Unveiling the Potential of Robustness in Selecting Conditional Average Treatment Effect Estimators
About
The growing demand for personalized decision-making has led to a surge of interest in estimating the Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE). Various types of CATE estimators have been developed with advancements in machine learning and causal inference. However, selecting the desirable CATE estimator through a conventional model validation procedure remains impractical due to the absence of counterfactual outcomes in observational data. Existing approaches for CATE estimator selection, such as plug-in and pseudo-outcome metrics, face two challenges. First, they must determine the metric form and the underlying machine learning models for fitting nuisance parameters (e.g., outcome function, propensity function, and plug-in learner). Second, they lack a specific focus on selecting a robust CATE estimator. To address these challenges, this paper introduces a Distributionally Robust Metric (DRM) for CATE estimator selection. The proposed DRM is nuisance-free, eliminating the need to fit models for nuisance parameters, and it effectively prioritizes the selection of a distributionally robust CATE estimator. The experimental results validate the effectiveness of the DRM method in selecting CATE estimators that are robust to the distribution shift incurred by covariate shift and hidden confounders.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CATE Estimator Selection | ACIC Setting A (p=0) 2016 | PEHE2.68 | 16 | |
| CATE Estimator Selection | ACIC Setting A (p=0.1) 2016 | PEHE3.55 | 16 | |
| CATE Estimator Selection | ACIC Setting A (p=0.3) 2016 | PEHE5.28 | 16 | |
| CATE Estimator Selection | ACIC Setting C (m=0.1) 2016 | PEHE4.6 | 16 | |
| CATE Estimator Selection | ACIC Setting C (m=0.5) 2016 | PEHE6.44 | 16 | |
| CATE Estimator Selection | ACIC2016 Setting C m=0.9 | PEHE10.05 | 16 | |
| CATE Estimator Selection | ACIC Setting B (xi=0) 2016 | PEHE2.14 | 16 | |
| CATE Estimator Ranking | ACIC Setting A (p=0) 2016 | Rank Correlation0.81 | 16 | |
| CATE Estimator Ranking | ACIC Setting A (p=0.1) 2016 | Rank Correlation0.8 | 16 | |
| CATE Estimator Ranking | ACIC Setting A (p=0.3) 2016 | Rank Correlation0.8 | 16 |