Finding patient subgroups with similar characteristics is crucial for personalized decision-making in various disciplines such as healthcare and policy evaluation. While most existing approaches rely on unsupervised clustering methods, there is a growing trend toward using supervised clustering methods that identify operationalizable subgroups in the context of a specific outcome of interest. We propose Bayesian Supervised Causal Clustering (BSCC), with treatment effect as outcome to guide the clustering process. BSCC identifies homogenous subgroups of individuals who are similar in their covariate profiles as well as their treatment effects. We evaluate BSCC on simulated datasets as well as real-world dataset from the third International Stroke Trial to assess the practical usefulness of the framework.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Illustrating the conceptual difference between (left) unsupervised clustering with Gaussian Mixture Model ( gmm ) (right) supervised clustering with bscc . gmm fails to recover the subgroups relevant to treatment while bscc can. (b) Difference between bscc clustering samples based on both covariates and treatment effect in a supervised clustering set-up, as opposed to causal clustering or supervised learning based approaches clustering based on potential outcomes or treatment effect only.
Category
Supervised
Probabilistic
Covariate-based
TE
Example
UC
×
✓
✓
×
gmm
SC
✓
✓
✓
×
sgmm
SA
✓
×
✓
✓
it , mob
✓
✓
✓
✓
bscc (ours)
EM
✓
×
×
✓
cf , bart , DR-l , R-l , FindIt , owe , cc
BM
✓
✓
×
✓
Xu et al. [2016] , Shahn and Madigan [2017]
Table 1: Summary of approaches. TE : treatment-effect-based.
Figure 2: Plate Diagram of bscc with feature selection.
Model (Treat Prop.)
ARI
SATE
PEHE
gmm (0.5)
0.768
[ −0.40 , 1.32 ]
3.13
sgmm (0.5)
0.625
[ −5.54 , 0.67 ]
2.65
it (0.5)
0.574
[ −0.03 , −0.03 ]
3.09
mob (0.5)
0.437
[ −4.73 , 2.38 ]
2.58
bscc (0.2)
0.715
[ −4.99 , 3.98 ]
1.49
bscc (0.5)
0.721
[ −5.13 , 3.99 ]
1.45
Table 2: Summary of performance for simulation hte .
Figure 3: Visualization of UMAP Projection of the Simulated Dataset in simulation hte : Cluster assignments are given by (a) ground truth of constant treatment effects (0.5,5,−5,0,0) , (b) gmm , (c) sgmm , (d) mob , (e) bscc , (f) cf , (g) bart , (h) DR-learner , (i) R-learner and (j) cc .
Figure 4: bscc on IST-3 Dataset: (a) The estimated cluster means and (b) corresponding ORs with 95% CIs for training (in log scale), and (c) the empirical cluster means and (d) corresponding ORs with 95% CIs for test set. Each axis representing a continuous covariate in the radar chart is transformed back to its original scale to enhance interpretability. (e) Cluster-specific feature importance.
Group based on
Task
Example
Covariate Split
Supervision
Clustering covariates
Unsupervised
gmm , lca
Multivariate
None
Supervised
BayesProfile, sgmm
Multivariate
Outcome
Supervised
it , mob
One-at-a-time
Treatment effect
Supervised
bscc
Multivariate
Treatment effect
Clustering treatment effects
Supervised
Meta-learners, cf , bart , FindIt , owe
None
Treatment effect
Clustering potential outcomes
Supervised
Causal Clustering
None
Potential outcomes
Table A.1: Summary of Related Works
ID
Gender
Age
Treated
Control
Treated
Outcome
Outcome
1
F
61
Yes
NA
2
2
M
35
No
1
NA
3
F
46
Yes
NA
1
Table A.2 : Example Tabular Data for HTE
Size
Data Case
Avg. Rel.
ARI
(Treated Prop.)
L2 Error
N=720
L-C (0.5)
0.04
1
N=740
L-C (0.2)
0.033
0.996
N=760
L-L (0.5)
0.072
1
N=780
L-L (0.2)
0.054
0.996
Table B.3 : A Summary of Synthetic Datasets and Model Performance for Sanity Check of bscc : The data case of L-C (i.e. linear-constant) means the data is generated from a linear control outcome function and constant treatment effects for each cluster.
Figure B.1 : simulation fs : (a) Simulated dataset and (b) learned cluster-specific feature importance by bscc .
Figure B.2 : True potential outcomes (y0,y1) for simulation hte , colored by ground-truth cluster membership. The dashed line indicates y1=y0 (zero treatment effect).
Figure B.3 : UMAP projections of covariate space for simulation hte , colored by cluster assignments from (a) it , (b) FindIt , and (c) owe .
βk SD
ARI
Range of τk
PEHE
0.5
0.750
[-4.810 4.984]
0.847
1
0.733
[-4.766, 5.020]
0.943
5
0.733
[-4.750, 4.927]
0.944
10
0.732
[-4.841, 5.059]
0.983
100
0.739
[-4.812, 5.006]
0.987
Table B.4 : Sensitivity Test of Prior SD of constant βk on simulation hte .
βk Mean
ARI
Range of τk
PEHE
(0,0,0,0)
0.733
[-4.766, 5.020]
0.943
(0,0,-5,5)
0.751
[-4.790, 5.029]
0.885
Table B.5 : Sensitivity Test of Prior Mean of constant βk on simulation hte .
K
Train RMSE
Test RMSE
Train PEHE
Test PEHE
Train Range
Test Range
of Control
of Control
of τk
of SATE
1
0.217
0.460
0.048
0.048
[0.048, 0.048]
[-0.057,-0.057]
2
0.210
0.460
0.386
0.382
[-0.347, 0.429]
[-0.172, -0.025]
3
0.201
0.529
0.386
0.268
[-0.550, 0.733]
[-6.29, -0.048]
4
0.203
0.524
0.368
0.223
[-0.694, 1.232]
[-0.138,0.029]
5
0.216
0.472
0.361
0.189
[-0.748, 1.240]
[-0.0224,-0.0215]
Table B.6 : Test of Homogeneous and Null Treatment Effects on simulation null . We have only one cluster of individuals with zero treatment effects.
Figure C.4 : IST-3 Data: Oxford Handicap Score (OHS) at 6 months outcome distributions for control and treated groups.
Description of Covariate
Feature Type
Age
Continuous
Delay Time from onset of stroke symptoms to randomisation ( h )
Continuous
Systolic blood pressure ( mm )
Continuous
Diastolic blood pressure ( mm )
Continuous
Glucose ( mmol )
Continuous
NIHSS (Stroke Score at randomisation)
Continuous
Table C.7: List of Covariates Used for the IST-3 Dataset.
No. Clusters
Test Acc. of
Test Policy Risk
Control Outcome
K=2
0.754
0.648
K=3
0.770
0.644
K=4
0.762
0.644
Table C.8 : The Evaluation Metrics for Selecting the Number of Clusters of the IST-3 Dataset.
Model Case
Train Range of SATE
Test Range of SATE
Test Policy Risk
bscc
[-0.273, 0.658]
[-0.243, 0.501]
0.644
cf
[-1.942, 2.079]
[-0.249, 0.172]
0.616
bart
[-0.058, 2.521]
[-0.204, 0.636]
0.632
DR-learner
[-3.563, 4.348]
[-0.165, 0.071]
0.621
R-learner
[-1.941, 2.603]
[-0.270, 0.096]
0.618
mob
[-0.621, 0.416]
[-0.724, 0.355]
0.638
Table C.9 : A Summary of Model Performance for Different Supervised Learning Models on IST-3 Data.
Max
Min
Popu
Cluster1
Cluster2
Cluster3
Age
89.84
66.08
78.07
73.42
81.68
80.54
Delay2Rand
4.37
3.14
3.78
3.98
3.49
3.68
SBloodPres
171.79
139.70
155.27
155.22
155.38
156.17
DBloodPres
92.70
71.42
81.61
84.28
79.36
82.03
Glucose
8.06
6.30
7.29
7.32
7.32
7.00
NIHSS
19.50
7.31
12.25
8.12
17.73
12.22
Table C.10 : IST-3: Summary Statistics (Min/Max/Mean) of Covariates by Clusters for Training Set ( bscc ).
Max
Min
Popu
Cluster1
Cluster2
Cluster3
Age
88.48
67.16
77.32
74.62
80.44
78.47
Delay2Rand
4.52
3.34
3.93
4.10
3.71
3.88
SBloodPres
171.26
138.54
155.09
155.69
153.93
155.61
DBloodPres
91.99
72.21
82.26
83.63
80.23
82.42
Glucose
8.07
6.30
7.23
7.25
7.34
7.00
NIHSS
18.99
7.26
12.12
8.06
17.26
13.08
Table C.11 : IST-3: Summary Statistics (Min/Max/Mean) of Covariates by Clusters for Test Set ( bscc ).
Cluster
Group
Mortality
Alive
Mortality Prop.
Cluster1
Treated
53
265
16.7%
Cluster1
Control
43
280
13.3%
Cluster2
Treated
92
133
40.9%
Cluster2
Control
100
110
47.6%
Cluster3
Treated
49
86
36.3%
Cluster3
Control
36
122
22.8%
Table C.12 : IST-3: Contingency Table of Clusters for Training Set ( bscc ).
Cluster
Group
Mortality
Alive
Mortality Prop.
Cluster1
Treated
45
287
13.6%
Cluster1
Control
51
255
16.7%
Cluster2
Treated
74
131
36.1%
Cluster2
Control
102
143
41.6%
Cluster3
Treated
49
100
32.9%
Cluster3
Control
30
101
22.9%
Table C.13 : IST-3: Contingency Table of Clusters for Test Set ( bscc ).
Cluster
Group
Mortality
Alive
Mortality Prop.
Cluster1
Treated
244
276
46.9%
Cluster1
Control
248
277
47.2%
Cluster2
Treated
81
488
14.2%
Cluster2
Control
81
489
14.2%
Cluster3
Treated
37
238
13.5%
Cluster3
Control
33
245
11.9%
Table C.14 : IST-3: Contingency Table of Clusters for gmm .
Figure C.5 : gmm on IST-3 Dataset: (a) The estimated cluster means and (b) ORs with 95% CIs (log scale) when K=3 .
Conventional subgroup analyses can yield unstable and difficult-to-interpret conclusions, especially in observational biomedical data where each individual is observed under only one exposure state, true individual treatment effects are unavailable, and causal structure is uncertain. We investigate whether subgroups constructed from pretreatment characteristics, without using exposure, outcome, or estimated treatment-effect information, can serve as interpretable units for budget-constrained policy prioritization. We propose a framework combining causal-discovery-informed covariate selection, discovery-evaluation sample splitting, inductive unsupervised clustering, uncertainty-aware subgroup selection, and held-out doubly robust policy evaluation. We compare K-means, hard, membership-weighted, and stochastic Fuzzy C-means, Bayesian Gaussian mixture models, and a supervised causal-forest-derived CATE-tree comparator. Policies are evaluated under a 70% budget for hypothetical obesity-to-non-obesity and elevated-to-lower-glucose state shifts in the PIMA Indians Diabetes dataset and for a lifetime-smoking-history contrast in NHANES. The highest estimated ungated utilities were 0.799 for the BMI policy using Bayesian GMM, 0.735 for the glucose policy using hard or membership-weighted FCM, and 0.775 for the smoking-history policy using K-means. All paired 95% confidence intervals for policy-risk differences included zero, and no comparison remained statistically significant after Holm adjustment. Bayesian pooling generally preserved ungated allocations, whereas Empirical Bernstein gating was more conservative. Policies with similar estimated utility could nevertheless prioritize different individuals. The findings should be interpreted as assumption-dependent decision-support evidence for hypothetical state contrasts rather than proof of intervention benefit.
We propose CaSPECT, a causal spectral clustering framework for discovering causally homogeneous subgroups from observational data. Rather than clustering in covariate space, CaSPECT defines similarity through the topology of a learned directed acyclic graph (DAG); a bootstrap-stabilised PC algorithm recovers the causal skeleton; a novel Orientation Validation Score (OVS) combines PC bootstrap evidence with DirectLiNGAM to orient edges robustly; directed edges are weighted by backdoor-identified average treatment effects estimated via OLS or double machine learning. Chung's directed Laplacian provides a spectral embedding in which individuals close together share the same causal propagation pathways. We establish almost-sure consistency of the full pipeline and validate the method through a controlled simulation study and on LaLonde CPS1, IHDP, and 401(k) datasets, where CaSPECT recovers a positive and statistically significant treatment effect within the causally comparable subpopulation and corrects for severe confounding without requiring a pre-specified propensity score model.
Arghya Pratihar, Shinjon Chakraborty, Swagatam Das
1*Electronics and Communication Sciences Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, India. · 2Indian Statistical Institute, India.
Causal discovery aims to understand the relationships between individual random variables. In many applications, such as brain imaging and climate modeling, it is more meaningful to consider interactions among groups of variables. Existing methods assume that knowledge of such groups or clusters is explicitly available when modeling interactions. However, in practice, these clusters as well as the causal relationships among them, are latent. In this paper, we present a novel approach based on variational inference to simultaneously infer both the latent clusters and causal structures. We learn an approximate posterior over clusters and graph-structure by considering variational distributions based on categorical and Bernoulli models respectively. We derive variational lower bounds and estimation techniques to learn variational and model parameters. The effectiveness of our proposed methods for cluster and causal discovery are demonstrated on both synthetic and real data sets.
Avni Rajpal, Anubhav Kumar, Rishabh Karnad +2
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, India · RIKEN Center for AI Project, Tokyo, Japan