When Prediction Error Is Not Enough: Evaluating Nuisance-Function Prediction for Causal Estimation

There is a precise sense in which drawing causal inferences from observational data is hard, even when identifiability is assumed. In particular, Robins and Ritov (1997) and Robins et al. (2003) showed that causal effects can be discontinuous as a function of the data distribution: two arbitrarily close data distributions might correspond to different causal effects. This is a fact independent of the choice of estimator; however, not all estimators are equally unstable. Our contribution is to surface a second layer of instability that depends on the choice of estimator. We show that many standard point estimates can be read as point summaries of multimodal distributions over the space of structural causal models. As such, estimators can jump discontinuously in the data distribution. This defines a taxonomy of estimators that admits a decision-theoretic reading: stability depends on whether the implicit loss function an estimator optimizes is aligned with the causal effect itself. Specifically, inverse propensity weighted estimators and regression estimators are examples of discontinuous summaries, while explicit posterior means and medians are shown to be continuous.

Estimating how much an intervention helps a given individual the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) is increasingly central to decision-making in medicine, economics, and policy, where an estimate is most useful when accompanied by a calibrated uncertainty interval. We study the few-placebo regime, in which one treatment arm is much smaller than the other, as arises in unequal-allocation trials and small-holdout $A/B$ tests. The standard estimator in this setting is the X-Learner, and a natural way to obtain credible intervals is to make its second stage Bayesian. We show that these intervals under-cover: they contain the true effect less often than their nominal level. We trace this to a structural cause the X-Learner's regression target inherits the bias of a nuisance model fitted to the small arm, so the posterior is centered away from the true effect and we find that the standard remedy, regressing an orthogonal doubly-robust score, is also unreliable here, since the regime's limited overlap leaves the estimator either highly variable or, once stabilized, biased once more. Both consequences reflect a pattern that extends beyond causal inference: a separately estimated variance is attached to a point estimate of a hard-to-learn quantity, and the point estimate's bias is not captured by that variance. We propose GP-CATE, which models each arm's outcome surface with a Gaussian process, so the scarce arm's uncertainty enters the posterior directly rather than as an unmodelled bias. Across synthetic and semi-synthetic benchmarks, GP-CATE attains calibrated coverage where the estimators we compare against including Causal Forest and BART do not, at the cost of intervals that are appropriately wide when the data are uninformative.

Temporal link prediction (TLP) is typically evaluated by predictive performance on unseen edges, but this criterion can conflate predictive accuracy with recovery of the underlying causal mechanism. In stochastic models, Fisher information governs the Cramér--Rao (CR) bound on parameter estimation error: higher Fisher information permits more accurate parameter recovery. We show that, under comonotonicity conditions between Fisher information and entropy, binary logistic models exhibit an estimation--prediction tradeoff: regimes with higher Fisher information, and hence smaller CR bounds, also have higher irreducible predictive entropy. To study this tradeoff in TLP, we introduce a probabilistic causal generator for temporal graphs with transient edges and known ground-truth causal structure, and validate the phenomenon empirically.