We aim at using a large observational sample and a possibly much smaller experimental sample.

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 aim at using a large observational sample and a possibly much smaller experimental sample.

Most of the widely used estimators of the average treatment effect (ATE) in causal inference rely on the assumptions of unconfoundedness and overlap. Unconfoundedness requires that the observed covariates account for all correlations between the outcome and treatment. Overlap requires the existence of randomness in treatment decisions for all individuals. Nevertheless, many types of studies frequently violate unconfoundedness or overlap, for instance, observational studies with deterministic treatment decisions - popularly known as Regression Discontinuity designs - violate overlap. In this paper, we initiate the study of general conditions that enable the identification of the average treatment effect, extending beyond unconfoundedness and overlap. In particular, following the paradigm of statistical learning theory, we provide an interpretable condition that is sufficient and necessary for the identification of ATE. Moreover, this condition also characterizes the identification of the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and can be used to characterize other treatment effects as well. To illustrate the utility of our condition, we present several well-studied scenarios where our condition is satisfied and, hence, we prove that ATE can be identified in regimes that prior works could not capture. For example, under mild assumptions on the data distributions, this holds for the models proposed by Tan (2006) and Rosenbaum (2002), and the Regression Discontinuity design model introduced by Thistlethwaite and Campbell (1960). For each of these scenarios, we also show that, under natural additional assumptions, ATE can be estimated from finite samples. We believe these findings open new avenues for bridging learning-theoretic insights and causal inference methodologies, particularly in observational studies with complex treatment mechanisms.

Estimating the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) from observational data is relevant for many applications such as personalized medicine. Here, we focus on the widespread setting where the observational data come from multiple environments, such as different hospitals, physicians, or countries. Furthermore, we allow for violations of standard causal assumptions, namely, overlap within the environments and unconfoundedness. To this end, we move away from point identification and focus on partial identification. Specifically, we show that current assumptions from the literature on multiple environments allow us to interpret the environment as an instrumental variable (IV). This allows us to adapt bounds from the IV literature for partial identification of CATE by leveraging treatment assignment mechanisms across environments. Then, we propose different model-agnostic learners (so-called meta-learners) to estimate the bounds that can be used in combination with arbitrary machine learning models. We further demonstrate the effectiveness of our meta-learners across various experiments using both simulated and real-world data. Finally, we discuss the applicability of our meta-learners to partial identification in instrumental variable settings, such as randomized controlled trials with non-compliance.

This paper deals with optimal policy learning (OPL) with observational data, i.e. data-driven optimal decision-making, in multi-action (or multi-arm) settings, where a finite set of decision options is available. It is organized in three parts, where I discuss respectively: estimation, risk preference, and potential failures. The first part provides a brief review of the key approaches to estimating the reward (or value) function and optimal policy within this context of analysis. Here, I delineate the identification assumptions and statistical properties related to offline optimal policy learning estimators. In the second part, I delve into the analysis of decision risk. This analysis reveals that the optimal choice can be influenced by the decision maker's attitude towards risks, specifically in terms of the trade-off between reward conditional mean and conditional variance. Here, I present an application of the proposed model to real data, illustrating that the average regret of a policy with multi-valued treatment is contingent on the decision-maker's attitude towards risk. The third part of the paper discusses the limitations of optimal data-driven decision-making by highlighting conditions under which decision-making can falter. This aspect is linked to the failure of the two fundamental assumptions essential for identifying the optimal choice: (i) overlapping, and (ii) unconfoundedness. Some conclusions end the paper.

Causal inference from observational data is crucial for many disciplines such as medicine and economics. However, sharp bounds for causal effects under relaxations of the unconfoundedness assumption (causal sensitivity analysis) are subject to ongoing research. So far, works with sharp bounds are restricted to fairly simple settings (e.g., a single binary treatment). In this paper, we propose a unified framework for causal sensitivity analysis under unobserved confounding in various settings. For this, we propose a flexible generalization of the marginal sensitivity model (MSM) and then derive sharp bounds for a large class of causal effects. This includes (conditional) average treatment effects, effects for mediation analysis and path analysis, and distributional effects. Furthermore, our sensitivity model is applicable to discrete, continuous, and time-varying treatments. It allows us to interpret the partial identification problem under unobserved confounding as a distribution shift in the latent confounders while evaluating the causal effect of interest. In the special case of a single binary treatment, our bounds for (conditional) average treatment effects coincide with recent optimality results for causal sensitivity analysis. Finally, we propose a scalable algorithm to estimate our sharp bounds from observational data.