Our new X account is live! Follow @wizwand_team for updates
WorkDL logo mark

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.

Yiyan Huang, Cheuk Hang Leung, Siyi Wang, Yijun Li, Qi Wu• 2024

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
CATE Estimator SelectionACIC Setting A (p=0) 2016
PEHE2.68
16
CATE Estimator SelectionACIC Setting A (p=0.1) 2016
PEHE3.55
16
CATE Estimator SelectionACIC Setting A (p=0.3) 2016
PEHE5.28
16
CATE Estimator SelectionACIC Setting C (m=0.1) 2016
PEHE4.6
16
CATE Estimator SelectionACIC Setting C (m=0.5) 2016
PEHE6.44
16
CATE Estimator SelectionACIC2016 Setting C m=0.9
PEHE10.05
16
CATE Estimator SelectionACIC Setting B (xi=0) 2016
PEHE2.14
16
CATE Estimator RankingACIC Setting A (p=0) 2016
Rank Correlation0.81
16
CATE Estimator RankingACIC Setting A (p=0.1) 2016
Rank Correlation0.8
16
CATE Estimator RankingACIC Setting A (p=0.3) 2016
Rank Correlation0.8
16
Showing 10 of 24 rows

Other info

Follow for update