Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
97 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Variable Importance Matching for Causal Inference (2302.11715v2)

Published 23 Feb 2023 in stat.ME, cs.LG, and econ.EM

Abstract: Our goal is to produce methods for observational causal inference that are auditable, easy to troubleshoot, accurate for treatment effect estimation, and scalable to high-dimensional data. We describe a general framework called Model-to-Match that achieves these goals by (i) learning a distance metric via outcome modeling, (ii) creating matched groups using the distance metric, and (iii) using the matched groups to estimate treatment effects. Model-to-Match uses variable importance measurements to construct a distance metric, making it a flexible framework that can be adapted to various applications. Concentrating on the scalability of the problem in the number of potential confounders, we operationalize the Model-to-Match framework with LASSO. We derive performance guarantees for settings where LASSO outcome modeling consistently identifies all confounders (importantly without requiring the linear model to be correctly specified). We also provide experimental results demonstrating the method's auditability, accuracy, and scalability as well as extensions to more general nonparametric outcome modeling.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (40)
  1. Generalized random forests. The Annals of Statistics, 47(2):1148 – 1178, 2019.
  2. EconML: A Python Package for ML-Based Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Estimation. https://github.com/py-why/EconML, 2019. Version 0.14.0.
  3. Assessing treatment effect variation in observational studies: Results from a data challenge, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.07592.
  4. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and causal parameters, 2017.
  5. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters, 2018.
  6. Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: A general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3):932–945, 2013.
  7. Interpretable almost-exact matching for causal inference. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (Proceedings of AISTATS), 89:2445, 2019.
  8. Package ‘dbarts’. 2019.
  9. Max H. Farrell. Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations. Journal of Econometrics, 189(1):1–23, 2015. URL https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:econom:v:189:y:2015:i:1:p:1-23.
  10. All models are wrong, but many are useful: Learning a variable’s importance by studying an entire class of prediction models simultaneously. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20(177):1–81, 2019.
  11. Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects, 2019.
  12. Ben B. Hansen. The prognostic analogue of the propensity score. Biometrika, 95(2):481–488, 2008a. ISSN 00063444, 14643510. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/20441477.
  13. Ben B Hansen. The prognostic analogue of the propensity score. Biometrika, 95(2):481–488, 2008b.
  14. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political analysis, 15(3):199–236, 2007.
  15. Nathan Kallus. A Framework for Optimal Matching for Causal Inference. In Aarti Singh and Jerry Zhu, editors, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 54 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 372–381, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 20–22 Apr 2017.
  16. Evaluating treatment effectiveness under model misspecification: A comparison of targeted maximum likelihood estimation with bias-corrected matching. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 25(5):2315–2336, 2016. 10.1177/0962280214521341.
  17. Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(10):4156–4165, February 2019. 10.1073/pnas.1804597116. URL https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804597116.
  18. Almost Matching Exactly Lab. AME-ahb-r-package. https://github.com/almost-matching-exactly/AHB-R-package, 2022.
  19. High-dimensional graphs and variable selection with the lasso. The Annals of Statistics, 34(3), June 2006. 10.1214/009053606000000281. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/009053606000000281.
  20. Lasso-type recovery of sparse representations for high-dimensional data. The Annals of Statistics, 37(1), February 2009. 10.1214/07-aos582. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/07-aos582.
  21. A comparison of random forest and its gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data. BMC bioinformatics, 10:1–16, 2009.
  22. Adaptive hyper-box matching for interpretable individualized treatment effect estimation. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1089–1098. PMLR, 2020.
  23. Harsh Parikh. AME-pymalts. https://github.com/almost-matching-exactly/MALTS, 2020.
  24. An application of matching after learning to stretch (malts). Observational Studies, 5(2):118–130, 2019.
  25. Effects of epileptiform activity on discharge outcome in critically ill patients: A retrospective cross-sectional study. 2022a.
  26. Validating causal inference methods. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 17346–17358. PMLR, 2022b.
  27. Malts: Matching after learning to stretch. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(240), 2022c.
  28. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2825–2830, 2011.
  29. Marc T. Ratkovic. Rehabilitating the regression : Honest and valid causal inference through machine learning. 2019.
  30. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1):41–55, 1983.
  31. Donald B Rubin. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of educational Psychology, 66(5):688, 1974.
  32. Donald B Rubin. Causal inference using potential outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2011.
  33. Elizabeth A Stuart. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1):1, 2010.
  34. Robert Tibshirani. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 58(1):267–288, January 1996. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x. URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x.
  35. FLAME: A fast large-scale almost matching exactly approach to causal inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06315, 2017.
  36. High-dimensional variable selection. The Annals of Statistics, 37(5A), October 2009. 10.1214/08-aos646. URL https://doi.org/10.1214/08-aos646.
  37. David S. Yeager. The national study of learning mindsets [united states]. 2015-2016. URL https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37353.v4.
  38. Optimal matching for observational studies that integrate quantitative and qualitative research. Statistics and Public Policy, 8(1):42–52, 2021. 10.1080/2330443X.2021.1919260. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2021.1919260.
  39. On the consistency of feature selection with lasso for non-linear targets. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), volume 48, page 183–191, 2016.
  40. Shuheng Zhou. Thresholded lasso for high dimensional variable selection and statistical estimation, 2010. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1583.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (5)
  1. Quinn Lanners (4 papers)
  2. Harsh Parikh (15 papers)
  3. Alexander Volfovsky (37 papers)
  4. Cynthia Rudin (135 papers)
  5. David Page (26 papers)
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com