Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) over time is crucial in many disciplines such as personalized medicine. Existing works for this task have mostly focused on *model-based* learners that adapt specific machine-learning models and adjustment mechanisms. In contrast, model-agnostic learners - so-called *meta-learners* - are largely unexplored. In our paper, we propose several meta-learners that are model-agnostic and thus can be used in combination with arbitrary machine learning models (e.g., transformers) to estimate HTEs over time. We then provide a comprehensive theoretical analysis that characterizes the different learners and that allows us to offer insights into when specific learners are preferable. Furthermore, we propose a novel IVW-DR-learner that (i) uses a doubly robust (DR) and orthogonal loss; and (ii) leverages inverse-variance weights (IVWs) that we derive to stabilize the DR-loss over time. Our IVWs downweight extreme trajectories due to *products* of inverse-propensities in the DR-loss, resulting in a lower estimation variance. Our IVW-DR-learner achieves superior performance in our experiments, particularly in regimes with low overlap and long time horizons.

Constructing confidence intervals (CIs) for the average treatment effect (ATE) from patient records is crucial to assess the effectiveness and safety of drugs. However, patient records typically come from different hospitals, thus raising the question of how multiple observational/experimental datasets can be effectively combined for this purpose. In our paper, we propose a new method that estimates the ATE from multiple observational/experimental datasets and provides valid CIs. Our method makes little assumptions about the observational datasets and is thus widely applicable in medical practice. The key idea of our method is that we leverage prediction-powered inferences and thereby essentially `shrink' the CIs so that we offer more precise uncertainty quantification as compared to na{\"i}ve approaches. We further prove the unbiasedness of our method and the validity of our CIs. We confirm our theoretical results through various numerical experiments.

Reliable estimation of treatment effects from observational data is important in many disciplines such as medicine. However, estimation is challenging when unconfoundedness as a standard assumption in the causal inference literature is violated. In this work, we leverage arbitrary (potentially high-dimensional) instruments to estimate bounds on the conditional average treatment effect (CATE). Our contributions are three-fold: (1) We propose a novel approach for partial identification through a mapping of instruments to a discrete representation space so that we yield valid bounds on the CATE. This is crucial for reliable decision-making in real-world applications. (2) We derive a two-step procedure that learns tight bounds using a tailored neural partitioning of the latent instrument space. As a result, we avoid instability issues due to numerical approximations or adversarial training. Furthermore, our procedure aims to reduce the estimation variance in finite-sample settings to yield more reliable estimates. (3) We show theoretically that our procedure obtains valid bounds while reducing estimation variance. We further perform extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness across various settings. Overall, our procedure offers a novel path for practitioners to make use of potentially high-dimensional instruments (e.g., as in Mendelian randomization).

Causal inference is essential for developing and evaluating medical interventions, yet real-world medical datasets are often difficult to access due to regulatory barriers. This makes synthetic data a potentially valuable asset that enables these medical analyses, along with the development of new inference methods themselves. Generative models can produce synthetic data that closely approximate real data distributions, yet existing methods do not consider the unique challenges that downstream causal inference tasks, and specifically those focused on treatments, pose. We establish a set of desiderata that synthetic data containing treatments should satisfy to maximise downstream utility: preservation of (i) the covariate distribution, (ii) the treatment assignment mechanism, and (iii) the outcome generation mechanism. Based on these desiderata, we propose a set of evaluation metrics to assess such synthetic data. Finally, we present STEAM: a novel method for generating Synthetic data for Treatment Effect Analysis in Medicine that mimics the data-generating process of data containing treatments and optimises for our desiderata. We empirically demonstrate that STEAM achieves state-of-the-art performance across our metrics as compared to existing generative models, particularly as the complexity of the true data-generating process increases.

Decision-making across various fields, such as medicine, heavily relies on conditional average treatment effects (CATEs). Practitioners commonly make decisions by checking whether the estimated CATE is positive, even though the decision-making performance of modern CATE estimators is poorly understood from a theoretical perspective. In this paper, we study optimal decision-making based on two-stage CATE estimators (e.g., DR-learner), which are considered state-of-the-art and widely used in practice. We prove that, while such estimators may be optimal for estimating CATE, they can be suboptimal when used for decision-making. Intuitively, this occurs because such estimators prioritize CATE accuracy in regions far away from the decision boundary, which is ultimately irrelevant to decision-making. As a remedy, we propose a novel two-stage learning objective that retargets the CATE to balance CATE estimation error and decision performance. We then propose a neural method that optimizes an adaptively-smoothed approximation of our learning objective. Finally, we confirm the effectiveness of our method both empirically and theoretically. In sum, our work is the first to show how state-of-the-art CATE estimators can be adapted for optimal decision-making.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) is crucial for personalized decision-making. However, this task is challenging in survival analysis, which includes time-to-event data with censored outcomes (e.g., due to study dropout). In this paper, we propose a toolbox of orthogonal survival learners to estimate HTEs from time-to-event data under censoring. Our learners have three main advantages: (i) we show that learners from our toolbox are guaranteed to be orthogonal and thus robust with respect to nuisance estimation errors; (ii) our toolbox allows for incorporating a custom weighting function, which can lead to robustness against different types of low overlap, and (iii) our learners are \emph{model-agnostic} (i.e., they can be combined with arbitrary machine learning models). We instantiate the learners from our toolbox using several weighting functions and, as a result, propose various neural orthogonal survival learners. Some of these coincide with existing survival learners (including survival versions of the DR- and R-learner), while others are novel and further robust w.r.t. low overlap regimes specific to the survival setting (i.e., survival overlap and censoring overlap). We then empirically verify the effectiveness of our learners for HTE estimation in different low-overlap regimes through numerical experiments. In sum, we provide practitioners with a large toolbox of learners that can be used for randomized and observational studies with censored time-to-event data.

Estimating treatment effects is crucial for personalized decision-making in medicine, but this task faces unique challenges in clinical practice. At training time, models for estimating treatment effects are typically trained on well-structured medical datasets that contain detailed patient information. However, at inference time, predictions are often made using textual descriptions (e.g., descriptions with self-reported symptoms), which are incomplete representations of the original patient information. In this work, we make three contributions. (1) We show that the discrepancy between the data available during training time and inference time can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. We formalize this issue as an \emph{inference time text confounding} problem, where confounders are fully observed during training time but only partially available through text at inference time. (2) To address this problem, we propose a novel framework for estimating treatment effects that explicitly accounts for inference time text confounding. Our framework leverages large language models (LLMs) together with a custom doubly robust learner to mitigate biases caused by the inference time text confounding. (3) Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in real-world applications.

Uncertainty quantification of causal effects is crucial for safety-critical applications such as personalized medicine. A powerful approach for this is conformal prediction, which has several practical benefits due to model-agnostic finite-sample guarantees. Yet, existing methods for conformal prediction of causal effects are limited to binary/discrete treatments and make highly restrictive assumptions, such as known propensity scores. In this work, we provide a novel conformal prediction method for potential outcomes of continuous treatments. We account for the additional uncertainty introduced through propensity estimation so that our conformal prediction intervals are valid even if the propensity score is unknown. Our contributions are three-fold: (1) We derive finite-sample validity guarantees for prediction intervals of potential outcomes of continuous treatments. (2) We provide an algorithm for calculating the derived intervals. (3) We demonstrate the effectiveness of the conformal prediction intervals in experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to propose conformal prediction for continuous treatments when the propensity score is unknown and must be estimated from data.

Unobserved confounding is common in many applications, making causal inference from observational data challenging. As a remedy, causal sensitivity analysis is an important tool to draw causal conclusions under unobserved confounding with mathematical guarantees. In this paper, we propose NeuralCSA, a neural framework for generalized causal sensitivity analysis. Unlike previous work, our framework is compatible with (i) a large class of sensitivity models, including the marginal sensitivity model, $f$-sensitivity models, and Rosenbaum's sensitivity model; (ii) different treatment types (i.e., binary and continuous); and (iii) different causal queries, including (conditional) average treatment effects and simultaneous effects on multiple outcomes. This generality is achieved by learning a latent distribution shift that corresponds to a treatment intervention using two conditional normalizing flows. We provide theoretical guarantees that NeuralCSA is able to infer valid bounds on the causal query of interest and also demonstrate this empirically using both simulated and real-world data.

Treatment effect estimation in continuous time is crucial for personalized medicine. However, existing methods for this task are limited to point estimates of the potential outcomes, whereas uncertainty estimates have been ignored. Needless to say, uncertainty quantification is crucial for reliable decision-making in medical applications. To fill this gap, we propose a novel Bayesian neural controlled differential equation (BNCDE) for treatment effect estimation in continuous time. In our BNCDE, the time dimension is modeled through a coupled system of neural controlled differential equations and neural stochastic differential equations, where the neural stochastic differential equations allow for tractable variational Bayesian inference. Thereby, for an assigned sequence of treatments, our BNCDE provides meaningful posterior predictive distributions of the potential outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first tailored neural method to provide uncertainty estimates of treatment effects in continuous time. As such, our method is of direct practical value for promoting reliable decision-making in medicine.

State-of-the-art methods for conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation make widespread use of representation learning. Here, the idea is to reduce the variance of the low-sample CATE estimation by a (potentially constrained) low-dimensional representation. However, low-dimensional representations can lose information about the observed confounders and thus lead to bias, because of which the validity of representation learning for CATE estimation is typically violated. In this paper, we propose a new, representation-agnostic refutation framework for estimating bounds on the representation-induced confounding bias that comes from dimensionality reduction (or other constraints on the representations) in CATE estimation. First, we establish theoretically under which conditions CATE is non-identifiable given low-dimensional (constrained) representations. Second, as our remedy, we propose a neural refutation framework which performs partial identification of CATE or, equivalently, aims at estimating lower and upper bounds of the representation-induced confounding bias. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our bounds in a series of experiments. In sum, our refutation framework is of direct relevance in practice where the validity of CATE estimation is of importance.

Fairness for machine learning predictions is widely required in practice for legal, ethical, and societal reasons. Existing work typically focuses on settings without unobserved confounding, even though unobserved confounding can lead to severe violations of causal fairness and, thus, unfair predictions. In this work, we analyze the sensitivity of causal fairness to unobserved confounding. Our contributions are three-fold. First, we derive bounds for causal fairness metrics under different sources of observed confounding. This enables practitioners to audit the sensitivity of their machine learning models to unobserved confounding in fairness-critical applications. Second, we propose a novel neural framework for learning fair predictions, which allows us to offer worst-case guarantees of the extent to which causal fairness can be violated due to unobserved confounding. Third, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in a series of experiments, including a real-world case study about predicting prison sentences. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first work to study causal fairness under observed confounding. To this end, our work is of direct practical value for auditing and ensuring the fairness of predictions in high-stakes applications.

Algorithmic decision-making in practice must be fair for legal, ethical, and societal reasons. To achieve this, prior research has contributed various approaches that ensure fairness in machine learning predictions, while comparatively little effort has focused on fairness in decision-making, specifically off-policy learning. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for fair off-policy learning: we learn decision rules from observational data under different notions of fairness, where we explicitly assume that observational data were collected under a different – potentially discriminatory – behavioral policy. Importantly, our framework applies to different fairness notions for off-policy learning, where fairness is formalized based on actions or policy values. As our main contribution, we propose a neural network-based framework to learn optimal policies under different fairness notions. We further provide theoretical guarantees in the form of generalization bounds for the finite-sample version of our framework. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework through extensive numerical experiments using both simulated and real-world data. Altogether, our work enables algorithmic decision-making in a wide array of practical applications where fairness must be ensured.

Estimating the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) from observational data is relevant for many applications such as personalized medicine. Here, we focus on the widespread setting where the observational data come from multiple environments, such as different hospitals, physicians, or countries. Furthermore, we allow for violations of standard causal assumptions, namely, overlap within the environments and unconfoundedness. To this end, we move away from point identification and focus on partial identification. Specifically, we show that current assumptions from the literature on multiple environments allow us to interpret the environment as an instrumental variable (IV). This allows us to adapt bounds from the IV literature for partial identification of CATE by leveraging treatment assignment mechanisms across environments. Then, we propose different model-agnostic learners (so-called meta-learners) to estimate the bounds that can be used in combination with arbitrary machine learning models. We further demonstrate the effectiveness of our meta-learners across various experiments using both simulated and real-world data. Finally, we discuss the applicability of our meta-learners to partial identification in instrumental variable settings, such as randomized controlled trials with non-compliance.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations provide a blueprint of a better future by "leaving no one behind", and, to achieve the SDGs by 2030, poor countries require immense volumes of development aid. In this paper, we develop a causal machine learning framework for predicting heterogeneous treatment effects of aid disbursements to inform effective aid allocation. Specifically, our framework comprises three components: (i) a balancing autoencoder that uses representation learning to embed high-dimensional country characteristics while addressing treatment selection bias; (ii) a counterfactual generator to compute counterfactual outcomes for varying aid volumes to address small sample-size settings; and (iii) an inference model that is used to predict heterogeneous treatment-response curves. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework using data with official development aid earmarked to end HIV/AIDS in 105 countries, amounting to more than USD 5.2 billion. For this, we first show that our framework successfully computes heterogeneous treatment-response curves using semi-synthetic data. Then, we demonstrate our framework using real-world HIV data. Our framework points to large opportunities for a more effective aid allocation, suggesting that the total number of new HIV infections could be reduced by up to 3.3% (~50,000 cases) compared to the current allocation practice.

In medical practice, treatments are selected based on the expected causal effects on patient outcomes. Here, the gold standard for estimating causal effects are randomized controlled trials; however, such trials are costly and sometimes even unethical. Instead, medical practice is increasingly interested in estimating causal effects among patient (sub)groups from electronic health records, that is, observational data. In this paper, we aim at estimating the average causal effect (ACE) from observational data (patient trajectories) that are collected over time. For this, we propose DeepACE: an end-to-end deep learning model. DeepACE leverages the iterative G-computation formula to adjust for the bias induced by time-varying confounders. Moreover, we develop a novel sequential targeting procedure which ensures that DeepACE has favorable theoretical properties, i.e., is doubly robust and asymptotically efficient. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that proposes an end-to-end deep learning model tailored for estimating time-varying ACEs. We compare DeepACE in an extensive number of experiments, confirming that it achieves state-of-the-art performance. We further provide a case study for patients suffering from low back pain to demonstrate that DeepACE generates important and meaningful findings for clinical practice. Our work enables practitioners to develop effective treatment recommendations based on population effects.

Existing machine learning methods for causal inference usually estimate quantities expressed via the mean of potential outcomes (e.g., average treatment effect). However, such quantities do not capture the full information about the distribution of potential outcomes. In this work, we estimate the density of potential outcomes after interventions from observational data. For this, we propose a novel, fully-parametric deep learning method called Interventional Normalizing Flows. Specifically, we combine two normalizing flows, namely (i) a nuisance flow for estimating nuisance parameters and (ii) a target flow for parametric estimation of the density of potential outcomes. We further develop a tractable optimization objective based on a one-step bias correction for efficient and doubly robust estimation of the target flow parameters. As a result, our Interventional Normalizing Flows offer a properly normalized density estimator. Across various experiments, we demonstrate that our Interventional Normalizing Flows are expressive and highly effective, and scale well with both sample size and high-dimensional confounding. To the best of our knowledge, our Interventional Normalizing Flows are the first proper fully-parametric, deep learning method for density estimation of potential outcomes.

Causal inference from observational data is crucial for many disciplines such as medicine and economics. However, sharp bounds for causal effects under relaxations of the unconfoundedness assumption (causal sensitivity analysis) are subject to ongoing research. So far, works with sharp bounds are restricted to fairly simple settings (e.g., a single binary treatment). In this paper, we propose a unified framework for causal sensitivity analysis under unobserved confounding in various settings. For this, we propose a flexible generalization of the marginal sensitivity model (MSM) and then derive sharp bounds for a large class of causal effects. This includes (conditional) average treatment effects, effects for mediation analysis and path analysis, and distributional effects. Furthermore, our sensitivity model is applicable to discrete, continuous, and time-varying treatments. It allows us to interpret the partial identification problem under unobserved confounding as a distribution shift in the latent confounders while evaluating the causal effect of interest. In the special case of a single binary treatment, our bounds for (conditional) average treatment effects coincide with recent optimality results for causal sensitivity analysis. Finally, we propose a scalable algorithm to estimate our sharp bounds from observational data.

Counterfactual inference aims to answer retrospective "what if" questions and thus belongs to the most fine-grained type of inference in Pearl's causality ladder. Existing methods for counterfactual inference with continuous outcomes aim at point identification and thus make strong and unnatural assumptions about the underlying structural causal model. In this paper, we relax these assumptions and aim at partial counterfactual identification of continuous outcomes, i.e., when the counterfactual query resides in an ignorance interval with informative bounds. We prove that, in general, the ignorance interval of the counterfactual queries has non-informative bounds, already when functions of structural causal models are continuously differentiable. As a remedy, we propose a novel sensitivity model called Curvature Sensitivity Model. This allows us to obtain informative bounds by bounding the curvature of level sets of the functions. We further show that existing point counterfactual identification methods are special cases of our Curvature Sensitivity Model when the bound of the curvature is set to zero. We then propose an implementation of our Curvature Sensitivity Model in the form of a novel deep generative model, which we call Augmented Pseudo-Invertible Decoder. Our implementation employs (i) residual normalizing flows with (ii) variational augmentations. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of our Augmented Pseudo-Invertible Decoder. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first partial identification model for Markovian structural causal models with continuous outcomes.

Decision-making in personalized medicine such as cancer therapy or critical care must often make choices for dosage combinations, i.e., multiple continuous treatments. Existing work for this task has modeled the effect of multiple treatments independently, while estimating the joint effect has received little attention but comes with non-trivial challenges. In this paper, we propose a novel method for reliable off-policy learning for dosage combinations. Our method proceeds along three steps: (1) We develop a tailored neural network that estimates the individualized dose-response function while accounting for the joint effect of multiple dependent dosages. (2) We estimate the generalized propensity score using conditional normalizing flows in order to detect regions with limited overlap in the shared covariate-treatment space. (3) We present a gradient-based learning algorithm to find the optimal, individualized dosage combinations. Here, we ensure reliable estimation of the policy value by avoiding regions with limited overlap. We finally perform an extensive evaluation of our method to show its effectiveness. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first work to provide a method for reliable off-policy learning for optimal dosage combinations.

Estimating counterfactual outcomes over time from observational data is relevant for many applications (e.g., personalized medicine). Yet, state-of-the-art methods build upon simple long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, thus rendering inferences for complex, long-range dependencies challenging. In this paper, we develop a novel Causal Transformer for estimating counterfactual outcomes over time. Our model is specifically designed to capture complex, long-range dependencies among time-varying confounders. For this, we combine three transformer subnetworks with separate inputs for time-varying covariates, previous treatments, and previous outcomes into a joint network with in-between cross-attentions. We further develop a custom, end-to-end training procedure for our Causal Transformer. Specifically, we propose a novel counterfactual domain confusion loss to address confounding bias: it aims to learn adversarial balanced representations, so that they are predictive of the next outcome but non-predictive of the current treatment assignment. We evaluate our Causal Transformer based on synthetic and real-world datasets, where it achieves superior performance over current baselines. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work proposing transformer-based architecture for estimating counterfactual outcomes from longitudinal data.