications. The key idea is to compute an estimate that minimizes the worst-case mean squared error or maximizes a worst-case lower bound on policy performance, where in both cases the worst-case is taken with respect to a set of possible revenue functions. We establish theoretical convergence guarantees and empirically demonstrate the advantage of our approach using a real-world pricing dataset.

We thank the opportunity offered by editors for this discussion and the discussants for their insightful comments and thoughtful contributions. We also want to congratulate Kallus (2020) for his inspiring work in improving the efficiency of policy learning by retargeting. Motivated from the discussion in Dukes and Vansteelandt (2020), we first point out interesting connections and distinctions between our work and Kallus (2020) in Section 1. In particular, the assumptions and sources of variation for consideration in these two papers lead to different research problems with different scopes and focuses. In Section 2, following the discussions in Li et al. (2020); Liang and Zhao (2020), we also consider the efficient policy evaluation problem when we have some data from the testing distribution available at the training stage. We show that under the assumption that the sample sizes from training and testing are growing in the same order, efficient value function estimates can deliver competitive performance. We further show some connections of these estimates with existing literature. However, when the growth of testing sample size available for training is in a slower order, efficient value function estimates may not perform well anymore. In contrast, the requirement of the testing sample size for DRITR is not as strong as that of efficient policy evaluation using the combined data. Finally, we highlight the general applicability and usefulness of DRITR in Section 3.

I would like thank the discussants, Oliver Dukes and Stijn Vansteelandt (DV), Sijia Li, Xiudi Li, Alex Luedtkeand (LLL), and Muxuan Liang and Yingqi Zhao (LZ), for a very thoughtful discussion both of my contribution (Kallus 2020) and of Mo et al. (2020). I similarly thank the editors for putting together this exciting special issue and for curating a timely discussion on new objectives for policy learning. I found the juxtaposition between the two papers particularly apt: while my paper tries to induce an optimal covariate shift based on the premise of invariance, Mo et al. (2020) try to be robust to an undesirable covariate shift for fear of variations. While one optimistically alters the training population, the other pessimistically considers the worst-possible testing population. In the following I review some discussant comments that stood out to me as particularly keenly perceptive and offer some reflections.