Estimating counterfactual distributions under interventions is central to treatment risk assessment and counterfactual generation tasks. Existing approaches model the counterfactual distribution as a standalone generative target, without exploiting its relationship to the observational data. In this work, we show that under standard assumptions, observational and counterfactual outcome distributions are tightly linked: they have identical support and tail behavior, remain statistically close under weak confounding, and share any features of high-dimensional outcomes which are invariant to confounders. These properties motivate learning counterfactual distributions not from scratch, but via a deconfounding flow from the observational distribution. We formulate this problem via flow-matching and derive a semiparametrically efficient estimator based on a novel efficient influence function correction. We subsequently extend our estimator to target minimal-energy flows in high-dimensions, which we show can be especially simple targets between observational and counterfactual distributions. In experiments, deconfounding flows outperform existing debiased counterfactual distribution estimators, while also mitigating known failure modes of flow-based methods.

Large-scale population-level datasets, such as the UK Biobank and the All of Us Research Program, often lack covariates needed for a specific analysis, such as genetic or lifestyle measures, while related studies measure them. This creates a cross-population missing data problem in which covariates are completely unobserved in the target population, rather than partially missing within one dataset. We propose an augmented transfer regression learning method for this setting. The key identifying condition is a sub-population shift assumption: the joint distribution of the outcome and observed covariates may differ across source and target populations, but the conditional distribution of the missing covariates given observed variables is invariant. We combine importance-weighted estimating equations with imputation terms for first- and second-order moments of the missing covariates. The resulting estimator is doubly robust, remaining consistent if either the density ratio model or both imputation models are correctly specified. It is $n^{1/2}$-consistent and asymptotically normal, and attains the semiparametric efficiency bound when both nuisance models are correctly specified.

Treatment individualization and adaptation over time are crucial for managing chronic diseases.

We propose a semiparametric Bayesian methodology for estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) within the potential outcomes framework using observational data with high-dimensional nuisance parameters. Our method introduces a Bayesian debiasing procedure that corrects for bias arising from nuisance estimation and employs a targeted modeling strategy based on summary statistics rather than the full data. These summary statistics are identified in a debiased manner, enabling the estimation of nuisance bias via weighted observables and facilitating hierarchical learning of the ATE. By combining debiasing with sample splitting, our approach separates nuisance estimation from inference on the target parameter, reducing sensitivity to nuisance model specification. We establish that, under mild conditions, the marginal posterior for the ATE satisfies a Bernstein-von Mises theorem when both nuisance models are correctly specified and remains consistent and robust when only one is correct, achieving Bayesian double robustness. This ensures asymptotic efficiency and frequentist validity. Extensive simulations confirm the theoretical results, demonstrating accurate point estimation and credible intervals with nominal coverage, even in high-dimensional settings. The proposed framework can also be extended to other causal estimands, and its key principles offer a general foundation for advancing Bayesian semiparametric inference more broadly.

We introduce a principal stratification-based method, focusing on the always-survivor value function. We derive a semiparametrically efficient, multiply robust estimator for multi-stage DTRs, demonstrating its robustness and efficiency. Empirical validation and an application to electronic health records showcase its utility for personalized treatment optimization.

Double robustness is a major selling point of semiparametric and missing data methodology. Its virtues lie in protection against partial nuisance misspecification and asymptotic semiparametric efficiency under correct nuisance specification. However, in many applications, complete nuisance misspecification should be regarded as the norm (or at the very least the expected default), and thus doubly robust estimators may behave fragilely. In fact, it has been amply verified empirically that these estimators can perform poorly when all nuisance functions are misspecified. Here, we first characterize this phenomenon of double fragility, and then propose a solution based on adaptive correction clipping (ACC). We argue that our ACC proposal is safe, in that it inherits the favorable properties of doubly robust estimators under correct nuisance specification, but its error is guaranteed to be bounded by a convex combination of the individual nuisance model errors, which prevents the instability caused by the compounding product of errors of doubly robust estimators. We also show that our proposal provides valid inference through the parametric bootstrap when nuisances are well-specified. We showcase the efficacy of our ACC estimator both through extensive simulations and by applying it to the analysis of Alzheimer's disease proteomics data.

Estimating causal effects from observational data is essential in fields such as medicine, economics and social sciences, where privacy concerns are paramount. We propose a general, model-agnostic framework for differentially private estimation of average treatment effects (ATE) that avoids strong structural assumptions on the data-generating process or the models used to estimate propensity scores and conditional outcomes. In contrast to prior work, which enforces differential privacy by directly privatizing these nuisance components and results in a privacy cost that scales with model complexity, our approach decouples nuisance estimation from privacy protection. This separation allows the use of flexible, state-of-the-art black-box models, while differential privacy is achieved by perturbing only predictions and aggregation steps within a fold-splitting scheme with ensemble techniques. We instantiate the framework for three classical estimators -- the G-formula, inverse propensity weighting (IPW), and augmented IPW (AIPW) -- and provide formal utility and privacy guarantees. Empirical results show that our methods maintain competitive performance under realistic privacy budgets. We further extend our framework to support meta-analysis of multiple private ATE estimates. Our results bridge a critical gap between causal inference and privacy-preserving data analysis.

This paper proposes a novel method for demand forecasting in a pricing context. Here, modeling the causal relationship between price as an input variable to demand is crucial because retailers aim to set prices in a (profit) optimal manner in a downstream decision making problem. Our methods bring together the Double Machine Learning methodology for causal inference and state-of-the-art transformer-based forecasting models. In extensive empirical experiments, we show on the one hand that our method estimates the causal effect better in a fully controlled setting via synthetic, yet realistic data. On the other hand, we demonstrate on real-world data that our method outperforms forecasting methods in off-policy settings (i.e., when there's a change in the pricing policy) while only slightly trailing in the on-policy setting.

We study the problem of model selection in causal inference, specifically for the case of conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation under binary treatments. Unlike model selection in machine learning, there is no perfect analogue of cross-validation as we do not observe the counterfactual potential outcome for any data point. Towards this, there have been a variety of proxy metrics proposed in the literature, that depend on auxiliary nuisance models estimated from the observed data (propensity score model, outcome regression model). However, the effectiveness of these metrics has only been studied on synthetic datasets as we can access the counterfactual data for them. We conduct an extensive empirical analysis to judge the performance of these metrics introduced in the literature, and novel ones introduced in this work, where we utilize the latest advances in generative modeling to incorporate multiple realistic datasets. Our analysis suggests novel model selection strategies based on careful hyperparameter tuning of CATE estimators and causal ensembling.