Estimating Potential Outcome Distributions with Collaborating Causal Networks.

Tianhui Zhou, William E Carson, David Carlson
{"title":"Estimating Potential Outcome Distributions with Collaborating Causal Networks.","authors":"Tianhui Zhou, William E Carson, David Carlson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditional causal inference approaches leverage observational study data to estimate the difference in observed (factual) and unobserved (counterfactual) outcomes for a potential treatment, known as the Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE). However, CATE corresponds to the comparison on the first moment alone, and as such may be insufficient in reflecting the full picture of treatment effects. As an alternative, estimating the full potential outcome distributions could provide greater insights. However, existing methods for estimating treatment effect potential outcome distributions often impose restrictive or overly-simplistic assumptions about these distributions. Here, we propose Collaborating Causal Networks (CCN), a novel methodology which goes beyond the estimation of CATE alone by learning the <i>full potential outcome distributions</i>. Estimation of outcome distributions via the CCN framework does not require restrictive assumptions of the underlying data generating process (e.g. Gaussian errors). Additionally, our proposed method facilitates estimation of the utility of each possible treatment and permits individual-specific variation through utility functions (e.g. risk tolerance variability). CCN not only extends outcome estimation beyond traditional risk difference, but also enables a more comprehensive decision making process through definition of flexible comparisons. Under assumptions commonly made in the causal inference literature, we show that CCN learns distributions that asymptotically capture the correct potential outcome distributions. Furthermore, we propose an adjustment approach that is empirically effective in alleviating sample imbalance between treatment groups in observational studies. Finally, we evaluate the performance of CCN in multiple experiments on both synthetic and semi-synthetic data. We demonstrate that CCN learns improved distribution estimates compared to existing Bayesian and deep generative methods as well as improved decisions with respects to a variety of utility functions.</p>","PeriodicalId":75238,"journal":{"name":"Transactions on machine learning research","volume":"2022 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10769464/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions on machine learning research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Traditional causal inference approaches leverage observational study data to estimate the difference in observed (factual) and unobserved (counterfactual) outcomes for a potential treatment, known as the Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE). However, CATE corresponds to the comparison on the first moment alone, and as such may be insufficient in reflecting the full picture of treatment effects. As an alternative, estimating the full potential outcome distributions could provide greater insights. However, existing methods for estimating treatment effect potential outcome distributions often impose restrictive or overly-simplistic assumptions about these distributions. Here, we propose Collaborating Causal Networks (CCN), a novel methodology which goes beyond the estimation of CATE alone by learning the full potential outcome distributions. Estimation of outcome distributions via the CCN framework does not require restrictive assumptions of the underlying data generating process (e.g. Gaussian errors). Additionally, our proposed method facilitates estimation of the utility of each possible treatment and permits individual-specific variation through utility functions (e.g. risk tolerance variability). CCN not only extends outcome estimation beyond traditional risk difference, but also enables a more comprehensive decision making process through definition of flexible comparisons. Under assumptions commonly made in the causal inference literature, we show that CCN learns distributions that asymptotically capture the correct potential outcome distributions. Furthermore, we propose an adjustment approach that is empirically effective in alleviating sample imbalance between treatment groups in observational studies. Finally, we evaluate the performance of CCN in multiple experiments on both synthetic and semi-synthetic data. We demonstrate that CCN learns improved distribution estimates compared to existing Bayesian and deep generative methods as well as improved decisions with respects to a variety of utility functions.

利用协作因果网络估算潜在结果分布。
传统的因果推断方法利用观察研究数据来估算潜在治疗的观察结果(事实)与非观察结果(反事实)之间的差异,即所谓的条件平均治疗效果(CATE)。然而,CATE 仅对应于第一时刻的比较,因此可能不足以反映治疗效果的全貌。作为一种替代方法,估算全部潜在结果分布可以提供更深入的见解。然而,现有的治疗效果潜在结果分布估计方法往往对这些分布施加了限制性或过于简单的假设。在此,我们提出了协作因果网络(CCN),这是一种新颖的方法,它通过学习完整的潜在结果分布,超越了单纯的 CATE 估算。通过 CCN 框架估计结果分布不需要对基础数据生成过程(如高斯误差)进行限制性假设。此外,我们提出的方法有助于估算每种可能治疗方法的效用,并通过效用函数(如风险承受能力变异)允许个体特定的变异。CCN 不仅将结果估算扩展到传统的风险差异之外,还通过定义灵活的比较方法实现了更全面的决策过程。在因果推理文献中常见的假设条件下,我们证明了 CCN 所学习的分布可以渐近地捕捉到正确的潜在结果分布。此外,我们还提出了一种调整方法,该方法可有效缓解观察研究中治疗组间的样本不平衡问题。最后,我们在合成数据和半合成数据的多个实验中评估了 CCN 的性能。我们证明,与现有的贝叶斯方法和深度生成方法相比,CCN 学习到的分布估计有所改进,在各种效用函数方面的决策也有所改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信