Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

MOCA: A Transformer-based Modular Causal Inference Framework with One-way Cross-attention and Cutting Feedback

About

Causal effect estimation from observational data requires careful adjustment for confounding. Classical estimators such as inverse probability weighting and augmented inverse probability weighting are effective under favorable model specification, but may become unstable when treatment assignment and outcome mechanisms are complex, non-linear, and high-dimensional. Machine learning and representation learning approaches improve flexibility, yet joint training can allow outcome-related information to influence treatment-side representations, which is undesirable from a causal perspective. We propose MOCA (Modular One-way Causal Attention), a transformer-based framework that separates treatment and outcome modeling through a modular design, and performs confounder adjustment using a one-way attention mechanism. A cutting-feedback strategy, implemented via gradient detachment, prevents the outcome loss from updating the treatment module. This design preserves directional information flow while retaining the representational power of transformer architectures for causal inference. Across multiple simulated scenarios, including linear, nonlinear, heavy-tailed, hidden confounding, and high-dimensional settings, MOCA shows competitive or improved performance relative to IPW, AIPW, X-learner, TARNet, and DragonNet. We further illustrate the method on the Infant Health and Development Program dataset and the Dehejia-Wahba dataset as real-world benchmarks. These results suggest that modular attention with one-way information flow provides a promising and interpretable direction for causal inference with modern deep learning models.

Lei Wang, Debashis Ghosh• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Average Treatment Effect EstimationSimulation Linear scenario sample size 100 (test)
ATE Bias (Mean)0.001
14
Average Treatment Effect EstimationSimulation Non-linear scenario sample size 100 (test)
ATE Bias (Mean)-0.166
7
Average Treatment Effect EstimationSimulation Hidden confounding scenario sample size 100 (test)
ATE Bias (Mean)1.687
7
Average Treatment Effect EstimationSimulation t distribution scenario sample size 100 (test)
ATE Bias Mean0.094
7
Average Treatment Effect EstimationSimulation Non-linear (test)
ATE Bias (Mean)-0.009
7
Average Treatment Effect EstimationSimulation t distribution (test)
ATE Bias (Mean)0.087
7
Average Treatment Effect EstimationSimulation Hidden confounding (test)
ATE Bias (Mean)2.369
7
Treatment Effect EstimationIHDP Data
ATE3.961
6
Treatment Effect EstimationDW Data
Average Treatment Effect (ATE)852.5
6
CATE estimationSimulation Hidden confounding MultiU (size 1000) (test)
CATE Bias Mean2.169
5
Showing 10 of 21 rows

Other info

Follow for update