Heterogeneous Treatment Effects

Information systems (IS) researchers increasingly use quasi-experimental methods such as difference-in-differences (DiD) and instrumental variables (IV) to recover causal effects from observational panel data. Power calculations that justify these designs assume i.i.d. errors, but the deeper problem is what even a cluster-robust calculator cannot see. We report a Monte Carlo study over 9837 parameter conditions (approx 9.8 million datasets) and decompose the planned-versus-achieved power gap. The serial-correlation component is recoverable by an AR(1)-aware calculator when rho is known, and partially when rho must be estimated from short pre-periods, but panel attrition, staggered-adoption bias, and parallel-trends pretesting are captured by no closed-form formula; exogenous attrition alone costs approx 8 to 11 percentage points at the few-hundred-to-thousand sample sizes IS studies use. Treatment-correlated, outcome-dependent attrition instead induces bias, not just power loss. For IV, holding first-stage F fixed, larger N neither raises power nor curbs exclusion bias, though with a fixed instrument more data does sharpen the first stage, so identification rests on instrument strength, not sample size.

Estimating the causal effects of medical treatments is difficult when clinically important outcomes are costly to measure or require long follow-up. Short-term or inexpensive surrogate outcomes offer a potential alternative, but surrogate biomarkers may be unavailable or difficult to identify. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled increasingly accurate prediction of clinical outcomes from inexpensive, high-dimensional measurements, which creates an opportunity to use AI predictions themselves as surrogates. To this end, we develop a framework for estimating treatment effects from paired measurements obtained before and after treatment for each treated individual. A pretrained AI model is applied to the before and after measurements, and our estimator compares the resulting outcome predictions. We characterize the technical assumptions under which this within-person contrast identifies the average treatment effect on the treated, even when clinical outcomes are never observed for treated individuals. When these assumptions cannot be justified, we use prediction-powered inference to correct bias using a small number of observed clinical outcomes and obtain valid inference. Synthetic and real-world cardio-oncology experiments demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the approach.

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.

Conformal counterfactual prediction constructs prediction sets with finite-sample coverage guarantees for counterfactual outcomes and individual treatment effects under the no-interference assumption. In this work, we relax this assumption by allowing each unit's potential outcomes to depend on other units' treatments and covariates. In this setting, propensity-score reweighting does not restore weighted exchangeability, and existing methods may fail to achieve valid coverage. To address this issue, we develop interference-adjusted weighted conformal prediction that accounts for interference by constructing an observable upper bound on the ideal and unobserved conformal $p$-value under the target intervention. The resulting prediction sets provide finite-sample marginal coverage guarantees for counterfactual outcomes and individual treatment effects in both transductive and inductive settings. We also derive a sharper construction when intervention-induced changes in nonconformity scores are bounded. Numerical experiments show that our methods preserve nominal coverage, whereas existing methods may not.

Average treatment effect (ATE) estimation in observational studies is a fundamental statistical tool used frequently in social science, medicine, and other fields. These fields often work with sensitive data where privacy protections are important, so a differentially private mechanism for ATE estimation is highly desirable. Here we present two propensity score-based algorithms for ATE estimation on observational data, one improving the inverse probability weighting (IPW) method used in prior work, and the other using blocking on the propensity score (BPS). Both show lower error and less bias than prior work, with the BPS-based algorithm frequently reducing error by 75% or more compared to prior work.

Quantile treatment effects (QTEs) measure the effect of a treatment on the distribution of an outcome, and their estimation at extreme quantile levels is of central interest in applications where the target quantiles lie far beyond the range of the data. For heavy-tailed potential outcomes, existing extremal QTE estimators rely on extrapolation combined with a causal extreme value index (EVI) estimator, but the resulting estimator is not invariant under a common location shift of the potential outcome distributions, even though the population QTE is. We address this issue in two steps. First, we adapt the location-invariant Fraga estimator of the EVI to the causal setting using inverse propensity score weighting. Second, we replace the original extrapolation formula with a difference-based scheme, under which the location parameter cancels when quantile differences are taken. The resulting QTE estimator is therefore location invariant. We establish the consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed extremal QTE estimators, and provide a consistent variance estimator, leading to asymptotically valid inference. A simulation study confirms the location invariance, the stability with respect to the threshold, and the coverage of the proposed methods.

Predictive explanation methods attribute a model output; they do not, by themselves, attribute an intervention effect on the real-world outcome. We introduce the Causal Attribution Score (CAS), a compact score architecture for causal explanation. CAS starts from an identified interventional coalition game, allocates the joint intervention contrast with causal Shapley contributions, and converts those raw outcome-scale effects into Local CAS, Signed Local CAS, and two complementary Global CAS summaries. The innovation is not a new Shapley formula, but a local-to-global causal reporting layer with an explicit intervention target. In the known-truth benchmark, eight repeated primary-interaction simulations (n = 2,200 each, three actions) gave mean Local CAS MAE of 0.107 for coalition-aware CAS, compared with 0.173 for one-at-a-time normalisation and 0.213 for a global normalised absolute ATE vector. The paired advantage over one-at-a-time normalisation increased from -0.003 under additivity to 0.091 under strong interactions. On both empirical DoubleML datasets, 401(k) eligibility/net financial assets (n = 9,915) and Pennsylvania reemployment bonus/unemployment duration (n = 5,099), predictive SHAP/TreeSHAP rankings differed materially from Feature-CAS rankings of treatment-effect modifiers. In Pennsylvania, dep1 (exactly one dependent) moved from predictive global rank 13 to Feature-CAS rank 2 and was the leading local Feature-CAS modifier. These results isolate the added value of separating what predicts the outcome from what explains heterogeneity in an estimated causal effect.

Generating actionable financial advice from business records demands that models integrate numerical reasoning, domain knowledge, and sound judgment, while avoiding recommendations that could harm the business. Direct supervision is difficult: historical decisions are not necessarily optimal, and high-quality free-form labels are expensive to obtain. We formulate financial advice generation as a reinforcement learning problem and fine-tune an open-weight language model using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Our reward is an LLM-as-a-judge rubric that scores each recommendation across multiple binary dimensions of advice quality, augmented with a safety gate for harm prevention. Since LLM-based evaluation alone cannot confirm whether improvements reflect genuine business value rather than adaptation to the judge, we complement it with a judge-independent audit based on a standard doubly-robust Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) estimator. Under this observational off-policy audit, our trained LLM achieves approximately twice the estimated gross-profit lift of the strongest evaluated commercial baseline ($0.0228$ vs.\ $0.0104$), together with the lowest downside rate and the least negative tail risk of any policy evaluated. Notably, the two evaluations do not rank the baselines identically: the untrained base model places last on the judge rubric but second on the causal audit, indicating that the audit captures a signal the judge does not. Our results demonstrate that GRPO with a finance-grounded reward signal can produce substantially more useful business recommendations than commercial LLMs, and that a judge-independent causal audit is a valuable complement to, rather than a confirmation of, LLM-as-a-judge assessment in financial NLP.

Large-scale targeting and recommendation systems are typically built around predictive scores fed into heuristic or local allocation. When the business goal is incremental impact, as in marketing campaigns, incentives, and notifications, this paradigm systematically misallocates resources toward users who would have acted anyway. We present a decision-centric framework that instead optimizes causal effects under global constraints, aligning three components under a single objective: a causal neural network with a Transformer backbone for individual treatment-effect estimation, a Bayesian neural-bandit layer for uncertainty-aware exploration, and a dual-based large-scale linear-programming layer for constrained allocation. The framework also supports sequential context and multi-outcome, attribute-conditioned scoring through a Transformer encoder and outcome embeddings. We evaluate it with offline simulations on a public bandit dataset, targeted architectural ablations, and an online A/B test on LinkedIn Feed marketing traffic. We also distill production lessons on causal training-data construction and cost and delivery control, which were critical to successful deployment. The end-to-end treatment policy delivered a statistically significant $+7.20\%$ lift in the primary long-term-value metric, demonstrating the feasibility of production-scale causal optimization under business constraints.

Estimating counterfactual outcomes over time from longitudinal observational data is central to clinical decision support. Existing methods rely on domain confusion -- adversarial training that renders representations invariant to treatment assignment -- yet this invariance creates a mutual information conflict: it suppresses treatment-correlated covariate signals necessary for accurate outcome prediction. We formalise this tension via a Jensen-Shannon divergence bound on counterfactual prediction error and develop two complementary models. CSSD (Causal State-Space model with Direct decoder) adapts selective State Space Models with a parallel multi-step decoder that eliminates accumulated rollout error by producing all prediction horizons simultaneously in a single forward pass. CSSPD (Causal State-Space model with Predictive regularisation and Direct decoder) augments CSSD with Contrastive Predictive Coding and Local Information Maximisation to reinforce temporal predictability in the balancing representation and recover local covariate information destroyed by domain confusion. On MIMIC-III, CSSPD achieves lower counterfactual RMSE than the Causal Transformer at every horizon tau >= 2 at O(T) encoder cost, with gains from 0.02 (2-step) to 0.07 (6-step). On Cancer Simulation across confounding strengths gamma in {0,1,2,3,4}, CSSPD outperforms CT at gamma <= 3 (margins 25.9%--37.0%), and CSSD achieves the lowest overall average RMSE (12.7% reduction over CT), confirming the MI conflict analysis. To our knowledge, this is the first work to formalise the balancing-prediction MI conflict and propose a structured resolution through complementary predictive and information-theoretic training objectives.

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.

This work presents a novel attention-based framework for estimating the Individual Probability of Treatment Benefit (IPTB) in survival analysis contexts. The proposed model, called Surv-IPTB, directly quantifies the probability that a specific patient will experience extended survival time under treatment versus control. We reformulate IPTB estimation as a binary classification problem, leveraging pairwise patient comparisons across treatment and control cohorts. The framework incorporates a principled handling of right-censored observations through imprecise probability representations, where uncertain treatment effects are characterized by interval-valued probabilities. An attention mechanism with learnable query-key transformations enables flexible, data-driven aggregation of pairwise comparisons, while simultaneously learning soft class probabilities for censored cases. Through extensive experiments on synthetic datasets with complex nonlinear structures, including spiral, bell-shaped, and circular feature spaces, we demonstrate that our approach maintains robust performance across varying censoring rates and treatment effect strengths. The model consistently outperforms meta-learner baselines (T-learner and S-learner) equipped with random survival forests, Cox proportional hazards, and Beran estimators, particularly in challenging nonlinear scenarios where conventional methods exhibit significant degradation. The results establish the proposed attention-based framework as a scalable and statistically principled solution for personalized treatment benefit assessment in survival settings. The code implementing the model is publicly available.

We developed a unified covariate-adjusted causal inference framework for estimating the desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) probability for benefit-risk evaluation in randomized trials and observational studies. The framework expresses the DOOR probability as a bilinear functional of the marginal ordinal outcome distributions under the two treatment strategies, estimates conditional ordinal distributions through sequential risk-set hazards, and derives the efficient influence function (EIF) of the DOOR probability. The point-estimation simulations compared G-computation, normalized inverse probability weighting (IPW), augmented IPW (AIPW), and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE), with nuisance functions estimated using generalized linear models or Super Learner (SL). TMLE-SL showed the strongest and most consistent point-estimation performance, with AIPW-SL ranking second. EIF-based inference was then evaluated for AIPW-SL and TMLE-SL, with and without cross-fitting, across settings varying in overlap, treatment-effect heterogeneity, and treatment allocation. CVTMLE-SL showed the strongest overall performance across DOOR-scale bias, recovery of the underlying ordinal distributions, standard-error accuracy, and confidence-interval coverage. We illustrate the methodology using data from the multidrug-resistant organism network of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group.

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.

Causal inference usually concerns a scalar treatment, yet in many problems the treatment is unstructured: a text, an image, or a sequence of clinical decisions. Consider an instructor writing a course description to attract more students: the treatment is the course description, and the outcome is enrollment. The standard target, the average treatment effect of fixing the treatment to one exact value versus another, runs into two problems. It cannot be estimated, because almost no exact description recurs across courses, leaving no comparable group from which to measure its effect; and it would be of little use even if it could, since no one wants every course to carry the same description. What the instructor actually wants to know is which features of a description raise enrollment, and which of those features can be acted on across many courses. To this end, we propose a causal query for unstructured treatments: the maximally influential feature (MIF), the feature of the treatment that most strongly influences the outcome. We formalize the MIF as a binary feature of the treatment, defined by a feature-scoring function, constrained so that both of its values stay well populated, and chosen to maximize the causal effect it induces. Turning the feature on shifts the distribution of treatments toward those that display it, turning it off shifts away, and the MIF effect contrasts the two average potential outcomes. We study identification conditions for the MIF, develop algorithms to estimate it, and make it actionable through a nudging algorithm that revises a treatment along the MIF into an outcome-improving version. We illustrate the MIF algorithm across applications in text, image, and dynamic treatment sequences.

Double Machine Learning (DML) is a popular approach for treatment effect estimation in various settings, which allows a wide range of flexible machine learning methods to be used for nuisance parameter estimation while preserving valid inference. In practice, however, applied researchers must choose among many machine learning algorithms for nuisance models, and the impact of this choice on the variance estimation of DML is not well characterized. We conduct a comprehensive simulation study to compare the coverage probability of DML confidence intervals across different machine learning algorithms. In this study, we compare (1) analytical confidence intervals derived by DML theory versus (2) bootstrap confidence interval. We use a set of learners including ordinary least squares, LASSO, Random Forest, LightGBM, and Neural Networks under different data generation settings. We evaluate the performance across difference settings by bias, confidence interval width, and most importantly, coverage probability. Our results show substantial variability in coverage performance across analytical and bootstrap confidence intervals, highlighting that learner choice plays a critical role in reliable DML inference. Surprisingly, we find that in many settings, when sample size increases, the coverage probability of both DML analytical and bootstrap confidence interval decreases. We further investigate coverage probabilities using a real dataset on rural urban differences among U.S. counties. The real data analysis discovers that (1) the model performance still varies by the learner choices and (2) greater rurality has a statistically significant increasing effect on county level obesity prevalence.

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.

Traditional randomized trials often obscure clinically meaningful heterogeneity in treatment response by focusing on average effects. Leveraging real-world data to emulate clinical trials and estimate heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) offers a promising path toward more precise and efficient trial design. In this study, we emulate the DAPA-HF trial using electronic health records from the Mayo Clinic Cloud (MCC) to investigate whether HTE-guided stratification can identify patient subgroups with distinct treatment responses to dapagliflozin versus placebo in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. All-cause mortality was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models, with HTEs estimated using a Meta-S learner and subgroups defined using a decision tree-based thresholding approach. In the overall cohort of the emulation, no significant treatment difference was observed (HR, 1.681; 95% CI, 0.828-3.413; p = 0.1507). However, compared with the overall emulated cohort, in which dapagliflozin showed no statistically significant survival benefit, HTE-driven stratification identified subgroups with significant and directionally distinct treatment effects. The beneficial (low-HTE) subgroup showed a significant survival benefit from dapagliflozin (HR = 0.203, 95% CI, 0.087-0.476, p = 0.0002), whereas the harmful (high-HTE) subgroup showed a significant harmful association with markedly increased mortality risk (HR = 6.680, 95% CI, 2.759-16.171, p < 0.0001). These findings indicate that HTE-guided stratification can uncover clinically meaningful beneficial and harmful treatment-effect patterns that are masked in the full-cohort emulation.

Predictive models deployed at scale influence future data, a phenomenon called performativity. And there is always one way to cope: Train the model on new data, deploy it again, and repeat. This process, called retraining or repeated risk minimization, creates a feedback loop between model and data that real-world learning systems can't avoid. Results on performative prediction shed light on this dynamic: If the model's influence on the data is small, retraining reaches a fixed point. What remains open is why fixed points should naturally exist, and what governs retraining when the model's influence is strong. In this work we develop a new perspective on retraining -- the stable signal principle -- that addresses these questions. We start from the assumption that the prediction target has at least some small model-independent component, a stable signal, such as the intrinsic quality of an item. We prove that when a nonzero stable signal exists, repeated risk minimization, suitably regularized, converges geometrically to the direction of this stable signal. This is true even if the model's influence on the target is arbitrarily large relative to the stable signal. Regularization emerges naturally as a force to control performativity, rather than to promote generalization, revealing a new facet of an old concept. We extend the analysis to a broad family of affine retraining operators under arbitrary model-induced feature changes, heterogeneous time-varying effects, and nonlinear responses. The stable signal perspective also applies to data feedback loops in language modeling, providing new explanations for the stability of language model training from model-generated data.

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.

We propose a two-stage estimator for structural mediation parameters that combines deep representation learning with G-estimation under the "no essential heterogeneity" (NEH) assumption. We call the method UNIT. In the first stage,TARNet estimates the heterogeneous effect of a randomized treatment on a mediator by learning a shared covariate representation across treatment arms.The resulting conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimate provides a plug-in approximation to the heterogeneity-dependent component of the weight function entering the G-estimating equation of Zheng and Zhou (2015), which identifies the structural parameters even in the presence of unmeasured mediator-outcome confounding. We show that more accurate first-stage representation learning can yield a more informative plug-in weight and thereby improve the precision of the structural parameter estimator. In simulations with non-Gaussian covariates and nonlinear mediator effects, TARNet weights reduce the Stage-2 standard error of the mediation coefficient by a factor of $1.45$ to $1.51$ (median across replications, $n \ge 2000$) relative to the classical approach, at no cost to bias or coverage.

Personalized incentive allocation is vital for e-commerce, where uplift modeling is the standard for estimating Individual Treatment Effects (ITE). However, traditional models often fail in complex multi-seller environments with violations of the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA). We identify two critical challenges: Seller-level Cannibalization, where incentives shift expenditure between shops without growing the platform, and Incentive-level Cannibalization, where organic conversions or alternative rewards introduce significant noise into incrementality estimation. In this paper, we propose CanniUplift, a unified framework to mitigate these dual-source cannibalization effects. Specifically, we design Platform-level Global Alignment (PGA) to capture cross-shop substitution through global GMV consistency constraints. To tackle incentive-driven noise, we introduce Redemption-based Decomposition Denoising (RDD), which uses redemption behavior to decompose treated outcomes and reduce attribution noise within an entire-space framework. Furthermore, a Treat-Attention mechanism is designed to model intricate interactions between users' historical behaviors and current treatment options. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and large-scale industrial datasets demonstrate that CanniUplift significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Ablation studies confirm that the integration of PGA and RDD consistently improves wAUUC and wQINI. Successfully deployed online, our framework achieved a 4.08% relative increase in platform-wide incremental GMV (Delta GMV) over the production baseline and improved ROI in online A/B tests, proving effective in driving global platform growth.

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.

Adaptive experiments for average treatment effects (ATE) require randomized allocations balancing valid inference with statistical efficiency. The oracle design is a covariate-dependent Neyman rule governed by unknown arm-conditional outcome variances. We investigate whether this sequential variance-estimation and allocation process can be amortized via in-context learning. We introduce Bayesian in-context experimenters: transformer policies trained to imitate a Bayesian posterior Neyman teacher. The teacher updates nonparametric beliefs over potential outcomes using experimental history to assign posterior Neyman treatment probabilities. This design converges to the oracle rule, supporting efficient ATE inference. Transformers constructively implement this mapping through attention-based sufficient statistics and projected gradient descent, imitating Bayesian updating for Gaussian-series priors. To address unknown outcome smoothness, we combine smoothness-indexed experimenters using a mixture-of-experts transformer. The gate acts as a hierarchical posterior over smoothness classes, concentrating on near-oracle experts. By bounding the complexity of the transformer class, we prove this amortized policy can be learned via empirical risk minimization using supervised pretraining. Experiments confirm accurate teacher imitation, adaptive allocation, and improved ATE precision over baselines.

Uplift modeling, crucial for estimating individual treatment effects (ITE), faces dual challenges: flexibly leveraging inter-group similarity to enhance discriminative power and debiasing under unobserved confounding scenarios. In this paper, we propose the Cross-Head Attention Uplift Network (CHAUN) and Robust Adversarial Inverse Propensity Score (RA-IPS) method to address these limitations. CHAUN employs shared feature embeddings and cross-head attention mechanisms to dynamically integrate treatment-specific and control-specific representations, enhancing inter-group correlation modeling. Theoretically, we prove that access to the true propensity scores ensures ITE identifiability even with unobserved confounders. For practical scenarios lacking true propensity scores, RA-IPS adversarially optimizes propensity weights within constrained uncertainty sets to mitigate bias from unobserved variables. Experiments on public datasets (CRITEO-UPLIFT, LAZADA) and a production e-commerce dataset demonstrate CHAUN's superiority over state-of-the-art uplift models, achieving relative improvements of up to 25.6% in QINI scores. RA-IPS further enhances robustness, outperforming standard IPS by 5.4% under unobserved confounding. The results validate the effectiveness of our proposed methods in real-world causal inference tasks.

In oncology, access to patient-level data is often restricted. Synthetic data provides an alternative for analyzing treatment effectiveness, but existing methods for synthetic data generation fail to preserve the causal relationships between covariates, treatments, and outcomes, thereby leading to biased estimates of treatment effects. Here, we introduce OncoSynth, a generative, causally-aware machine learning framework designed to produce synthetic cohorts that enable accurate estimation of population- and patient-level treatment effects. OncoSynth uses a diffusion-based sequential approach to model how covariates influence treatment assignment and how treatment affects survival. We evaluate OncoSynth using large lung (N = 37,128) and breast cancer (N = 17,046) cohorts. Our results show that OncoSynth generates high-fidelity synthetic patient cohorts that preserve real-world patient, treatment, and outcome distributions. Notably, OncoSynth improves treatment effect estimation over existing approaches, by reducing population-level treatment effect error by up to 66%, and patient-level treatment effect error by up to 58%. Thereby, OncoSynth supports reliable evidence generation for precision oncology in settings where data sharing is restricted.

The presence of confounding bias poses a key challenge in policy evaluation, as the target causal effects of actions are not identifiable (i.e., underdetermined) from observational data. On the other hand, existing confounding-robust evaluation strategies require detailed prior knowledge about the environment or apply only to discrete treatments and outcomes. This paper investigates causal effect evaluation over the continuous domain from confounded observations, while requiring only basic temporal ordering between the treatment and the outcome. We introduce a universal discretization of the exogenous domains that approximates the observational and interventional distributions of any causal model with arbitrary accuracy using a finite number of latent states. Building on this newfound universal approximation property, we develop a novel family of Causal Gaussian process (CGP) models that effectively approximate the observational and interventional distributions of any causal model with confounded observations.

A/B testing has become the gold standard for data-driven decision-making in large-scale online experimentation, providing critical guidance for feature launch, pricing optimization, and user experience enhancement. To maximize statistical sensitivity, many technology companies routinely employ Controlled-experiment Using Pre-Experiment Data (CUPED), a technique that achieves substantial variance reduction while preserving the unbiasedness of estimating the average treatment effect. Despite its widespread adoption, several critical methodological and practical nuances of CUPED remain underexplored. This paper systematically addresses five frequently encountered yet overlooked questions regarding the application of CUPED. First, we provide a comparative analysis of various post-CUPED estimators to identify the optimal adjustment specification. Second, we evaluate the validity of regression-based adjustments and delineate robust variance estimation methods tailored for such frameworks. Finally, we extend our investigation to complex but common scenarios, including multi-arm experiments and two-stage sampling designs. Our findings reveal that in these settings, naive reliance on standard variance estimators can lead to severely misleading inferences. By offering rigorous theoretical insights and extensive experimental validation, this work deepens the conceptual understanding of CUPED. Notably, the recommended methodologies have been successfully deployed and integrated into ByteDance's experimentation platform.

Heterogeneous Treatment Effect (HTE) identification is crucial 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 provable and empirically validated consistent selection. We deploy NEXIS on two anti-poverty programs in Africa, augmenting each with satellite imagery capturing previously unmeasured environmental effect modifiers, leading to novel, interpretable and prescriptive guidelines to optimize the programs' next iterations.

State-space models (SSMs) are the standard formalism for Bayesian treatment of dynamical systems, with natural applications in statistics, signal processing, and machine learning. Despite their importance in both theory and application, dynamical systems have proven difficult to incorporate in modern probabilistic programming languages (PPLs), making state-of-the-art methods less accessible to practitioners and introducing friction in following the "Bayesian workflow." We introduce dynestyx, a probabilistic programming library with first-class support for SSMs, including state-of-the-art methods in the estimation of both states and parameters. Through a single, unified interface, users may specify arbitrary priors for discrete-time or continuous-time dynamical systems, perform inference over mixed-effect data, and make state and parameter estimates with principled uncertainty quantification.

Synthetic and distilled student data are increasingly used to enable privacy-conscious learning analytics, yet their suitability for decision-facing institutional support remains uncertain. In dropout support, generated data must preserve not only predictive utility or distributional resemblance, but also the financial-status evidence used to guide advising, payment-plan assistance, and scholarship-related decisions. Method: This study introduces CaP-Eval, a decision-facing causal-privacy audit workflow for evaluating generated student data under a fixed estimand, timing-aware adjustment design, estimator set, and empirical privacy-governance screen. The workflow compares original, distilled, adversarial synthetic, statistical synthetic, and DPGNet privacy-oriented generated data on predictive utility, treatment-effect fidelity, robustness to alternative estimators, and local training-record proximity. Results: DPGNet and distilled data preserved the original financial-status treatment-effect structure more reliably than the adversarial and Gaussian Copula baselines. DPGNet preserved full direction and rank agreement across epsilon levels; epsilon = 10 produced the smallest non-original IPW and DML deviations, while epsilon = 1 and epsilon = 5 amplified several financial-status contrasts. Distilled data remained highly faithful but retained the strongest local training-record proximity signal. TabularGNet preserved qualitative directions with moderate attenuation, and Gaussian Copula compressed effect magnitudes. Conclusions: Predictive utility, privacy orientation, empirical disclosure signals, and causal fidelity diverged; generated student data require joint audits of direction, magnitude, overlap, and release-governance risk before decision use.

Estimating the probability that a treatment outperforms a control for an individual patient, called the Individual Probability of Treatment Benefit (IPTB), offers a clinically intuitive alternative to population-average metrics. However, existing methods for IPTB estimation are largely confined to binary treatment settings, despite the prevalence of dose-varying interventions in clinical practice. We propose a general framework for IPTB estimation with ordinal outcomes under discrete dose assignments, called Dose-AIPTB (Dose Attention-based IPTB). Our approach recasts the problem as binary classification over the unobserved sign of the individual treatment effect, constructing pseudo-labels from covariate-similar pairwise comparisons and aggregating them via attention mechanisms or Nadaraya-Watson kernel regression. This formulation naturally accommodates multiple discrete dose levels, extending beyond the binary treatment paradigm. Through numerical experiments on real-world and synthetic data under covariate shift, varying sample sizes, and heterogeneous outcomes, we demonstrate that attention-based aggregation consistently outperforms kernel alternatives. The framework provides a foundation for personalized dose selection grounded in individual-level benefit probabilities. Codes implementing the model are publicly available at https://github.com/NTAILab/AIPTBDose.

Personalized medicine in acute ischemic stroke requires moving beyond average treatment effects (ATE) to individualized treatment effect (ITE) estimates to support treatment decisions. In acute ischemic stroke, mechanical thrombectomy has been shown to be more effective on average than lysis in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such as the MR CLEAN study. We aim to identify which individual patients benefit most from mechanical thrombectomy compared to lysis. The outcome of interest is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at three months, an ordinal measure of functional disability (0: no symptoms, 6: death). We demonstrate that causal transformation models on directed acyclic graphs (TRAM-DAG) can be used for ITE estimation after being fitted on observational MAGIC multi-center stroke patient data. To ensure comparability with the MR CLEAN population, which we use for validation, we train the TRAM-DAG on a MAGIC sub-population with NIHSS at admission >= 6, corresponding to one inclusion criterion of MR CLEAN. The fitted model is then used to estimate ITEs for stroke patients in the MR CLEAN population. While these ITE estimates cannot be confirmed experimentally, we show that their average is consistent with the trial's reported ATE. Furthermore, the ITE estimates correctly rank trial patients by their observed frequency of a good outcome (mRS at three months <= 2). These findings support the use of causal models like TRAM-DAG for personalized decision-making in stroke care and highlight their ability to bridge the gap between observational evidence and clinical trials.

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.

Externally controlled survival trials are increasingly used when concurrent randomized controls are infeasible, particularly in oncology and rare-disease settings with time-to-event endpoints. We target an average-treatment-effect-on-the-treated (ATT)-type marginal hazard-ratio estimand, comparing treatment with counterfactual control in the treated trial population, and estimate it using inverse-probability-weighted (IPW) Cox regression. Valid inference is challenging because IPW Cox regression depends on the weights through both event contributions and risk-set averages, making flexible machine-learning nuisance estimation difficult to incorporate directly. Building on machine-learning-assisted generalized entropy calibration (MEC) by Lee and Kim (2026), we propose MEC-Cox for ATT-weighted IPW Cox regression. The method begins with normalized source-propensity-score odds weights for external controls and then applies Bregman calibration to balance cross-fitted prognostic summaries between external controls and treated trial patients. The calibration basis may include control-survival predictions, Cox linear predictors, penalized-survival-model predictions, or other prognostic-score summaries. MEC-updated weights therefore play a dual role as source-transport and prognostic-score balancing weights. We establish consistency, characterize a calibration-induced efficiency gain, and develop a stacked sandwich variance estimator. Simulations show that MEC-Cox can reduce bias, increase efficiency, and improve coverage through flexible machine-learning-assisted adjustment.

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.

Many interventions alter the structure of an outcome distribution rather than its mean: they can split a population into disconnected regimes, create loops or holes, generate branches, or reorganize an outcome cloud while leaving the average response nearly unchanged. In such settings, mean-based causal estimands such as the average treatment effect may miss important structural effects. We introduce topological-geometrical causal metrics based on summaries of interventional outcome laws, including density-superlevel Betti summaries, Euler signatures, and persistent-homology summaries. These metrics quantify structural differences between treated and untreated outcome laws beyond averages. We also study the assumptions needed for causal interpretation. We introduce topological ignorability, a topological analogue of conditional ignorability that requires invariance of the chosen structural feature rather than the full counterfactual distribution. When the chosen summary is injective, this condition coincides with weak ignorability; for noninjective summaries, it can identify the structural feature of interest without identifying the full interventional law. We define a covariate-standardized topological-geometrical causal effect and develop practical estimators. We validate the framework in two hidden-confounding benchmarks: a fully synthetic exact benchmark and a real-covariate semi-synthetic benchmark using Wisconsin breast-cancer covariates. In both, weak ignorability fails and balancing observed covariates nearly eliminates standardized mean differences, yet the coordinate-mean average treatment effect remains biased. By contrast, selected finite density-superlevel Betti and Euler contrasts remain stable across oracle, observational, and weighted analyses.

We present a regression-adjustment framework designed for the estimation of longitudinal treatment effects in randomized experiments under static regimes. While regression-adjustment methods are useful for variance reduction in randomized experiments by using pre-treatment covariates, they usually focus only on average effects, from which we cannot obtain valuable insights into when the effects appear and how long they continue. To address this issue, we consider intermediate outcomes and evolving post-treatment covariates over time, and we represent such dynamic trajectories using transition kernels. Furthermore, we establish the asymptotic normality and the semiparametric efficiency bound for our estimator, enabling more powerful statistical inference. Simulation studies and empirical analysis using A/B test data from a streaming platform in Japan show the practical advantages of our method.

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 individual treatment effect (ITE) from observational graph data is crucial for decision-making in the fields such as commerce and medicine. This task is challenging due to interference, where individual outcomes can be influenced by the treatments and covariates of their neighbors. Existing methods attempt to model such interference for accurate ITE estimation. However, a critical issue is often overlooked: differentiated networked effect (DNE), an effect caused by local networks consisting of neighbors with varying importance and scales. Capturing DNE is vital; otherwise, we will end up with imprecise ITE estimation due to an erroneous characterization of interference, which can result in misguided decisions. To address this challenge, we propose a novel interference modeling mechanism that incorporates two partial attention mechanisms and a message amplifier. The partial attention mechanisms automatically estimate the importance of different neighbors in contributing to interference, while the message amplifier adjusts the results of the interference modeling mechanism based on the scale of neighbors, all of which enables the model to capture DNE. Experiments on three real-world graphs demonstrate that our methods outperform existing approaches for ITE estimation from graph data, which corroborates the importance of explicitly capturing DNE.

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.

Selection bias is pervasive in observational studies. For example, large scale biobanks data can exhibit ``healthy volunteer bias'' when respondents are healthier and of higher socio-economic status than the population they are meant to represent. Recovering causal effects from such sub-population is an important problem in causal inference, as estimating average treatment effects (ATE) from selected populations can result in a severely biased estimate of the ATE from the whole population. In this paper, we investigate the identifiability of the ATE under selection bias. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for ATE identifiability, leveraging weak assumptions on probability classes to characterize propensity score and selection probability. Compared to previous works, our results extend existing graphical identifiability criteria and offer a more comprehensive understanding of causal effect identification with strictly weaker conditions in the presence of selection bias.

In causal inference, confounders are variables that influence both treatment decisions and outcomes. However, unlike as in randomized clinical trials, the treatment assignment mechanism in observational studies is not known, and it is thus unclear which covariates act as confounders. Here, we aim to generate insight for causal inference and answer: which of the observed covariates act as confounders? We introduce ConfoundingSHAP, a Shapley-based method for attributing confounding strength to individual covariates. Our contributions are twofold. First, we propose a Shapley game targeted to infer the confounding strength of the covariates. Our resulting Shapley values differ from the standard applications of SHAP explanations on causal targets, such as understanding treatment effect heterogeneity, which are ill-suited for our task. Second, as our task requires evaluating the value function over many adjustment sets, we provide a scalable TabPFN-based estimation that avoids exhaustive refitting. We demonstrate the practical value across various datasets, where ConfoundingSHAP provides informative explanations of which observed covariates drive confounding and thereby helps to provide more insight for causal inference in practice.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with machine learning has attracted substantial attention in both academic research and industrial practice. However, the two communities often evaluate models under markedly different conditions. Methodological work typically relies on semi-simulated benchmarks and metrics that require counterfactual outcomes, whereas real-world applications rely on observable metrics based on ranking or test outcomes. Despite the well-known gap between methodological progress and practical deployment, the relationship between these evaluation regimes has not been examined systematically. We conduct a large-scale empirical study of treatment effect evaluation across standard semi-simulated benchmark families and real-world datasets. Our benchmark covers meta-learners paired with multiple base learners, as well as specialized causal machine learning models. We evaluate these methods using observable metrics common in application-oriented literature, alongside counterfactual metrics commonly used in methods papers. Our results reveal two complementary gaps. First, counterfactual metrics do not reliably recover the estimators preferred by observable metrics, even on the same semi-simulated benchmarks. Second, rankings obtained on semi-simulated benchmarks do not transfer to real datasets. We further find that simple meta-learners with strong base models are consistently competitive, in contrast to specialized causal models. Overall, our findings suggest that progress in treatment effect estimation research should not be assessed solely through counterfactual metrics and semi-simulated benchmarks, but it would benefit from incorporating observable metrics and real-data validation.

The transition to First-Price Auctions (FPA) in digital advertising has spurred significant research, yet existing work typically assumes access to a valuation oracle, ignoring the reality that values must be inferred from censored data. While Linear Treatment Effect (LTE) models address this by learning value uplift, they have not been adapted to realistic settings with hard Budget constraints or Return-on-Spend (RoS) targets requiring regret and violation control. In this work, we propose a unified primal-dual framework for constrained FPAs that jointly learns the latent LTE valuation parameters and the competitor's bid distribution. This simultaneous learning introduces a critical technical challenge: the estimation error is dynamically scaled by the Lagrangian multiplier, potentially leading to unbounded regret. We resolve this by leveraging a strong Slater condition and a novel adaptive burn-in procedure to stabilize the dual variables. Our approach achieves near-optimal regret guarantees, providing the first theoretically grounded solution for constrained bidding with latent valuations.

We introduce the Sinkhorn treatment effect, an entropic optimal transport measure of divergence between counterfactual distributions. Unlike classical quantities such as the average treatment effect, this measure captures differences across entire distributions. We analyze this divergence as a statistical functional and show it can be written as a smooth transformation of counterfactual mean embeddings with an appropriate kernel. This characterization allows us to establish first-order pathwise differentiability in general, and second-order pathwise differentiability under the null hypothesis of equal counterfactual distributions. Leveraging this smoothness, we construct debiased estimators and use them to obtain asymptotically valid tests for distributional treatment effects with a fixed entropic regularization parameter. Because the power of the test depends on this unknown parameter, we further propose an aggregated test that combines evidence across a grid of regularization choices. Experiments on simulated and image data demonstrate the practical advantages of our estimator and testing procedure.

Distributional treatment effects can be invisible to means: a treatment may preserve average outcomes while changing tails, modes, dispersion, or rare-event probabilities. Kernel tests can detect discrepancies between interventional outcome laws, but global tests do not reveal where the laws differ. We propose DR-ME, to our knowledge the first semiparametrically efficient finite-location test for interpretable distributional treatment effects. DR-ME evaluates an interventional kernel witness at learned outcome locations, returning causal-discrepancy coordinates rather than only a global rejection. From observational data, we derive orthogonal doubly robust kernel features whose centered oracle form is the canonical gradient of this finite witness. For fixed locations, we characterize the local testing limit: DR-ME is chi-square calibrated under the null, has noncentral chi-square local power, and uses the covariance whitening that optimizes local signal-to-noise for discrepancies visible through the selected coordinates. This efficient local-power geometry yields a principled location-learning criterion, with sample splitting preserving post-selection validity. Experiments show near-nominal type-I error, competitive power against global doubly robust kernel tests, and interpretable learned locations that localize distributional effects in a semi-synthetic medical-imaging study.

Individual treatment effects are not point-identified from data. The Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS) circumvents this limitation by characterizing individual-level causality through intersection bounds derived from combined experimental and observational data. In finite samples, however, standard plug-in estimators systematically fail: they violate structural probability constraints and suffer from extremum bias induced by max-min operators, yielding spuriously narrow intervals. We propose a neural framework for finite-sample PNS estimation that resolves both pathologies. We introduce an anchored neural architecture that guarantees structural constraint satisfaction by construction. To correct extremum bias, we employ precision-corrected intersection-bound inference, leveraging Epistemic Neural Networks for scalable, high-dimensional uncertainty quantification. Empirical evaluations confirm that this approach maintains nominal coverage and exact constraint validity in high-dimensional regimes where standard estimators systematically undercover.

Target trial emulation (TTE) enables causal questions to be studied with observational data when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are infeasible. Yet treatment-effect methods often address causal estimation, missingness, and temporal structure separately, limiting their robustness in electronic health records (EHRs), where time-varying confounding and missing-not-at-random (MNAR) biomarkers can reach 50%--80%. We propose a two-stage pipeline for treatment effect estimation from incomplete longitudinal EHRs. First, CausalFlow-T, a directed acyclic graph (DAG)-constrained normalizing flow with long short-term memory (LSTM)-encoded patient history, performs exact invertible counterfactual inference, avoiding approximation errors from variational inference and separating confounding through explicit causal structure. Ablations on four synthetic and one semi-synthetic benchmark with known counterfactuals show that DAG constraints and exact inference address distinct failure modes: neither compensates for the other. Second, because CausalFlow-T requires completed inputs, we introduce an LLM-driven evolutionary imputer that proposes executable imputation operators rather than individual entries, and evaluate it with three large language model (LLM) backends, including two open-source models. Across 30%--80% MNAR missingness, this imputer achieves the best pooled rank over biomarker and causal metrics, leading in point-wise accuracy and temporal extrapolation while preserving average treatment effect (ATE) recovery as statistical baselines degrade. On Swiss primary-care EHRs from adults with type 2 diabetes initiating a GLP-1 receptor agonist or SGLT-2 inhibitor, the pipeline estimates a per-protocol weight-loss difference of -0.98 kg [95% CI -1.01, -0.96] favoring GLP-1 receptor agonists, consistent with randomized evidence and obtained from realistically incomplete real-world EHRs.

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.

Doubly Robust (DR) estimation of treatment effect relies on an untestable assumption that is the absence of unobserved confounding. This assumption is par- ticularly problematic in the context of healthcare research, where variables like pre- scription refill rates serve as proxies for unobserved behaviors such as medication adherence. These proxy variables are often endogenous, exhibiting correlation with the regression error term due to unmeasured confounding or measurement error. We propose a copula-corrected doubly robust estimator that addresses endogeneity in both the treatment and outcome models without requiring instrumental variables. Gaussian copulas model the joint distribution of endogenous covariates and the error term, enabling consistent estimation while preserving the doubly robust property that requires correct specification of either the treatment or outcome model, not both. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that naive DR estimation exhibits substantial bias under endogeneity, whereas our corrected estimator recovers unbiased treatment effects across different data-generating processes. We apply our method to examine the effect of nutritional counseling on blood pressure using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. Naive DR estimation suggests counseling is associated with increased blood pressure. After copula correction, this effect becomes statistically insignificant, consistent with literature showing modest effects of nutri- Counseling in reducing blood pressure. Our methodology provides researchers with a practical tool for obtaining treatment effects in the presence of endogeneity.

Counterfactual prompting (i.e., perturbing a single factor and measuring output change) is widely used to evaluate things like LLM bias and CoT faithfulness. But in this work we argue that observed effects cannot be attributed to the targeted factor without accounting for baseline ``meaning-preserving'' modifications to text that establish general model sensitivity. This is because every counterfactual edit is a compound treatment that bundles the variable of interest with incidental surface-form variation; this violates treatment variation irrelevance. We observe prediction flip rates on MedQA of 14.9% when we surgically change patient gender. However, this is statistically indistinguishable from the flip rates induced by simply paraphrasing inputs (14.1%). In this case, it would therefore be unwarranted to conclude that the LLM is especially sensitive to patient gender. To account for this and robustly measure the effects of targeted interventions, we propose a framework in which we compare (via statistical testing) differences observed under target interventions to those induced by paraphrasing inputs. We then use this framework to revisit a analysis done on the MedPerturb dataset, which reported evidence of model sensitivity to patient demographics and stylistic cues. We find that these effects largely dissipate when we account for general model sensitivity, with only 5 of 120 tests reaching statistical significance. Applying the same framework to occupational biography classification, we detect clearly significant directional gender bias, showing that the framework identifies real directional effects even when they are small. We evaluate a range of metrics -- aggregate, per-sample distributional, and regression -- and find that per-sample metrics are dramatically more powerful than aggregate metrics and regression powerfully and uniquely characterizes effect direction and magnitude.

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).

Treatment allocation under budget constraints is a central challenge in digital advertising: advertisers must decide which users to show ads to while spending a limited budget wisely. The standard approach follows a two-stage offline pipeline - first collect historical data to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE), then solve a constrained optimization to allocate the budget. This works well with abundant data, but fails in cold-start settings such as new campaigns, new markets, or new customer segments where little historical data exists. We propose Budget-Constrained Causal Bandits (BCCB), an online framework that learns which users respond to ads while simultaneously spending the budget, making treatment decisions one user at a time. BCCB unifies three components into a single sequential process: learning individual-level ad effectiveness, exploring users whose response is uncertain, and pacing the budget over time. We evaluated on the Criteo Uplift dataset, a large-scale advertising dataset from a real randomized controlled trial. Our key finding is a data-efficiency crossover: offline methods require approximately 10,000 historical observations to produce reliable results, while BCCB operates effectively from the very first user. Furthermore, BCCB exhibits 3-5x lower performance variance between runs, making it more practical for real campaign planning. Among purely online methods, BCCB consistently outperforms standard Thompson Sampling, budgeted Thompson Sampling, and greedy HTE estimation across all budget levels tested.

Progression to dialysis or end-stage renal disease is a rare but clinically important outcome. Clinicians need evidence on how medication exposures influence downstream risk. We constructed a fixed-window EHR cohort (90-day observation, 730-day prediction; N=81401; dialysis/ESRD prevalence: 1.1%) and modeled sequences of diagnoses, procedures, and medications with kidney laboratory trends (creatinine, BUN, eGFR). A transformer-based causal multi-head model was trained to estimate drug- and ingredient-level average treatment effects (ATEs) using counterfactual exposure removal and insertion under a full medication history setup. On test set, predictive performance reached an AUC of 0.694 and PR-AUC of 0.094. At the selected decision threshold (0.883), the model achieved an F1 score of 0.201 with a Brier score of 0.018. Post-hoc causal analyses of lab changes (eGFR, creatinine, BUN) using IPTW, AIPW, naive, and covariate-adjusted OLS methods assessed clinical directionality. Results showed partial protective-direction support for ACE/ARB exposures and worsening-direction signals for loop diuretics.