Conditional Average Treatment Effect Estimation

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identify treatment effects without confounding but are often small, whereas observational studies (OBS) are large but may be confounded. Many estimators combining a small RCT with a large OBS have been developed for the average treatment effect (ATE) and the conditional ATE (CATE). However, existing ATE estimators either make assumptions on the OBS or do not borrow enough power from them. The CATE has been studied less than the ATE. Existing CATE methods either assume the OBS are unconfounded, rely on a model of the confounding function, or accept bias in exchange for lower variance. We therefore propose a framework that, without special assumptions on the OBS, fuses the OBS and the RCT by preserving the unbiasedness of RCT-based estimation while borrowing power from the large OBS to boost precision. Applying this principle, we build an ATE estimator, AIPW-Fusion, with closed-form weights and confidence intervals, and two CATE learners, DR-Fusion and R-Fusion. Experiments corroborate our findings.

Standard causal identification methods often assume no unmeasured confounding and can fail when relevant confounders are unobserved. Proximal causal inference instead uses proxy variables to identify effects under hidden confounding. However, nonparametric proximal estimation can be challenging in practice: recovering causal estimands such as the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) requires solving an ill-posed integral equation that is data-hungry, hyperparameter-sensitive, and optimization-unstable. Bayesian inference for such models provides a desirable alternative, mitigating these difficulties by regularizing through the prior. However, computing a posterior is itself challenging, as a typical likelihood function will include latent variables. Following the recent success of tabular foundation models in backdoor, instrumental variable, and frontdoor settings, we propose that prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) are uniquely suited to resolve this bottleneck. Indeed, by training on synthetic data sampled from compliant structural causal models with access to oracle counterfactuals, we simplify the task substantially, amortizing the implied Bayesian operator inversion into a single transformer forward pass. Compared to prior literature that focuses primarily on point estimation, our model, ProximalFM, explicitly targets the Bayesian posterior distribution of the CATE. One unique aspect of this problem is that we need to provide Monte Carlo estimates of the oracle CATEs, leading to a novel variation of PFNs that accounts for the added stochastic error. Across a diverse suite of proximal regimes, ProximalFM achieves consistently strong CATE-estimation performance without dataset-specific tuning, with its largest advantage when latent confounding is substantial and the proxies are weakly informative; it also provides fast inference through a single amortized forward pass.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects from observational data is difficult because the most appropriate inductive bias varies with overlap, treatment imbalance, prognostic structure, and sample size. We introduce the Geometry-Diverse Anchor-Correction Expert Ensemble (GeoACE), a five-expert framework that combines a common anchor-correction estimator with complementary overlap-aware and outcome-guided geometries. Its task-level ensemble weights are learned only from internal validation predictions, frozen before test evaluation, and then applied to experts refitted on the complete development sample. The fifth expert, O-Phi-ACE, constructs an outcome-free, overlap-aware statistical projection from covariates and treatment assignment and replaces the anchor input with this lower-dimensional geometry. We evaluate GeoACE against 11 comparators on eight benchmark protocols. Adding O-Phi-ACE reduced mean sqrt(PEHE) relative to the four-expert ensemble on all seven benchmarks with individual-effect truth, winning 998 of 1,225 paired tasks; the change on JOBS policy risk was negligible. The five-expert ensemble ranked first on IHDP100, IHDPA, and IHDPB and second on NEWS, differing from the NEWS leader by 0.13%. Across the seven sqrt(PEHE) benchmarks it obtained the lowest observed average rank (3.714), although the omnibus Friedman and Iman-Davenport tests were not significant (p=0.328 and p=0.330). Using the same five frozen experts, inverse-DR weighting was consistently better than winner-take-all selection, convex DR fitting, R-stacking, and causal Q-aggregation in benchmark-balanced analyses, but was statistically indistinguishable from equal weighting and DR ridge shrinkage. The evidence therefore supports geometry-diverse expert libraries and leakage-free aggregation as a robustness strategy, not universal superiority of either GeoACE or one weighting rule.

Predicting blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability is critical for central nervous system drug discovery. Using the MoleculeNet BBBP dataset (n = 2039), this study systematically ablates molecular feature spaces to isolate featurisation from model architecture. We evaluate three feature families (Morgan fingerprints, RDKit physicochemical descriptors, SMILES bigrams) across four learning algorithms. Results demonstrate that predictive performance depends jointly on feature representation and algorithm. Dynamic Random Forest using combined features achieved the highest mean AUC (0.970, 95% CI: 0.963-0.977). Second, this optimal representation enables exploratory estimation of heterogeneous associations between molecular structure and BBB permeability using Generalized Random Forests. Constructing a pseudo-treatment from a LogP median split, we applied double/debiased machine learning to account for confounding. Orthogonalization substantially attenuates the heterogeneity detected by naive causal forests; no conditional effects remained significant after false discovery rate correction (smallest adjusted p = 0.082). Furthermore, orthogonalized feature importance shifted toward residual structural information in SMILES bigrams. Ultimately, once observed confounding is properly accounted for, evidence that LogP-BBB associations vary systematically across chemical space is insufficient. This underscores that feature representation and model architecture are coupled design choices, and that unorthogonalized causal forests risk overstating genuine treatment effect heterogeneity.

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.

Coupon campaigns seek to lift both conversion and revenue, but gross merchandise value (GMV) follows a deterministic funnel from conversion to conditional order value and is zero-inflated and heavy-tailed. We propose FunnelCausalNet, an uplift estimator coupling a binary conversion head with a nonnegative conditional-value head through $μ_{\mathrm{gmv}}=μ_{\mathrm{conv}}μ_{\mathrm{val}}$. Under explicit RCT, support, rate-gap, and cross-head covariance-control assumptions, an idealized leading-order MSE comparison identifies a regime in which funnel composition can reduce pointwise variance; this is a heuristic, not a guarantee for the shared-representation neural model. The estimator is paired with marginal split-conformal CATE summaries, combined through a Bonferroni union as audit bands, and a Lagrangian budgeted allocator using RCT-anchored estimates for subsidy-aware ROI accounting. On semi-synthetic multi-tier Criteo-MT7, FunnelCausalNet's mean AUUC_GMV is within one seed standard deviation of the leading feature-interaction baseline among eleven baselines, while a controlled ablation reduces GMV effect error versus direct GMV regression by 18--48% across tested zero-inflation regimes. On de-identified industrial Hotel-Coupon RCT logs with about 4.9 million hold-out exposure records per seed, expected-outcome evaluation sweeps full LP frontiers; FunnelCausalNet has the best seed-averaged mean DeltaROI at all seven correlated anchors from 10% to 60%, which we treat as descriptive frontier consistency rather than independent significance. On sparse binary-spend public benchmarks, revenue-focused rankers can dominate uplift-curve proxies, defining an explicit regime boundary.

Small and medium-sized businesses need timely financial guidance, yet historical accounting logs record self-selected and often co-occurring business changes rather than randomized recommendations. We formulate this setting as observational policy ranking: from pre-decision financial information, a policy selects one of 34 ledger-derived business-change categories for a target financial KPI. Using 85,078 company-month observations from 7,505 firms, we introduce Covariate-Adjusted Residual Policy Learning (CAR-PL), an action-wise R-learner that operates directly on multi-hot logs and regularizes selection by observational support. We compare CAR-PL with an uplift T-Learner, a conservative contextual value model, a zero-shot LLM, and non-personalized references on company-disjoint held-out firms under a shared model-assisted scoring rule. CAR-PL has the highest Gross Profit point estimate (0.084), the T-Learner has the highest Revenue point estimate (0.085), and the contextual value model has the highest Quick Ratio point estimate (0.062). CAR-PL and the T-Learner are not statistically separated on either growth KPI in matched company-clustered comparisons, while CAR-PL selects 33-34 categories and produces less concentrated selections across the catalog. Outcome-model-only scoring retains the same KPI-level point-estimate leader or top pair, and category rankings remain similar when the all-zero treatment reference is replaced by the most common training co-action pattern. These findings support objective-specific ranking of SMB financial guidance from multi-action accounting logs.

Randomized experiments are often run in one population to guide decisions in another. Allocating by experimental proportions wastes budget on groups that rarely appear in deployment, whereas allocating by deployment proportions under-samples groups that are hard to measure precisely. We propose \textbf{TWNA} (Target-Weighted Neyman Allocation), a two-stage stratified design that uses pilot estimates of group--arm outcome variances to allocate final-stage sample sizes and treatment probabilities for target-weighted group average treatment effect (GATE) precision. The oracle rule has a closed form and balances deployment importance with statistical difficulty; the plug-in rule recovers it as pilot variance estimates stabilize. We also extend TWNA to handle uncertainty about deployment composition, remaining robust whether the target mix is roughly known or entirely unknown. Finally, we distinguish this weight robustness from a pilot-robust variant for skewed, rare-event, or contaminated outcomes. Simulations and real-covariate benchmarks show the largest gains when groups are both deployment-important and difficult to measure.

Uplift modeling (conditional-average-treatment-effect estimation) drives personalized targeting, yet published uplift benchmarks frequently disagree on which estimator performs best; we show the disagreement is substantially about metrics, not models. UpliftBench evaluates 12 uplift estimators under an outer-test-isolated, multi-objective protocol across seven dataset families; its two findings are identified where a reference objective exists -- F1 on the standard continuous benchmark (IHDP), F2 in a within-sample case study on Jobs. On that benchmark, Qini shows no detectable alignment with effect accuracy -- across all 100 IHDP realizations its mean rank correlation with effect accuracy is +0.07, 95% CI [-0.03, +0.16] -- while AUUC is consistently more aligned (paired prefix-mean-AUUC-over-Qini gap +0.49 [+0.40, +0.59]; the shipped cumulative-gain AUUC aligns better still, +0.73). On Jobs, ranking metrics are structurally insufficient for a sign-threshold policy because they discard the score level; empirically, within the released split-rotation analysis direct policy-risk selection yields lower benchmark regret than random model selection while Qini, AUUC, and uplift-at-$k$ do not (14-15% regret). Calibrating the decision threshold removes 81% of the Qini-selection regret. Both findings are bounded, not universal: F1 is not detected on either validation family (the ACIC and Revenue-Synthetic gaps are both indistinguishable from zero), and F2 vanishes under a budgeted-value objective where rank suffices. UpliftBench releases versioned loaders, fixed protocols, result artifacts, and a reproducible living leaderboard; the public repository accompanies the paper.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects is central to targeted interventions, such as personalized promotions and precision medicine. We focus on the conditional average treatment effect (CATE), a standard estimand for characterizing such heterogeneity. Even under standard identification conditions, finite-sample CATE estimation requires learning the nuisance structure for covariate adjustment and treatment-effect heterogeneity, often together with an effective representation of X. Raw numerical and categorical encodings can leave semantic relations and higher-order interactions implicit, making this joint task locally unstable. A motivating study further shows that this instability appears through partially separable assignment- and heterogeneity-side channels. Building on this observation, we propose CURL (Causal Uncertainty-guided Representation Learning), a plug-in adapter that uses estimator uncertainty to allocate pretrained semantic capacity to locally unstable units. CURL queries a frozen LLM through two role-conditioned prompts, constructs assignment- and heterogeneity-oriented representations from the observed covariates, and routes them through separated pathways. On four benchmarks, CURL improves ten host learners in most settings, while ablation, refinement-dynamics, route-reassignment, and probe analyses support the intended design and roles of the two channels.

Causal inference has become a central issue across various fields, including computer science, statistics, economics, education, healthcare, and medicine. The broad applicability of this discipline has garnered increased research funding and attention. In recent years, the estimation of causal effects from observational data has gained traction due to the vast amounts of collected data and the lower costs compared to randomized controlled trials. Advances in causal effect estimation methods have enhanced service personalization tools. For instance, these tools can help identify the most effective type of treatment (considering both cost and success rate) for each patient among different medical service options. This paper proposes an innovative method for estimating the heterogeneity of treatment effects. The structure of the proposed model is based on a deep neural network and a pseudo-single learner. The proposed method has been compared with other state-of-the-art methods on the IHDP benchmark. Acceptable results have been obtained by using one estimator to estimate the potential outcomes of two treatment groups. Accordingly, this paves the way for further development and improvement of the proposed method.

Reliable electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure is a cornerstone of sustainable, low-carbon cities, yet urban climate stress such as extreme heat, heavy precipitation, and humidity increasingly raises equipment fault risk and undermines the resilience of urban energy and mobility services. Shifting operation from reactive repair to preventive maintenance depends on accurate, forward-looking fault-risk prediction, a task complicated by the heterogeneous time scales of physical, behavioral, contextual, and historical signals and by forecasting over a multi-week horizon. We develop FGDSE, a feature-governed dynamic stacking ensemble that forms an interpretable decision-support system for climate-resilient charging-asset management. It partitions heterogeneous signals into four feature families, assigns each to a domain expert whose inductive bias matches the data, and adds two deep temporal experts for short-term pulses and long-term degradation; a horizon-wise gating mechanism then learns adaptive weights to forecast daily fault risk over 1 to 30 days. SHAP attribution and an X-learner extend the probabilistic output into causal decision support with post-level treatment effects. On 25 months of data from 13 stations, FGDSE surpasses twelve baselines beyond the ten-day horizon, sustains about 85% macro-recall at 30 days with an AUC decay of only 3.2 points, and reveals a shift of dominance from fault history toward climate stress. It identifies extreme heat as the sole exposure whose causal effect amplifies over time, flagging roughly 30% of posts as heat-sensitive and yielding quantitative thresholds for climate-adaptive maintenance that strengthens urban mobility resilience and sustains low-carbon travel.

Policy learning methods are increasingly used to inform treatment allocation under budget constraints. Most proposed methods assume complete treatment data, yet applications frequently suffer from missingness that can bias estimates and lead to suboptimal policies. We address this gap by extending efficient estimators for average treatment effect (ATE) estimation to policy value and conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation under missing at random (MAR) and missing completely conditionally at random (MCCAR) treatment data. Through asymptotic efficiency analysis, we prove that the MAR estimator, which leverages partially-observed units, is both valid and more efficient than the MCCAR estimator when MCCAR assumptions hold. This result provides formal justification for preferring MAR-based estimation in policy learning under both missing data settings. Our comprehensive experiments using synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets confirm that correctly specifying the missingness mechanism is crucial: misspecified estimators remain biased regardless of sample size, while our estimators achieve near-oracle performance when assumptions are satisfied. Our work provides practitioners with theoretically grounded, empirically validated tools for robust policy learning in the presence of missing treatment data.

Identifying heterogeneous treatment effects under unobserved confounding is central in observational causal inference. In proxy models with a discrete latent confounder, prior Synthetic Potential Outcomes (SPO) [Mazaheri-Squires-Uhler '25] recover the mixture of treatment effects through recursively constructed scalar moments. We show that this sequence is one projection of a more fundamental object. Under the same population factorization assumptions, there is an exact compressed observable operator: after projecting onto the shared proxy signal subspace, the difference of two treatment-arm quotient operators is similar to the diagonal matrix of latent treatment effects. Its eigenvalues are the latent effects; its lifted left eigenvectors, after anchor normalization, recover the target-proxy feature matrix and then the latent mixture proportions. Every scalar SPO moment is a bilinear functional of a power of this operator. The resulting estimator handles overcomplete proxy systems, replaces high-order scalar inversion with finite-dimensional spectral analysis, and admits high-probability first-order perturbation bounds for treatment effects, feature rows, and simplex-projected mixture weights.

Depression screening from large-scale behavioral data is challenged by fragmented circadian indicators, limited interpretability, and the lack of intervention-oriented analysis. Existing approaches typically analyze sleep, activity, and social behaviors in isolation, failing to capture their joint circadian structure. To address this limitation, we first propose the Circadian Rhythm Score (CRS), a composite index that compresses multi-domain daily behaviors into a unified representation of circadian rhythm. CRS is constructed to maximize discriminative power for depression screening while preserving behavioral semantics through non-negativity constraints. Empirical results demonstrate near-lossless compression, where a single CRS retains almost the full predictive capability compared with multiple raw behavioral indicators. Building upon CRS, we develop an interpretable depression screening framework based on gradient-boosted trees and SHAP analysis, revealing nonlinear and saturation-like associations between circadian rhythm and depression risk. Beyond risk prediction, we further integrate interaction modeling and counterfactual regression to estimate heterogeneous and dose-dependent behavioral effects, enabling intervention-oriented reasoning under different circadian contexts. Experiments on the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS, n=15,233), demonstrate robust screening performance (ROC-AUC=0.825) and identify actionable behavioral thresholds, including a minimum effective exercise dose of approximately 300 MET-min/week and an optimal restorative nap duration of approximately 65 minutes for sleep-deprived individuals. By bridging supervised representation learning and interpretable modeling, this work provides a scalable framework for depression screening and intervention-aware healthcare data mining.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (CATE) requires simultaneously detecting effect modification and quantifying estimation uncertainty. Existing tree-based methods make an uneasy trade-off: significance-based approaches (Radcliffe and Surry 2011) identify subgroup interactions directly but lack valid inference; honest causal trees (Athey and Imbens 2016) deliver nominal confidence interval coverage but use outcome-agnostic splitting criteria that sacrifice interaction sensitivity. We introduce a hybrid algorithm that fuses significance-based splitting with honest sample-splitting and cross-validation. Our splitting criterion uses the squared $t$-statistic for the treatment $\times$ side interaction ($t^2$), which is shown to be directly aligned with the honest $\text{EMSE}_τ$ criterion when the interaction is strong. Post-hoc honest cross-validation selects the cost-complexity penalty, giving a single principled estimator with nominal CI coverage at the leaf level. For forests, we retain bootstrap count vectors to enable an infinitesimal jackknife (IJ) variance estimate of Monte-Carlo convergence rather than formal pointwise inference. On the three synthetic designs from (Athey and Imbens 2016) the single tree achieves approximately 90% leaf-average CI coverage at the 90% nominal level across all three designs (200 replications each); on the Criteo, Hillstrom and Starbucks uplift datasets we match Qini coefficient performance of S-, T-learner and GRF baselines. An open-source Python package with reproducible seeds, sklearn-compatible API, and full test coverage accompanies this work (https://codeberg.org/hadjipantelis/rattus).

In selective deployment, practitioners act only on a model-chosen subset of individuals based on predicted conditional average treatment effects, but marginal conformal guarantees need not control reliability on that selected subset. We study reliable selection for black-box CATE predictors: selecting candidates whose CATE errors are below a tolerance while controlling the false discovery rate (FDR). Since CATE errors are unobservable, we construct doubly robust proxy errors from pseudo-outcomes; however, naive proxies can lose power under heteroskedasticity because variance overwhelms the reliability signal. We propose Denoised Conformal Alignment, which subtracts an estimated conditional variance component and combines conformal calibration with Benjamini--Hochberg selection. Our analysis shows that validity is governed by stability of proxy/oracle threshold labels, rather than pointwise perfection of the variance estimator. Experiments show substantially improved power while maintaining FDR control across challenging settings.

Heterogeneous Treatment Effect (HTE) identification is essential to explain the impact of an intervention and optimize our policies accordingly. Existing approaches trade expressivity for interpretability, but, if some active heterogeneity drivers are unmeasured, methods at both ends of this spectrum allow for spurious HTE characterization with no causal reading. In this work, we focus on controlled experiments and argue that an oracle HTE causal characterization via the latent interactors is now within reach, thanks to (i) more extensive pre-treatment measurements, i.e., multi-modal and multi-view, and (ii) scalable representations with minimal human supervision. We then re-frame HTE identification as a Markov-blanket discovery problem on a sufficient and aligned pre-treatment representation, and introduce Neural EXposure Interaction Search (NEXIS), an iterative procedure with a provable selection guarantee. We deploy NEXIS on two anti-poverty programs in Africa, augmenting each with satellite imagery capturing previously unmeasured environmental effect modifiers, leading to new candidate prescriptive guidelines to optimize the programs' next iterations.

Conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) are central to treatment decision-making in personalized medicine. In competing risks settings, estimating CATEs from survival data allows for patient-specific assessments of treatment effectiveness for a specific event of interest while properly accounting for alternative event types. This distinction is essential in the presence of comorbidities, where competing causes of death may otherwise confound the therapeutic benefit. Focusing on right-censored survival times with binary treatment, we examine CATEs defined as covariate-conditional differences in the absolute risk for the event of interest at a fixed time. To this end, we study meta-learners which adapt machine learning algorithms for CATE estimation in competing risks scenarios. We systematically compare six meta-learners, combining Cox regression or random survival forests for risk modeling with elastic net regression or random forests for direct CATE modeling. To provide practical guidance on model selection, we evaluate their performance in multiple simulation settings, that differ in hazard complexity, treatment heterogeneity, treatment assignment, event type distribution and censoring. To facilitate applied use, we provide the R package, crsurvlearners, which implements all considered approaches.

While green finance has become a key instrument for low-carbon city transitions, its actual decarbonization effects and transmission mechanisms remain unclear. This study employs econometric models and machine learning-based analysis to examine whether and how green finance reduces city-level carbon intensity. Results show that green finance significantly lowers carbon intensity, with green bonds and green investment having the strongest impacts and evident spatial spillovers. The effects vary by development level, being most pronounced in Fourth- and Fifth-tier cities. Mediation analysis reveals that green finance operates mainly through energy structure optimization, followed by industrial upgrading, foreign direct investment, and technological innovation. SHAP analysis confirms substantial differences across financial instruments, with green bonds, funds, and credit contributing most to decarbonization. Moreover, the marginal impact is stronger in cities with low technological capacity, high industrial dependency, and coal-based energy mixes. These findings provide theoretical support and policy guidance for building a multi-level, regionally differentiated green finance system to promote inclusive low-carbon transitions. Keywords: Green Finance; Carbon Intensity; Decarbonization Effect; Machine Learning; City

Transfer learning addresses the challenge of transfering knowledge from one domain to another. Traditional transfer learning focuses on adapting models trained on a source domain (with a lot of observations) to improve performance on a target domain (with few observations). In this work we consider the case of a model shift and we focus on the transfer learning applied to a causal forest namely HTERF. This causal forest aims to estimate the Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE). The approach considered is the offset method presented by Wang (2016) adapted to a causal context. This method relies on the use of intermediate models in order to estimate the offset between source and target distributions. Our main result is a bound on the CATE error of HTERF on target depending on the error of the intermediate models. Simulation studies show the good performances of this approach in different settings on simulations and on a real-world dataset.

A central goal of modern causal inference is estimating heterogeneous treatment effects to answer questions like "how does an intervention affect each unit," rather than only on average. We study this problem with panel-data where we observe $n$ units across $m$ times under unknown, non-uniform treatment assignments. The data in this setting is naturally represented as a matrix of all unit--time treatment effects. Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects can then be expressed as obtaining a good estimation of each row's average in this matrix. This allows us to formulate the problem as matrix completion, which can be solved under natural low-rankness assumptions. However, existing matrix-completion guarantees are not powerful enough to get meaningful bounds for the per-row guarantee required for estimating the heterogeneous treatment effect; roughly speaking, they are only useful for estimating average treatment effect bounds, as also illustrated in a recent line of work. We give a simple, computationally efficient estimator that, without knowledge of the propensities and under standard low-rankness and regularity assumptions, achieves a row-wise $\ell_2$ error of $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{\frac{1}{n} + \frac{n}{m^2}})$. Technically, our analysis establishes the first sharp row-wise $\ell_2$-perturbation bound for low-rank approximation, complementing existing spectral-, Frobenius-, and entrywise perturbation theory.

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.

When treatment effects are naturally expressed as ratios -- as in medicine, pricing, and marketing -- the ratio-based CATE $τ(x) = E[Y|W=1,X=x] / E[Y|W=0,X=x]$ is the appropriate estimand. Yet existing estimators either impose a log-linear parametric structure or apply generic regression without robustness guarantees for this functional. We introduce the Q-Learner, which decomposes $τ(x)$ into a product of two odds ratios, reducing ratio-CATE estimation for binary outcomes to two propensity classification tasks. We further derive doubly robust augmentations for both S/T- and Q-style ratio learners and characterize their distinct robustness properties. In benchmarks on seven RCT datasets, the Q-Learner is the most consistently competitive method in low-conversion regimes, where its propensity-only construction sidesteps the imbalanced regression that hurts outcome-based estimators. On four observational datasets, where propensity must be estimated and confounding cannot be ruled out, the DR learners introduced here decisively come out on top, making them practitioners' natural default for confounded observational data.

Estimating treatment effects from observational data requires choosing an adjustment set, but valid adjustment depends on an unknown causal graph. Graph misspecification can cause under-coverage, while graph-agnostic conformal wrappers may regain nominal coverage only through large padding. We introduce CausalGuard, a structure-weighted conformal framework that calibrates after aggregating graph-conditional doubly robust pseudo-outcomes. Candidate DAGs are proposed from an LLM-derived edge prior, pruned by conditional-independence tests, and reweighted by Bayesian Information Criterion. A composite nonconformity score then calibrates the posterior-weighted pseudo-outcome. CausalGuard provides distribution-free finite-sample marginal coverage for this aggregated pseudo-outcome; under causal identification, overlap, conditional-mean nuisance stability, and concentration on target-aligned valid adjustment strategies, its conditional mean converges to the true Conditional Average Treatment Effect. Across five benchmarks, CausalGuard attains mean coverage above the nominal 90% level for the directly evaluable target and reduces width when graph-agnostic conformal baselines require large padding. Stress tests show that CausalGuard suppresses invalid collider adjustment and remains stable under misspecified priors when the retained candidate set is data-supported.

Marketing decisions reflect the interaction of latent consumer heterogeneity, time-varying internal states, and explicit interventions, a structure that current prediction- and language-oriented models do not capture in a unified manner. We propose a Three-in-One world-model architecture in which a Deep Boltzmann Machine (DBM) learns a frozen belief representation from demographics, time, and lagged actions and outcomes, with lightweight task-specific adapters attached on top. The same belief supports three tasks within a single framework: (i) energy-based consistency evaluation through the DBM's free energy, (ii) outcome prediction through adapters, and (iii) counterfactual inference by holding the belief fixed and varying only the action input given to the adapter. Using a controlled simulation in which the latent price sensitivity, promotion responsiveness, and base preference of each consumer are known, we show that the adapters match a strong MLP baseline on visit- and purchase-AUC while recovering heterogeneous treatment effects substantially better than S-, T-, X-, and DR-learner meta-learners and a Causal Forest baseline built on the same raw features, with the largest gap on a confounded price-promotion intervention. Complementing this, free-energy clamps systematically penalize counterfactual purchase trajectories that lack prior promotional exposure, and the penalty itself depends on the latent base preference in the expected direction. These results indicate that DBM beliefs disentangle latent traits in a form that survives counterfactual queries, providing an integrated world-model substrate for marketing intervention.

Published transfer-BO comparisons often estimate an average treatment effect of acquisition choice over hidden regime variables, while practitioners need the conditional effect for their specific prior quality, budget ratio, and metric. An audit of 40 transfer-BO papers from NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AISTATS, UAI, TMLR, JMLR, and AutoML-Conf (2022-2025) finds that 98% never vary B/|A| as a controlled axis. On the same GDSC2 benchmark, changing only the budget reverses the ranking: at B=50, Greedy outperforms UCB by 0.050 Hit@1, while at B=100, UCB outperforms Greedy by 0.035. We capture this transition with the Portable Regime Score PRS=(B/|A|)(1-rho), where rho is the prior rank correlation and can be estimated from pilot contexts before the main comparison. Across 79 conditions spanning chemistry, drug-response biology, and HPO, a hierarchical model gives beta=0.50 (p=1.1e-9), and 19% of conditions fall in an equivalence zone where |advantage|<0.01 Hit@1. In five published reversal cases, PRS predicts the winner from pre-comparison observables. A No-Free-Leaderboard proposition explains why unconditional rankings are unstable: when CATE changes sign across regimes, the reported ATE becomes a function of benchmark mixture. RegimePlanner, which estimates rho online and switches acquisition accordingly, wins all 16 HPO-B search spaces at B=100 and exceeds the matched {Greedy,UCB} per-context oracle on GDSC2 by 18%. Pre-registered predictions achieve 27/40=67.5% overall accuracy and above 90% within EMA prior families. The practical protocol is simple: report B/|A|, rho, K, and metric alongside any claimed acquisition advantage.

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).

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for estimating treatment effects, yet they are often underpowered for detecting effect heterogeneity. Large observational studies (OS) can supplement RCTs for conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation, but a key barrier is covariate mismatch: the two sources measure different, only partially overlapping, covariates. We propose CALM (Calibrated ALignment under covariate Mismatch), which learns embeddings that map each source's features into a common representation space. OS outcome models are transferred to the RCT embedding space and calibrated using trial data, preserving causal identification from randomization. Finite-sample risk bounds decompose into alignment error, outcome-model complexity, and calibration complexity terms, making explicit when the learned embedding is accurate enough to reduce variance. We instantiate CALM in two forms: a closed-form linear version, CALM-Lin, and a neural representation-learning version, CALM-NN. Across 51 simulation settings, calibration-based linear methods are effectively tied in linear-CATE regimes, while CALM-NN wins all 22 nonlinear-CATE settings by wide margins. Moreover, on two real-data studies CALM-NN delivers the largest gains over the trial-only baseline.

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.