Constructing Confidence Intervals for Average Treatment Effects from Multiple Datasets

Constructing confidence intervals (CIs) for the average treatment effect (ATE) from patient records is crucial to assess the effectiveness and safety of drugs. However, patient records typically come from different hospitals, thus raising the question of how multiple observational datasets can be effectively combined for this purpose. In our paper, we propose a new method that estimates the ATE from multiple observational datasets and provides valid CIs. Our method makes little assumptions about the observational datasets and is thus widely applicable in medical practice. The key idea of our method is that we leverage prediction-powered inferences and thereby essentially `shrink' the CIs so that we offer more precise uncertainty quantification as compared to na\"ive approaches. We further prove the unbiasedness of our method and the validity of our CIs. We confirm our theoretical results through various numerical experiments. Finally, we provide an extension of our method for constructing CIs from combinations of experimental and observational datasets.

Learning Representations of Instruments for Partial Identification of Treatment Effects

Reliable estimation of treatment effects from observational data is important in many disciplines such as medicine. However, estimation is challenging when unconfoundedness as a standard assumption in the causal inference literature is violated. In this work, we leverage arbitrary (potentially high-dimensional) instruments to estimate bounds on the conditional average treatment effect (CATE). Our contributions are three-fold: (1) We propose a novel approach for partial identification through a mapping of instruments to a discrete representation space so that we yield valid bounds on the CATE. This is crucial for reliable decision-making in real-world applications. (2) We derive a two-step procedure that learns tight bounds using a tailored neural partitioning of the latent instrument space. As a result, we avoid instability issues due to numerical approximations or adversarial training. Furthermore, our procedure aims to reduce the estimation variance in finite-sample settings to yield more reliable estimates. (3) We show theoretically that our procedure obtains valid bounds while reducing estimation variance. We further perform extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness across various settings. Overall, our procedure offers a novel path for practitioners to make use of potentially high-dimensional instruments (e.g., as in Mendelian randomization).

Conformal Prediction for Causal Effects of Continuous Treatments

Uncertainty quantification of causal effects is crucial for safety-critical applications such as personalized medicine. A powerful approach for this is conformal prediction, which has several practical benefits due to model-agnostic finite-sample guarantees. Yet, existing methods for conformal prediction of causal effects are limited to binary/discrete treatments and make highly restrictive assumptions such as known propensity scores. In this work, we provide a novel conformal prediction method for potential outcomes of continuous treatments. We account for the additional uncertainty introduced through propensity estimation so that our conformal prediction intervals are valid even if the propensity score is unknown. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) We derive finite-sample prediction intervals for potential outcomes of continuous treatments. (2) We provide an algorithm for calculating the derived intervals. (3) We demonstrate the effectiveness of the conformal prediction intervals in experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to propose conformal prediction for continuous treatments when the propensity score is unknown and must be estimated from data.

Causal Fairness under Unobserved Confounding: A Neural Sensitivity Framework

Fairness for machine learning predictions is widely required in practice for legal, ethical, and societal reasons. Existing work typically focuses on settings without unobserved confounding, even though unobserved confounding can lead to severe violations of causal fairness and, thus, unfair predictions. In this work, we analyze the sensitivity of causal fairness to unobserved confounding. Our contributions are three-fold. First, we derive bounds for causal fairness metrics under different sources of unobserved confounding. This enables practitioners to examine the sensitivity of their machine learning models to unobserved confounding in fairness-critical applications. Second, we propose a novel neural framework for learning fair predictions, which allows us to offer worst-case guarantees of the extent to which causal fairness can be violated due to unobserved confounding. Third, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in a series of experiments, including a real-world case study about predicting prison sentences. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first work to study causal fairness under unobserved confounding. To this end, our work is of direct practical value as a refutation strategy to ensure the fairness of predictions in high-stakes applications.