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.

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.

We study the problem of estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) in adaptive experiments where treatment can only be encouraged--rather than directly assigned--via a binary instrumental variable. Building on semiparametric efficiency theory, we derive the efficiency bound for ATE estimation under arbitrary, history-dependent instrument-assignment policies, and show it is minimized by a variance-aware allocation rule that balances outcome noise and compliance variability. Leveraging this insight, we introduce AMRIV--an Adaptive, Multiply-Robust estimator for Instrumental-Variable settings with variance-optimal assignment. AMRIV pairs (i) an online policy that adaptively approximates the optimal allocation with (ii) a sequential, influence-function-based estimator that attains the semiparametric efficiency bound while retaining multiply-robust consistency. We establish asymptotic normality, explicit convergence rates, and anytime-valid asymptotic confidence sequences that enable sequential inference. Finally, we demonstrate the practical effectiveness of our approach through empirical studies, showing that adaptive instrument assignment, when combined with the AMRIV estimator, yields improved efficiency and robustness compared to existing baselines.

Causal inference is essential for developing and evaluating medical interventions, yet real-world medical datasets are often difficult to access due to regulatory barriers. This makes synthetic data a potentially valuable asset that enables these medical analyses, along with the development of new inference methods themselves. Generative models can produce synthetic data that closely approximate real data distributions, yet existing methods do not consider the unique challenges that downstream causal inference tasks, and specifically those focused on treatments, pose. We establish a set of desiderata that synthetic data containing treatments should satisfy to maximise downstream utility: preservation of (i) the covariate distribution, (ii) the treatment assignment mechanism, and (iii) the outcome generation mechanism. Based on these desiderata, we propose a set of evaluation metrics to assess such synthetic data. Finally, we present STEAM: a novel method for generating Synthetic data for Treatment Effect Analysis in Medicine that mimics the data-generating process of data containing treatments and optimises for our desiderata. We empirically demonstrate that STEAM achieves state-of-the-art performance across our metrics as compared to existing generative models, particularly as the complexity of the true data-generating process increases.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) is crucial for personalized decision-making. However, this task is challenging in survival analysis, which includes time-to-event data with censored outcomes (e.g., due to study dropout). In this paper, we propose a toolbox of orthogonal survival learners to estimate HTEs from time-to-event data under censoring. Our learners have three main advantages: (i) we show that learners from our toolbox are guaranteed to be orthogonal and thus robust with respect to nuisance estimation errors; (ii) our toolbox allows for incorporating a custom weighting function, which can lead to robustness against different types of low overlap, and (iii) our learners are modelagnostic (i.e., they can be combined with arbitrary machine learning models). We instantiate the learners from our toolbox using several weighting functions and, as a result, propose various neural orthogonal survival learners. Some of these coincide with existing survival learners (including survival versions of the DRand R-learner), while others are novel and further robust w.r.t.

Data integration approaches are increasingly used to enhance the efficiency and generalizability of studies. However, a key limitation of these methods is the assumption that outcome measures are identical across datasets - an assumption that often does not hold in practice. Consider the following opioid use disorder (OUD) studies: the XBOT trial and the POAT study, both evaluating the effect of medications for OUD on withdrawal symptom severity (not the primary outcome of either trial). While XBOT measures withdrawal severity using the subjective opiate withdrawal scale, POAT uses the clinical opiate withdrawal scale. We analyze this realistic yet challenging setting where outcome measures differ across studies and where neither study records both types of outcomes. Our paper studies whether and when integrating studies with disparate outcome measures leads to efficiency gains.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) of continuous-valued interventions on survival, that is, time-to-event (TTE) outcomes, is crucial in various fields, notably in clinical decision-making and in driving the advancement of nextgeneration clinical trials. However, while HTE estimation for continuous-valued (i.e., dosage-dependent) interventions and for TTE outcomes have been separately explored, their combined application remains largely overlooked in the machine learning literature. We propose DoseSurv, a varying-coefficient network designed to estimate HTEs for different dosage-dependent and non-dosage treatment options from TTE data. DoseSurv uses radial basis functions to model continuity in doseresponse relationships and learns balanced representations to address covariate shifts arising in HTE estimation from observational TTE data.

Estimating treatment effects is crucial for personalized decision-making in medicine, but this task faces unique challenges in clinical practice. At training time, models for estimating treatment effects are typically trained on well-structured medical datasets that contain detailed patient information. However, at inference time, predictions are often made using textual descriptions (e.g., descriptions with self-reported symptoms), which are incomplete representations of the original patient information. In this work, we make three contributions.

We consider inferring the causal effect of a treatment (intervention) on an outcome of interest in situations where there is potentially an unobserved confounder influencing both the treatment and the outcome. This is achievable by assuming access to two separate sets of control (proxy) measurements associated with treatment and outcomes, which are used to estimate treatment effects through a function termed the (CB). We present a new theoretical perspective, associated assumptions for when estimating treatment effects with the CB is feasible, and a bound on the average error of the treatment effect when the CB assumptions are violated. From this new perspective, we then demonstrate how coupling the CB with an autoencoder architecture allows for the sharing of statistical strength between observed quantities (proxies, treatment, and outcomes), thus improving the quality of the CB estimates. Experiments on synthetic and real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach relative to state-of-the-art methodology for causal inference with proxy measurements.

Estimating treatment effects is crucial for personalized decision-making in medicine, but this task faces unique challenges in clinical practice. At training time, models for estimating treatment effects are typically trained on well-structured medical datasets that contain detailed patient information. However, at inference time, predictions are often made using textual descriptions (e.g., descriptions with self-reported symptoms), which are incomplete representations of the original patient information. In this work, we make three contributions.