Doubly Robust Functional Representation Learning for Longitudinal Causal Inference with Irregular Histories

We propose doubly robust adaptive conformal inference (DR-ACI), which constructs prediction intervals for doubly robust pseudo-outcomes under temporal dependence.

Unobserved confounding prevents standard covariate adjustment from identifying causal response functions in observational studies. Proxy causal learning addresses this problem through bridge equations involving treatment- and outcome-inducing proxies, avoiding direct recovery of the latent confounder. Existing doubly robust proxy estimators combine outcome and treatment bridges, but typically rely on fixed kernels, sieves, or low-dimensional semiparametric models; existing neural proxy methods are more flexible, but are largely single-bridge estimators. We develop a neural doubly robust framework for proxy causal learning with continuous and structured treatments. Our method introduces a neural mean-embedding estimator for the treatment bridge, combines it with a neural outcome bridge, and estimates the doubly robust correction through a final regression stage. The framework covers population, heterogeneous, and conditional dose-response functions, yielding full response-curve estimators rather than binary-treatment effects. The algorithms use two stages for each bridge and history-aware updates of the final linear layers to stabilize stochastic multi-stage training. We prove consistency of the algorithms showing that the doubly robust error is controlled by the final averaging and regression errors together with the smaller of the outcome- and treatment-side weak-norm bridge errors. Across synthetic and image-valued benchmarks, the proposed estimators outperform existing baselines and single-bridge neural estimators, showing the benefit of combining learned outcome and treatment bridges in a doubly robust construction. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/BariscanBozkurt/DRPCL-Neural-Mean-Embedding.

Prediction error is widely used to evaluate nuisance-function estimators in causal inference, but its relationship with causal estimator performance may differ across performance measures. We studied this question in a partially linear model using Monte Carlo simulations. We compared ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized additive models (GAMs), XGBoost, and Double Machine Learning with XGBoost (DML-XGBoost), evaluating nuisance-function prediction error, bias, RMSE, and 95% confidence interval coverage. We also examined a simple joint-error measure based on the absolute cross-product of estimation errors from the exposure and outcome nuisance functions. Across the simulated settings, XGBoost had the lowest RMSE among the non-oracle methods, while DML-XGBoost generally provided better confidence interval coverage. Prediction error did not consistently track causal bias across methods and settings, and the method with the best point-estimation performance did not necessarily have the best confidence interval coverage. The joint-error measure was only weakly associated with causal bias and did not provide a useful standalone measure of causal performance. These results suggest that prediction error is useful for assessing nuisance-function estimation, but it should not be treated as a direct measure of the quality of the resulting causal estimator.