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/

Typically,givenanindividual,atreatmentassignment,andatreatmentoutcome, the counterfactual question asks what would have happened to that individual, had it been given anothertreatment,everythingelsebeingequal.

We study nonasymptotic (finite-sample) confidence intervals for treatment effects in randomized experiments. In the existing literature, the effective sample sizes of nonasymptotic confidence intervals tend to be looser than the corresponding central-limit-theorem-based confidence intervals by a factor depending on the square root of the propensity score. We show that this performance gap can be closed, designing nonasymptotic confidence intervals that have the same effective sample size as their asymptotic counterparts. Our approach involves systematic exploitation of negative dependence or variance adaptivity (or both). We also show that the nonasymptotic rates that we achieve are unimprovable in an information-theoretic sense.

In this paper, we extend the Riesz representation framework to causal inference under sample selection, where both treatment assignment and outcome observability are non-random. Formulating the problem in terms of a Riesz representer enables stable estimation and a transparent decomposition of omitted variable bias into three interpretable components: a data-identified scale factor, outcome confounding strength, and selection confounding strength. For estimation, we employ the ForestRiesz estimator, which accounts for selective outcome observability while avoiding the instability associated with direct propensity score inversion. We assess finite-sample performance through a simulation study and show that conventional double machine learning approaches can be highly sensitive to tuning parameters due to their reliance on inverse probability weighting, whereas the ForestRiesz estimator delivers more stable performance by leveraging automatic debiased machine learning. In an empirical application to the gender wage gap in the U.S., we find that our ForestRiesz approach yields larger treatment effect estimates than a standard double machine learning approach, suggesting that ignoring sample selection leads to an underestimation of the gender wage gap. Sensitivity analysis indicates that implausibly strong unobserved confounding would be required to overturn our results. Overall, our approach provides a unified, robust, and computationally attractive framework for causal inference under sample selection.