Significance-First Splitting: Aligning Treatment Heterogeneity Detection with Honest Estimation

We study the problem of selecting the best heterogeneous treatment effect (HTE) estimator from a collection of candidates in settings where the treatment effect is fundamentally unobserved. We cast estimator selection as a multiple testing problem and introduce a ground-truth-free procedure based on a cross-fitted, exponentially weighted test statistic. A key component of our method is a two-way sample splitting scheme that decouples nuisance estimation from weight learning and ensures the stability required for valid inference. Leveraging a stability-based central limit theorem, we establish asymptotic familywise error rate control under mild regularity conditions. Empirically, our procedure provides reliable error control while substantially reducing false selections compared with commonly used methods across ACIC 2016, IHDP, and Twins benchmarks, demonstrating that our method is feasible and powerful even without ground-truth treatment effects.

In various fields, such as medicine and marketing, accurately predicting individual treatment effects holds significant promise. However, achieving reliable predictions alone is often insufficient for making informed decisions; it is equally important to understand why the treatment effect is higher for some individuals than for others. To address this two-fold challenge of prediction and interpretation, we introduce an algorithm based on decision trees and random forests for estimating individual treatment effects. Our algorithm is simple: it operates exactly like a standard random forest, but with a different splitting criterion, and requires no additional workarounds such as double machine learning or orthogonalization as used in Generalized random forests. It handles observational studies with varying treatment propensities without requiring separate estimation of the full propensity function. This is achieved by combining two splitting criteria---one targeting heterogeneity in the treatment effect, the other targeting bias correction for the average treatment effect---which together improve split point selection and automatically distinguish confounders from features responsible for heterogeneity. As a result, interpretation follows directly from the fitted tree structure itself, that is, from which features the trees split on and with which split statistics, without requiring separate post-hoc analysis. For the theoretical analysis of this algorithm, we consider a change point model with step functions for potential outcomes and treatment propensity and provide insights into the theoretical underpinnings of our approach. Simulation studies show that our simple algorithm achieves comparable, and often better, prediction accuracy than existing methods, while substantially improving interpretability.

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).