Accurately estimating treatment effects in time series is essential for evaluating interventions in real-world applications, especially when treatment assignment is biased by unobserved factors. In many practical settings, interventions are adopted at different times across individuals, leading to staggered treatment exposure and heterogeneous pre-treatment histories. In such cases, aggregating outcome trajectories across treated units is ill-defined, making individual treatment effect (ITE) estimation a prerequisite for reliable causal inference. We therefore study the problem of estimating the average treatment effect for the treated (ATT) by first recovering individual-level counterfactuals. We introduce a neural framework that learns simultaneously low-dimensional latent representations of individual time series and propensity scores. These estimates are then used to approximate the individual treatment effects through a flexible matching procedure that avoids classical convexity constraints commonly used in synthetic control methods. By operating at the individual level, our approach naturally accommodates staggered interventions and improves counterfactual estimation under latent bias, without relying on explicit temporal modeling assumptions. We illustrate our approach on both real-world energy consumption data and clinical time series, including high-frequency electricity demand-response programs and semi-synthetic data for individuals in intensive care unit (ICU), where hidden confounding, staggered treatment adoption, and non-stationary dynamics are prevalent.

Conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) are central to treatment decision-making in personalized medicine. In competing risks settings, estimating CATEs from survival data allows for patient-specific assessments of treatment effectiveness for a specific event of interest while properly accounting for alternative event types. This distinction is essential in the presence of comorbidities, where competing causes of death may otherwise confound the therapeutic benefit. Focusing on right-censored survival times with binary treatment, we examine CATEs defined as covariate-conditional differences in the absolute risk for the event of interest at a fixed time. To this end, we study meta-learners which adapt machine learning algorithms for CATE estimation in competing risks scenarios. We systematically compare six meta-learners, combining Cox regression or random survival forests for risk modeling with elastic net regression or random forests for direct CATE modeling. To provide practical guidance on model selection, we evaluate their performance in multiple simulation settings, that differ in hazard complexity, treatment heterogeneity, treatment assignment, event type distribution and censoring. To facilitate applied use, we provide the R package, crsurvlearners, which implements all considered approaches.

In randomized trials involving multiple treatments, bivariate survival outcomes present significant analytical challenges for making decisions. This paper addresses the problem of deriving optimal individualized treatment rules to maximize the joint survival probability beyond fixed time points $(t_1, t_2)$ through deep neural networks, while accounting for right censoring. We propose a novel approach that models treatment rules via stochastic policies, coupling marginal accelerated failure time models via link function to capture bivariate dependence. To enhance robustness and effectiveness of decision making, we introduce an adaptive prediction-powered method that leverages auxiliary predictions from machine learning models.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with machine learning has attracted substantial attention in both academic research and industrial practice. However, the two communities often evaluate models under markedly different conditions. Methodological work typically relies on semi-simulated benchmarks and metrics that require counterfactual outcomes, whereas real-world applications rely on observable metrics based on ranking or test outcomes. Despite the well-known gap between methodological progress and practical deployment, the relationship between these evaluation regimes has not been examined systematically. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of treatment effect evaluation across standard semi-simulated benchmark families and real-world datasets. Our benchmark covers meta-learners paired with multiple base learners, as well as specialized causal machine learning models. We evaluate these methods using observable metrics common in application-oriented literature, alongside counterfactual metrics commonly used in methods papers. Our results reveal two complementary gaps. First, counterfactual metrics do not reliably recover the estimators preferred by observable metrics, even on the same semi-simulated benchmarks. Second, rankings obtained on semi-simulated benchmarks do not transfer to real datasets. We further find that simple meta-learners with strong base models are consistently competitive, in contrast to specialized causal models. Overall, our findings suggest that progress in treatment effect estimation research should not be assessed solely through counterfactual metrics and semi-simulated benchmarks, but it would benefit from incorporating observable metrics and real-data validation.

Causal effect estimation from observational data requires careful adjustment for confounding. Classical estimators such as inverse probability weighting and augmented inverse probability weighting are effective under favorable model specification, but may become unstable when treatment assignment and outcome mechanisms are complex, non-linear, and high-dimensional. Machine learning and representation learning approaches improve flexibility, yet joint training can allow outcome-related information to influence treatment-side representations, which is undesirable from a causal perspective. We propose MOCA (Modular One-way Causal Attention), a transformer-based framework that separates treatment and outcome modeling through a modular design, and performs confounder adjustment using a one-way attention mechanism. A cutting-feedback strategy, implemented via gradient detachment, prevents the outcome loss from updating the treatment module. This design preserves directional information flow while retaining the representational power of transformer architectures for causal inference. Across multiple simulated scenarios, including linear, nonlinear, heavy-tailed, hidden confounding, and high-dimensional settings, MOCA shows competitive or improved performance relative to IPW, AIPW, X-learner, TARNet, and DragonNet. We further illustrate the method on the Infant Health and Development Program dataset and the Dehejia-Wahba dataset as real-world benchmarks. These results suggest that modular attention with one-way information flow provides a promising and interpretable direction for causal inference with modern deep learning models.

Planned experiments are the gold standard in reliably comparing the causal effect of switching from a baseline policy to a new policy. One critical shortcoming of classical experimental methods, however, is that they typically do not take into account the dynamic nature of response to policy changes. For instance, in an experiment where we seek to understand the effects of a new ad pricing policy on auction revenue, agents may adapt their bidding in response to the experimental pricing changes. Thus, causal effects of the new pricing policy after such adaptation period, the long-term causal effects, are not captured by the classical methodology even though they clearly are more indicative of the value of the new policy. Here, we formalize a framework to define and estimate long-term causal effects of policy changes in multiagent economies. Central to our approach is behavioral game theory, which we leverage to formulate the ignorability assumptions that are necessary for causal inference. Under such assumptions we estimate long-term causal effects through a latent space approach, where a behavioral model of how agents act conditional on their latent behaviors is combined with a temporal model of how behaviors evolve over time.

We study the problem of learning personalized decision policies from observational data while accounting for possible unobserved confounding in the data-generating process. Unlike previous approaches that assume unconfoundedness, i.e., no unobserved confounders affected both treatment assignment and outcomes, we calibrate policy learning for realistic violations of this unverifiable assumption with uncertainty sets motivated by sensitivity analysis in causal inference. Our framework for confounding-robust policy improvement optimizes the minimax regret of a candidate policy against a baseline or reference status quo policy, over an uncertainty set around nominal propensity weights. We prove that if the uncertainty set is well-specified, robust policy learning can do no worse than the baseline, and only improve if the data supports it. We characterize the adversarial subproblem and use efficient algorithmic solutions to optimize over parametrized spaces of decision policies such as logistic treatment assignment. We assess our methods on synthetic data and a large clinical trial, demonstrating that confounded selection can hinder policy learning and lead to unwarranted harm, while our robust approach guarantees safety and focuses on well-evidenced improvement.

Online A/B tests have become increasingly popular and important for social platforms.

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