Biases in observational data of treatments pose a major challenge to estimating expected treatment outcomes in different populations. An important technique that accounts for these biases is reweighting samples to minimize the discrepancy between treatment groups. We present a novel reweighting approach that uses bi-level optimization to alternately train a discriminator to minimize classification error, and a balancing weights generator that uses exponentiated gradient descent to maximize this error. This approach borrows principles from generative adversarial networks (GANs) to exploit the power of classifiers for measuring two-sample divergence. We provide theoretical results for conditions in which the estimation error is bounded by two factors: (i) the discrepancy measure induced by the discriminator; and (ii) the weights variability. Experimental results on several benchmarks comparing to previous state-of-the-art reweighting methods demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in estimating causal effects.
Our algorithm, and all the methods we reviewed above, balance covariates without using outcome data. The balanced data may be used for subsequent causal inference analysis of different outcomes, or integrated with outcome models. Other state-of-the-art methods for causal inference, such as BART @cite_8 and Causal Forests @cite_0 focus on training outcome models that allow causal inference for a specific outcome. Recent works analyze both outcomes and biases for deriving the upper bounds on effect estimation error, combining outcome prediction accuracy and a measure of the bias @cite_31 @cite_32 . These bounds allow learning a new representation of the data that optimizes the combined objective using deep neural networks. In @cite_25 , deep networks were also incorporated in a framework that attempts to estimate the joint probabilities that allow counterfactual reasoning using variational auto encoders. A different line of work applies GANs to another task of causal discovery: learning the causal structure that generates the data @cite_12 .
@cite_8 @cite_32 @cite_0 @cite_31 @cite_25 @cite_12
2786899851 1850984366 2716974933 2750585749
We study optimal covariate balance for causal inferences from observational data when rich covariates and complex relationships necessitate flexible modeling with neural networks. Standard approaches such as propensity weighting and matching balancing fail in such settings due to miscalibrated propensity nets and inappropriate covariate representations, respectively. We propose a new method based on adversarial training of a weighting and a discriminator network that effectively addresses this methodological gap. This is demonstrated through new theoretical characterizations of the method as well as empirical results using both fully connected architectures to learn complex relationships and convolutional architectures to handle image confounders, showing how this new method can enable strong causal analyses in these challenging settings. The discovery of causal relationships from purely observational data is a fundamental problem in science. The most elementary form of such a causal discovery problem is to decide whether X causes Y or, alternatively, Y causes X, given joint observations of two variables X,Y. An example is to decide whether altitude causes temperature, or vice versa, given only joint measurements of both variables. Even under the simplifying assumptions of no confounding, no feedback loops, and no selection bias, such bivariate causal discovery problems are challenging. Nevertheless, several approaches for addressing those problems have been proposed in recent years. We review two families of such methods: methods based on Additive Noise Models (ANMs) and Information Geometric Causal Inference (IGCI). We present the benchmark CAUSEEFFECTPAIRS that consists of data for 100 different causee ffect pairs selected from 37 data sets from various domains (e.g., meteorology, biology, medicine, engineering, economy, etc.) and motivate our decisions regarding the "ground truth" causal directions of all pairs. We evaluate the performance of several bivariate causal discovery methods on these real-world benchmark data and in addition on artificially simulated data. Our empirical results on real-world data indicate that certain methods are indeed able to distinguish cause from effect using only purely observational data, although more benchmark data would be needed to obtain statistically significant conclusions. One of the best performing methods overall is the method based on Additive Noise Models that has originally been proposed by (2009), which obtains an accuracy of 63 ± 10 and an AUC of 0.74 ± 0.05 on the real-world benchmark. As the main theoretical contribution of this work we prove the consistency of that method. We propose a novel approach for inferring the individualized causal effects of a treatment (intervention) from observational data. Our approach conceptualizes causal inference as a multitask learning problem; we model a subject's potential outcomes using a deep multitask network with a set of shared layers among the factual and counterfactual outcomes, and a set of outcome-specific layers. The impact of selection bias in the observational data is alleviated via a propensity-dropout regularization scheme, in which the network is thinned for every training example via a dropout probability that depends on the associated propensity score. The network is trained in alternating phases, where in each phase we use the training examples of one of the two potential outcomes (treated and control populations) to update the weights of the shared layers and the respective outcome-specific layers. Experiments conducted on data based on a real-world observational study show that our algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art. Machine learning is now being used to make crucial decisions about people's lives. For nearly all of these decisions there is a risk that individuals of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other subpopulation are unfairly discriminated against. Our recent method has demonstrated how to use techniques from counterfactual inference to make predictions fair across different subpopulations. This method requires that one provides the causal model that generated the data at hand. In general, validating all causal implications of the model is not possible without further assumptions. Hence, it is desirable to integrate competing causal models to provide counterfactually fair decisions, regardless of which causal "world" is the correct one. In this paper, we show how it is possible to make predictions that are approximately fair with respect to multiple possible causal models at once, thus mitigating the problem of exact causal specification. We frame the goal of learning a fair classifier as an optimization problem with fairness constraints entailed by competing causal explanations. We show how this optimization problem can be efficiently solved using gradient-based methods. We demonstrate the flexibility of our model on two real-world fair classification problems. We show that our model can seamlessly balance fairness in multiple worlds with prediction accuracy.