Normalizing Flows for Interventional Density Estimation
About
Existing machine learning methods for causal inference usually estimate quantities expressed via the mean of potential outcomes (e.g., average treatment effect). However, such quantities do not capture the full information about the distribution of potential outcomes. In this work, we estimate the density of potential outcomes after interventions from observational data. For this, we propose a novel, fully-parametric deep learning method called Interventional Normalizing Flows. Specifically, we combine two normalizing flows, namely (i) a nuisance flow for estimating nuisance parameters and (ii) a target flow for parametric estimation of the density of potential outcomes. We further develop a tractable optimization objective based on a one-step bias correction for efficient and doubly robust estimation of the target flow parameters. As a result, our Interventional Normalizing Flows offer a properly normalized density estimator. Across various experiments, we demonstrate that our Interventional Normalizing Flows are expressive and highly effective, and scale well with both sample size and high-dimensional confounding. To the best of our knowledge, our Interventional Normalizing Flows are the first proper fully-parametric, deep learning method for density estimation of potential outcomes.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual Treatment Effect Estimation | IHDP (out-of-sample) | -- | 45 | |
| CATE estimation | ACIC 2016 (Out-sample) | PEHE1.42 | 22 | |
| CATE estimation | IHDP (Out-sample) | PEHE0.95 | 22 | |
| CATE estimation | IHDP (In-sample) | PEHE0.9 | 22 | |
| Potential Outcome Estimation | IHDP (In-sample) | RMSE1.02 | 19 | |
| Potential Outcome Estimation | ACIC in-sample 2018 | RMSE0.69 | 19 | |
| Potential Outcome Estimation | ACIC out-of-sample 2018 | RMSE0.78 | 19 | |
| Potential Outcome Estimation | IBM in-sample | RMSE1.52 | 19 | |
| Potential Outcome Estimation | IBM out-of-sample | RMSE1.57 | 19 | |
| CATE estimation | ACIC 2016 (In-sample) | -- | 13 |