Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 164 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 46 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 21 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 27 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 72 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 204 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 450 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 34 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

The Connection Between R-Learning and Inverse-Variance Weighting for Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects (2307.09700v2)

Published 19 Jul 2023 in stat.ME and stat.ML

Abstract: Many methods for estimating conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) can be expressed as weighted pseudo-outcome regressions (PORs). Previous comparisons of POR techniques have paid careful attention to the choice of pseudo-outcome transformation. However, we argue that the dominant driver of performance is actually the choice of weights. For example, we point out that R-Learning implicitly performs a POR with inverse-variance weights (IVWs). In the CATE setting, IVWs mitigate the instability associated with inverse-propensity weights, and lead to convenient simplifications of bias terms. We demonstrate the superior performance of IVWs in simulations, and derive convergence rates for IVWs that are, to our knowledge, the fastest yet shown without assuming knowledge of the covariate distribution.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (45)
  1. Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 113(27):7353–7360, July 2016.
  2. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics, 61(4):962–973, December 2005.
  3. Some new asymptotic theory for least squares series: Pointwise and uniform results. J. Econom., 186(2):345–366, June 2015.
  4. Bickel, P. J. On adaptive estimation. Ann. Stat., 10(3):647–671, 1982.
  5. Estimating integrated squared density derivatives: Sharp best order of convergence estimates. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A (1961-2002), 50(3):381–393, 1988.
  6. Linear regression with censored data. Biometrika, 66(3):429–436, 1979.
  7. A general statistical framework for subgroup identification and comparative treatment scoring. Biometrics, 73(4):1199–1209, December 2017.
  8. Locally robust semiparametric estimation. Econometrica, 90(4):1501–1535, 2022a.
  9. Automatic debiased machine learning of causal and structural effects. Econometrica, 90(3):967–1027, 2022b.
  10. Nonparametric estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects: From theory to learning algorithms. In Banerjee, A. and Fukumizu, K. (eds.), Proceedings of The 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, volume 130 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 1810–1818. PMLR, 2021.
  11. Targeted learning ensembles for optimal individualized treatment rules with time-to-event outcomes. Biometrika, 105(3):723–738, September 2018.
  12. Censored regression: Local linear approximations and their applications. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 89(426):560–570, June 1994.
  13. Three-way Cross-Fitting and Pseudo-Outcome regression for estimation of conditional effects and other linear functionals. June 2023.
  14. Orthogonal statistical learning. January 2019.
  15. Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects. June 2017.
  16. Hill, J. L. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. J. Comput. Graph. Stat., 20(1):217–240, January 2011.
  17. Propensity score modeling strategies for the causal analysis of observational data. Biostatistics, 3(2):179–193, June 2002.
  18. Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized program evaluation. aoas, 7(1):443–470, March 2013.
  19. Kennedy, E. H. Towards optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects. May 2022a.
  20. Kennedy, E. H. Semiparametric doubly robust targeted double machine learning: a review. March 2022b.
  21. Sharp instruments for classifying compliers and generalizing causal effects. Ann. Stat., 2020.
  22. Minimax rates for heterogeneous causal effect estimation. March 2022.
  23. Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 116(10):4156–4165, March 2019.
  24. Cross-Fitting and fast remainder rates for semiparametric estimation. January 2018.
  25. Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Biometrika, 2020.
  26. Some methods for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation in high dimensions. Stat. Med., 37(11):1767–1787, May 2018.
  27. Higher order influence functions and minimax estimation of nonlinear functionals. May 2008.
  28. Semiparametric efficiency in multivariate regression models with missing data. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 90(429):122–129, 1995.
  29. On profile likelihood: Comment. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 95(450):477–482, 2000.
  30. Robinson, P. M. Root-N-Consistent semiparametric regression. Econometrica, 56(4):931–954, 1988.
  31. A general imputation methodology for nonparametric regression with censored data. 2005.
  32. A doubly robust censoring unbiased transformation. Int. J. Biostat., 3(1), 2007.
  33. Adjusting for nonignorable Drop-Out using semiparametric nonresponse models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 94(448):1096–1120, December 1999.
  34. Schick, A. On asymptotically efficient estimation in semiparametric models. Ann. Stat., 14(3):1139–1151, 1986.
  35. Debiased machine learning of conditional average treatment effects and other causal functions. Econom. J., 24(2):264–289, August 2020.
  36. Estimation and inference on heterogeneous treatment effects in high-dimensional dynamic panels under weak dependence. December 2017.
  37. lightgbm: Light gradient boosting machine. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lightgbm, 2023.
  38. Causal inference and machine learning in practice with EconML and CausalML: Industrial use cases at microsoft, TripAdvisor, uber. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, KDD ’21, pp.  4072–4073, New York, NY, USA, August 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.
  39. A simple method for estimating interactions between a treatment and a large number of covariates. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 109(508):1517–1532, October 2014.
  40. Tropp, J. A. An introduction to matrix concentration inequalities. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 8(1-2):1–230, 2015.
  41. Tsybakov, A. B. Introduction to nonparametric estimation. Springer Series in Statistics, 2009.
  42. van der Laan, M. J. Statistical inference for variable importance. Int. J. Biostat., 2(1), February 2006.
  43. A survey on causal inference. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data, 15(5):1–46, May 2021.
  44. Selective inference for effect modification via the lasso. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol., 84(2):382–413, April 2022.
  45. Estimating individualized treatment rules using outcome weighted learning. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 107(449):1106–1118, September 2012.
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

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

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Authors (1)

  1. Aaron Fisher
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up