We propose doubly robust adaptive conformal inference (DR-ACI), which constructs prediction intervals for doubly robust pseudo-outcomes under temporal dependence. Calibration targets the pseudo-outcome ψDRt; under estimator consistency, this yields asymptotically conservative CATE containment (Corollary 6). Temporal block cross-fitting preserves switch-coefficient mixing bounds and the DML product-bias rate up to an explicit coupling remainder.

Counterfactual inference aims to estimate the counterfactual outcome at the individual level given knowledge of an observed treatment and the factual outcome, with broad applications in fields such as epidemiology, econometrics, and management science. Previous methods rely on a known structural causal model (SCM) or assume the homogeneity of the exogenous variable and strict monotonicity between the outcome and exogenous variable. In this paper, we propose a principled approach for identifying and estimating the counterfactual outcome. We first introduce a simple and intuitive rank preservation assumption to identify the counterfactual outcome without relying on a known structural causal model. Building on this, we propose a novel ideal loss for theoretically unbiased learning of the counterfactual outcome and further develop a kernel-based estimator for its empirical estimation. Our theoretical analysis shows that the rank preservation assumption is not stronger than the homogeneity and strict monotonicity assumptions, and shows that the proposed ideal loss is convex, and the proposed estimator is unbiased. Extensive semi-synthetic and real-world experiments are conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Causal effect estimation is critical to a range of scientific disciplines. Existing methods for this task either require interventional data, knowledge about the ground-truth causal graph, or rely on assumptions such as unconfoundedness, restricting their applicability in real-world settings. In the domain of tabular machine learning, Prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) have achieved state-of-theart predictive performance, having been pre-trained on synthetic causal data to solve tabular prediction problems via in-context learning. To assess whether this can be transferred to the problem of causal effect estimation, we pre-train PFNs on synthetic data drawn from a wide variety of causal structures, including interventions, to predict interventional outcomes given observational data. Through extensive experiments in synthetic and semi-synthetic settings, we show that our approach allows for the accurate estimation of causal effects without knowledge of the underlying causal graph.

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.

Data fusion techniques integrate information from heterogeneous data sources to improve learning, generalization, and decision-making across data sciences. In causal inference, these methods leverage rich observational data to improve causal effect estimation, while maintaining the trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials. Existing approaches often relax the strong "no unobserved confounding" assumption by instead assuming exchangeability of counterfactual outcomes across data sources. However, when both assumptions simultaneously fail--a common scenario in practice--current methods cannot identify or estimate causal effects. We address this limitation by proposing a novel partial identification framework that enables researchers to answer key questions such as: Is the causal effect positive/negative? and How severe must assumption violations be to overturn this conclusion?

Decision-making in various fields, such as medicine, is heavily based on conditional average treatment effects (CATEs). Practitioners commonly make decisions by checking whether the estimated CATE is positive, even though the decision-making performance of modern CATE estimators (meta-learners) is poorly understood. In this paper, we study optimal decision-making based on two-stage meta-learners (e.g., DR-learner), which estimate CATE via a second-stage regression. We show that these meta-learners can be suboptimal when used for decision-making in common settings where the second-stage regression is over a restricted function class (e.g., when using regularization or employing fairness/interpretability constraints). Intuitively, this occurs because such estimators prioritize CATE accuracy in regions far away from the decision boundary, which is ultimately irrelevant to decision-making. As a remedy, we propose a novel two-stage learning objective that re-targets the CATE to balance CATE estimation error and decision performance. We then propose a neural method that optimizes an adaptively-smoothed approximation of our learning objective. Finally, we confirm the effectiveness of our method both empirically and theoretically.

Causal effect estimation seeks to determine the impact of an intervention from observational data. However, the existing causal inference literature primarily addresses treatment effects on frequently occurring events. But what if we are interested in estimating the effects of a policy intervention whose benefits, while potentially important, can only be observed and measured in rare yet impactful events, such as extreme climate events? The standard causal inference methodology is not designed for this type of inference since the events of interest may be scarce in the observed data and some degree of extrapolation is necessary. Extreme Value Theory (EVT) provides methodologies for analyzing statistical phenomena in such extreme regimes. We introduce a novel framework for assessing treatment effects in extreme data to capture the causal effect at the occurrence of rare events of interest. In particular, we employ the theory of multivariate regular variation to model extremities. We develop a consistent estimator for extreme treatment effects and present a rigorous non-asymptotic analysis of its performance. We illustrate the performance of our estimator using both synthetic and semi-synthetic data.

Identification conditions describe the computability of a target query or parameter of interest as a function of the type and amount of information available. In causal identification, this information is often expressed in the form of a causal graph, and data are observed or collected for some subset of variables in the graph. Target queries may be for a single effect alone or for a class of effects in a given model. The derivation of an identification algorithm then defines mathematically the process by which the desired causal effect(s) can be uniquely determined, theoretically, in expectation. Identifiability in expectation, or'theoretical identifiability,' generally assumes asymptotic properties, infinite data, or other mathematically idealized conditions. In this paper, we explore a fundamental distinction between this theoretical, idealized notion of identifiability and a proposed alternative that is computation-bound. The framework we propose -- 'computational identifiability' -- is to instead define a finite computational search procedure for an empirical estimator. If this process finds an estimator empirically, within a desired error tolerance, then identifiability is satisfied, conditional on the specified assumptions of the search (i.e., a prior distribution over the parameters) and conditional on the search procedure itself. Through several experiments, we demonstrate how this framework allows us to answer fine-grained, practical identification questions, such as identification with small finite samples, with ambiguous graphical criteria, with mixed observational-interventional data, and across counterfactual data and estimands.

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.

We study the estimation of distributional treatment effects in randomized experiments with imperfect compliance. When participants do not adhere to their assigned treatments, we leverage treatment assignment as an instrumental variable to identify the local distributional treatment effect--the difference in outcome distributions between treatment and control groups for the subpopulation of compliers. We propose a regression-adjusted estimator based on a distribution regression framework with Neyman-orthogonal moment conditions, enabling robustness and flexibility with high-dimensional covariates. Our approach accommodates continuous, discrete, and mixed discrete-continuous outcomes, and applies under a broad class of covariate-adaptive randomization schemes, including stratified block designs and simple random sampling. We derive the estimator's asymptotic distribution and show that it achieves the semiparametric efficiency bound. Simulation results demonstrate favorable finite-sample performance, and we demonstrate the method's practical relevance in an application to the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment.