Prediction-Powered Causal Inference by Automatic Debiased Machine Learning and Semi-Supervised Riesz Regression

The rapidly expanding artificial intelligence (AI) industry has produced diverse yet powerful prediction tools, each with its own network architecture, training strategy, data-processing pipeline, and domain-specific strengths. These tools create new opportunities for semi-supervised inference, in which labeled data are limited and expensive to obtain, whereas unlabeled data are abundant and widely available. Given a collection of predictors, we treat them as a mixture of experts (MOE) and introduce an MOE-powered semi-supervised inference framework built upon prediction-powered inference (PPI). Motivated by the variance reduction principle underlying PPI, the proposed framework seeks the mixture of experts that achieves the smallest possible variance. Compared with standard PPI, the MOE-powered inference framework adapts to the unknown performance of individual predictors, benefits from their collective predictive power, and enjoys a best-expert guarantee. The framework is flexible and applies to mean estimation, linear regression, quantile estimation, and general M-estimation. We develop non-asymptotic theory for the MOE-powered inference framework and establish upper bounds on the coverage error of the resulting confidence intervals. Numerical experiments demonstrate the practical effectiveness of MOE-powered inference and corroborate our theoretical findings.

We study semisupervised mean estimation with a small labeled sample, a large unlabeled sample, and a black-box prediction model whose output may be miscalibrated. A standard approach in this setting is augmented inverse-probability weighting (AIPW) [Robins et al., 1994], which protects against prediction-model misspecification but can be inefficient when the prediction score is poorly aligned with the outcome scale. We introduce Calibrated Prediction-Powered Inference, which post-hoc calibrates the prediction score on the labeled sample before using it for semisupervised estimation. This simple step requires no retraining and can improve the original score both as a predictor of the outcome and as a regression adjustment for semisupervised inference. We study both linear and isotonic calibration. For isotonic calibration, we establish first-order optimality guarantees: isotonic post-processing can improve predictive accuracy and estimator efficiency relative to the original score and simpler post-processing rules, while no further post-processing of the fitted isotonic score yields additional first-order gains. For linear calibration, we show first-order equivalence to PPI++. We also clarify the relationship among existing estimators, showing that the original PPI estimator is a special case of AIPW and can be inefficient when the prediction model is accurate, while PPI++ is AIPW with empirical efficiency maximization [Rubin et al., 2008]. In simulations and real-data experiments, our calibrated estimators often outperform PPI and are competitive with, or outperform, AIPW and PPI++. We provide an accompanying Python package, ppi_aipw, at https://larsvanderlaan.github.io/ppi-aipw/.

Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) is a popular strategy for combining gold-standard and possibly noisy pseudo-labels to perform statistical estimation. Prior work has shown an asymptotic \enquote{free lunch} for PPI++, an adaptive form of PPI, showing that the \textit{asymptotic} variance of PPI++ is always less than or equal to the variance obtained from using gold-standard labels alone. Notably, this result holds \textit{regardless of the quality of the pseudo-labels}. In this work, we demystify this result by conducting an exact finite-sample analysis of the estimation error of PPI++ on the mean estimation problem. We give a \enquote{no free lunch} result, characterizing the settings (and sample sizes) where PPI++ has provably worse estimation error than using gold-standard labels alone. Specifically, PPI++ will outperform if and only if the correlation between pseudo- and gold-standard is above a certain level that depends on the number of labeled samples ($n$). In some cases our results simplify considerably: For Gaussian data, for instance, the correlation must be at least $1/\sqrt{n - 2}$ in order to see improvement. More broadly, by providing exact non-asymptotic expressions for the variance of PPI++ under sample splitting, we aim to empower practitioners to transparently reason about the benefits of PPI++ in specific applications. In experiments, we illustrate that our theoretical findings hold on real-world datasets.