Transfer learning for causal forest

Causal inference, estimating causal effects from observational data, is a fundamental tool in many disciplines. Of particular importance across a variety of domains is the continuous treatment setting, where the variable of intervention has a continuous range. This setting is far less explored and represents a substantial shift from the binary treatment setting, with models needing to represent effects across a continuum of treatment values. In this paper, we present the first causal foundation model for the continuous treatment setting. Our model meta-learns the ability to predict causal effects across a wide variety of unseen tasks without additional training or fine-tuning. First, we design a novel prior over data-generating processes with continuous treatment variables in order to generate a rich causal training corpus. We then train a transformer to reconstruct individual treatment-response curves given only observational data, leveraging in-context learning to amortize expensive Bayesian posterior inference. Our model achieves state-of-the-art performance on individual treatment-response curve reconstruction tasks compared to causal models which are trained specifically for those tasks. Inference code (including trained model weights) can be found at https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/CCPFN-inference .

Machine learning models often degrade when they are deployed on a target distribution that differs from the source distributions they were trained on. Recent work in causality-based domain generalization has shown how shared causal structure between domains can induce invariant predictors, e.g., models on a subset of features which have stable risk across structured domain shifts. However, the extent to which such population-level causal invariances can lead to gains in finite-sample settings remains underexplored. In particular, in practice we often have access to a few labeled target samples, a setting called supervised domain adaptation (sDA). In this paper, we explore when (full or partial) causal knowledge can provably improve supervised domain adaptation. As a first step, we study linear regression, where full or partial causal knowledge specifies a collection of invariant or possibly invariant feature subsets, each yielding a source-trained candidate predictor. We derive matching upper and lower bounds showing that finite-sample gains are governed by the target-risk margins separating the candidates, together with the finite-source estimation error. When these margins are sufficiently large relative to $n_Q$, an adaptive aggregation procedure can match the best candidate predictor while avoiding negative transfer relative to target-only learning. On the other hand, when the margins are too small, no algorithm can reliably exploit the candidate collection to obtain faster finite-sample rates. We further connect these margins to structural shift magnitude in linear SCMs and validate the theory on real-world causal benchmarks.

Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimation in practice demands three properties simultaneously: heterogeneous effects $τ(x)$, calibrated uncertainty over them, and robustness to the heavy tails that contaminate real outcome data. Meta-learners (Künzel et al., 2019) give (i); causal forests and BART give (i)-(ii) with Gaussian-tail assumptions; no widely used tool gives all three. We present Bayesian X-Learner, an X-Learner built on cross-fitted doubly robust pseudo-outcomes (Kennedy, 2020) with a full MCMC posterior over $τ(x)$ via a Welsch redescending pseudo-likelihood. On Hill's IHDP benchmark the default configuration attains mean $\sqrt{\varepsilon_{\mathrm{PEHE}}} = 0.56$ on 5 replications (lowest mean; differences from S-/T-/X-learners, full-config Causal BART, and a causal forest baseline are not significant at $α=0.05$, and rank ordering is unstable at 10 replications -- IHDP comparisons are competitive rather than dominant). On contaminated "whale" DGPs with up to 20-25% tail density, a one-flag extension (contamination_severity) that selects a Huber-$δ$ nuisance loss per Huber's minimax-$δ$ relation recovers RMSE $\approx 0.13$ with tight credible intervals (single-cross-fit 30-seed coverage 83% [Wilson 66%, 93%] at 20% density; modular-Bayes pooling with Bayesian-bootstrap nuisance draws restores nominal 95% coverage).