The simultaneous application of multiple treatments is increasingly common in many fields, such as healthcare and marketing. In such scenarios, it is important to estimate the single treatment effects and the interaction treatment effects that arise from treatment combinations. Previous studies have proposed using independent outcome networks with subnetworks for interactions, or combining task embedding networks that capture treatment similarity with variational autoencoders. However, these methods suffer from the lack of parameter sharing among related treatments, or the estimation of unnecessary latent variables reduces the accuracy of causal effect estimation. To address these issues, we propose a novel deep learning framework that incorporates a task embedding network and a representation learning network with the balancing penalty. The task embedding network enables parameter sharing across related treatment patterns because it encodes elements common to single effects and contributions specific to interaction effects. The representation learning network with the balancing penalty learns representations nonparametrically from observed covariates while reducing distances in representation distributions across different treatment patterns. This process mitigates selection bias and avoids model misspecification. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms existing baselines, and application to real-world marketing datasets confirms the practical implications and utility of our framework.

Uplift modeling has achieved significant success in various fields, particularly in online marketing. It is a method that primarily utilizes machine learning and deep learning to estimate individual treatment effects. This paper we apply uplift modeling to analyze the effect of company adjustment on their financial status, and we treat these adjustment as treatments or interventions in this study. Although there have been extensive studies and application regarding binary treatments, multiple treatments, and continuous treatments, company adjustment are often more complex than these scenarios, as they constitute a series of multiple time-dependent actions. The effect estimation of company adjustment needs to take into account not only individual treatment traits but also the temporal order of this series of treatments. This study collects a real-world data set about company financial statements and reported behavior in Luxembourg for the experiments. First, we use two meta-learners and three other well-known uplift models to analyze different company adjustment by simplifying the adjustment as binary treatments. Furthermore, we propose a new uplift modeling framework (MTDnet) to address the time-dependent nature of these adjustment, and the experimental result shows the necessity of considering the timing of these adjustment.

We introduce KANITE, a framework leveraging Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) for Individual Treatment Effect (ITE) estimation under multiple treatments setting in causal inference. By utilizing KAN's unique abilities to learn univariate activation functions as opposed to learning linear weights by Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLPs), we improve the estimates of ITEs. The KANITE framework comprises two key architectures: 1.Integral Probability Metric (IPM) architecture: This employs an IPM loss in a specialized manner to effectively align towards ITE estimation across multiple treatments. 2. Entropy Balancing (EB) architecture: This uses weights for samples that are learned by optimizing entropy subject to balancing the covariates across treatment groups. Extensive evaluations on benchmark datasets demonstrate that KANITE outperforms state-of-the-art algorithms in both $\epsilon_{\text{PEHE}}$ and $\epsilon_{\text{ATE}}$ metrics. Our experiments highlight the advantages of KANITE in achieving improved causal estimates, emphasizing the potential of KANs to advance causal inference methodologies across diverse application areas.

Assessing causal effects in the presence of unobserved confounding is a challenging problem. Existing studies leveraged proxy variables or multiple treatments to adjust for the confounding bias. In particular, the latter approach attributes the impact on a single outcome to multiple treatments, allowing estimating latent variables for confounding control. Nevertheless, these methods primarily focus on a single outcome, whereas in many real-world scenarios, there is greater interest in studying the effects on multiple outcomes. Besides, these outcomes are often coupled with multiple treatments. Examples include the intensive care unit (ICU), where health providers evaluate the effectiveness of therapies on multiple health indicators. To accommodate these scenarios, we consider a new setting dubbed as multiple treatments and multiple outcomes. We then show that parallel studies of multiple outcomes involved in this setting can assist each other in causal identification, in the sense that we can exploit other treatments and outcomes as proxies for each treatment effect under study. We proceed with a causal discovery method that can effectively identify such proxies for causal estimation. The utility of our method is demonstrated in synthetic data and sepsis disease.

Determining causal effects of temporal multi-intervention assists decision-making. Restricted by time-varying bias, selection bias, and interactions of multiple interventions, the disentanglement and estimation of multiple treatment effects from individual temporal data is still rare. To tackle these challenges, we propose a comprehensive framework of temporal counterfactual forecasting from an individual multiple treatment perspective (TCFimt). TCFimt constructs adversarial tasks in a seq2seq framework to alleviate selection and time-varying bias and designs a contrastive learning-based block to decouple a mixed treatment effect into separated main treatment effects and causal interactions which further improves estimation accuracy. Through implementing experiments on two real-world datasets from distinct fields, the proposed method shows satisfactory performance in predicting future outcomes with specific treatments and in choosing optimal treatment type and timing than state-of-the-art methods.

We regularly consider answering counterfactual questions in practice, such as "Would people with diabetes take a turn for the better had they choose another medication?". Observational studies are growing in significance in answering such questions due to their widespread accumulation and comparatively easier acquisition than Randomized Control Trials (RCTs). Recently, some works have introduced representation learning and domain adaptation into counterfactual inference. However, most current works focus on the setting of binary treatments. None of them considers that different treatments' sample sizes are imbalanced, especially data examples in some treatment groups are relatively limited due to inherent user preference. In this paper, we design a new algorithmic framework for counterfactual inference, which brings an idea from Meta-learning for Estimating Individual Treatment Effects (MetaITE) to fill the above research gaps, especially considering multiple imbalanced treatments. Specifically, we regard data episodes among treatment groups in counterfactual inference as meta-learning tasks. We train a meta-learner from a set of source treatment groups with sufficient samples and update the model by gradient descent with limited samples in target treatment. Moreover, we introduce two complementary losses. One is the supervised loss on multiple source treatments. The other loss which aligns latent distributions among various treatment groups is proposed to reduce the discrepancy. We perform experiments on two real-world datasets to evaluate inference accuracy and generalization ability. Experimental results demonstrate that the model MetaITE matches/outperforms state-of-the-art methods.

This work proposes the M3E2, a multi-task learning neural network model to estimate the effect of multiple treatments. In contrast to existing methods, M3E2 is robust to multiple treatment effects applied simultaneously to the same unit, continuous and binary treatments, and many covariates. We compared M3E2 with three baselines in three synthetic benchmark datasets: two with multiple treatments and one with one treatment. Our analysis showed that our method has superior performance, making more assertive estimations of the true treatment effects. The code is available at github.com/raquelaoki/M3E2.

Estimating an individual's potential response to interventions from observational data is of high practical relevance for many domains, such as healthcare, public policy or economics. In this setting, it is often the case that combinations of interventions may be applied simultaneously, for example, multiple prescriptions in healthcare or different fiscal and monetary measures in economics. However, existing methods for counterfactual inference are limited to settings in which actions are not used simultaneously. Here, we present Neural Counterfactual Relation Estimation (NCoRE), a new method for learning counterfactual representations in the combination treatment setting that explicitly models cross-treatment interactions. NCoRE is based on a novel branched conditional neural representation that includes learnt treatment interaction modulators to infer the potential causal generative process underlying the combination of multiple treatments. Our experiments show that NCoRE significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods for counterfactual treatment effect estimation that do not account for the effects of combining multiple treatments across several synthetic, semi-synthetic and real-world benchmarks.

The preponderance of large-scale healthcare databases provide abundant opportunities for comparative effectiveness research. Evidence necessary to making informed treatment decisions often relies on comparing effectiveness of multiple treatment options on outcomes of interest observed in a small number of individuals. Causal inference with multiple treatments and rare outcomes is a subject that has been treated sparingly in the literature. This paper designs three sets of simulations, representative of the structure of our healthcare database study, and propose causal analysis strategies for such settings. We investigate and compare the operating characteristics of three types of methods and their variants: Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART), regression adjustment on multivariate spline of generalized propensity scores (RAMS) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with multinomial logistic regression or generalized boosted models. Our results suggest that BART and RAMS provide lower bias and mean squared error, and the widely used IPTW methods deliver unfavorable operating characteristics. We illustrate the methods using a case study evaluating the comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery and open thoracotomy for treating non-small cell lung cancer.