Edward H. Kennedy

Kwangho Kim, Edward H. Kennedy, José R. Zubizarreta

We study counterfactual classification as a new tool for decision-making under hypothetical (contrary to fact) scenarios. We propose a doubly-robust nonparametric estimator for a general counterfactual classifier, where we can incorporate flexible constraints by casting the classification problem as a nonlinear mathematical program involving counterfactuals. We go on to analyze the rates of convergence of the estimator and provide a closed-form expression for its asymptotic distribution. Our analysis shows that the proposed estimator is robust against nuisance model misspecification, and can attain fast $\sqrt{n}$ rates with tractable inference even when using nonparametric machine learning approaches. We study the empirical performance of our methods by simulation and apply them for recidivism risk prediction.

Kwangho Kim, Jisu Kim, Edward H. Kennedy

Causal effects are often characterized with population summaries. These might provide an incomplete picture when there are heterogeneous treatment effects across subgroups. Since the subgroup structure is typically unknown, it is more challenging to identify and evaluate subgroup effects than population effects. We propose a new solution to this problem: \emph{Causal k-Means Clustering}, which harnesses the widely-used k-means clustering algorithm to uncover the unknown subgroup structure. Our problem differs significantly from the conventional clustering setup since the variables to be clustered are unknown counterfactual functions. We present a plug-in estimator which is simple and readily implementable using off-the-shelf algorithms, and study its rate of convergence. We also develop a new bias-corrected estimator based on nonparametric efficiency theory and double machine learning, and show that this estimator achieves fast root-n rates and asymptotic normality in large nonparametric models. Our proposed methods are especially useful for modern outcome-wide studies with multiple treatment levels. Further, our framework is extensible to clustering with generic pseudo-outcomes, such as partially observed outcomes or otherwise unknown functions. Finally, we explore finite sample properties via simulation, and illustrate the proposed methods using a study of mobile-supported self-management for chronic low back pain.

Zhenghao Zeng, David Arbour, Avi Feller et al.

In many real-world causal inference applications, the primary outcomes (labels) are often partially missing, especially if they are expensive or difficult to collect. If the missingness depends on covariates (i.e., missingness is not completely at random), analyses based on fully observed samples alone may be biased. Incorporating surrogates, which are fully observed post-treatment variables related to the primary outcome, can improve estimation in this case. In this paper, we study the role of surrogates in estimating continuous treatment effects and propose a doubly robust method to efficiently incorporate surrogates in the analysis, which uses both labeled and unlabeled data and does not suffer from the above selection bias problem. Importantly, we establish the asymptotic normality of the proposed estimator and show possible improvements on the variance compared with methods that solely use labeled data. Extensive simulations show our methods enjoy appealing empirical performance.

Kwangho Kim, Jisu Kim, Larry A. Wasserman et al.

Understanding treatment effect heterogeneity is vital for scientific and policy research. However, identifying and evaluating heterogeneous treatment effects pose significant challenges due to the typically unknown subgroup structure. Recently, a novel approach, causal k-means clustering, has emerged to assess heterogeneity of treatment effect by applying the k-means algorithm to unknown counterfactual regression functions. In this paper, we expand upon this framework by integrating hierarchical and density-based clustering algorithms. We propose plug-in estimators that are simple and readily implementable using off-the-shelf algorithms. Unlike k-means clustering, which requires the margin condition, our proposed estimators do not rely on strong structural assumptions on the outcome process. We go on to study their rate of convergence, and show that under the minimal regularity conditions, the additional cost of causal clustering is essentially the estimation error of the outcome regression functions. Our findings significantly extend the capabilities of the causal clustering framework, thereby contributing to the progression of methodologies for identifying homogeneous subgroups in treatment response, consequently facilitating more nuanced and targeted interventions. The proposed methods also open up new avenues for clustering with generic pseudo-outcomes. We explore finite sample properties via simulation, and illustrate the proposed methods in voting and employment projection datasets.

Ian Waudby-Smith, David Arbour, Ritwik Sinha et al.

Confidence intervals based on the central limit theorem (CLT) are a cornerstone of classical statistics. Despite being only asymptotically valid, they are ubiquitous because they permit statistical inference under weak assumptions and can often be applied to problems even when nonasymptotic inference is impossible. This paper introduces time-uniform analogues of such asymptotic confidence intervals, adding to the literature on confidence sequences (CS) -- sequences of confidence intervals that are uniformly valid over time -- which provide valid inference at arbitrary stopping times and incur no penalties for "peeking" at the data, unlike classical confidence intervals which require the sample size to be fixed in advance. Existing CSs in the literature are nonasymptotic, enjoying finite-sample guarantees but not the aforementioned broad applicability of asymptotic confidence intervals. This work provides a definition for "asymptotic CSs" and a general recipe for deriving them. Asymptotic CSs forgo nonasymptotic validity for CLT-like versatility and (asymptotic) time-uniform guarantees. While the CLT approximates the distribution of a sample average by that of a Gaussian for a fixed sample size, we use strong invariance principles (stemming from the seminal 1960s work of Strassen) to uniformly approximate the entire sample average process by an implicit Gaussian process. As an illustration, we derive asymptotic CSs for the average treatment effect in observational studies (for which nonasymptotic bounds are essentially impossible to derive even in the fixed-time regime) as well as randomized experiments, enabling causal inference in sequential environments.

Liu Leqi, Edward H. Kennedy

Optimal treatment regimes are personalized policies for making a treatment decision based on subject characteristics, with the policy chosen to maximize some value. It is common to aim to maximize the mean outcome in the population, via a regime assigning treatment only to those whose mean outcome is higher under treatment versus control. However, the mean can be an unstable measure of centrality, resulting in imprecise statistical procedures, as well as unrobust decisions that can be overly influenced by a small fraction of subjects. In this work, we propose a new median optimal treatment regime that instead treats individuals whose conditional median is higher under treatment. This ensures that optimal decisions for individuals from the same group are not overly influenced either by (i) a small fraction of the group (unlike the mean criterion), or (ii) unrelated subjects from different groups (unlike marginal median/quantile criteria). We introduce a new measure of value, the Average Conditional Median Effect (ACME), which summarizes across-group median treatment outcomes of a policy, and which the median optimal treatment regime maximizes. After developing key motivating examples that distinguish median optimal treatment regimes from mean and marginal median optimal treatment regimes, we give a nonparametric efficiency bound for estimating the ACME of a policy, and propose a new doubly robust-style estimator that achieves the efficiency bound under weak conditions. To construct the median optimal treatment regime, we introduce a new doubly robust-style estimator for the conditional median treatment effect. Finite-sample properties are explored via numerical simulations and the proposed algorithm is illustrated using data from a randomized clinical trial in patients with HIV.

Amanda Coston, Edward H. Kennedy, Alexandra Chouldechova

Algorithms are commonly used to predict outcomes under a particular decision or intervention, such as predicting whether an offender will succeed on parole if placed under minimal supervision. Generally, to learn such counterfactual prediction models from observational data on historical decisions and corresponding outcomes, one must measure all factors that jointly affect the outcomes and the decision taken. Motivated by decision support applications, we study the counterfactual prediction task in the setting where all relevant factors are captured in the historical data, but it is either undesirable or impermissible to use some such factors in the prediction model. We refer to this setting as runtime confounding. We propose a doubly-robust procedure for learning counterfactual prediction models in this setting. Our theoretical analysis and experimental results suggest that our method often outperforms competing approaches. We also present a validation procedure for evaluating the performance of counterfactual prediction methods.

Amanda Coston, Alan Mishler, Edward H. Kennedy et al.

Algorithmic risk assessments are increasingly used to help humans make decisions in high-stakes settings, such as medicine, criminal justice and education. In each of these cases, the purpose of the risk assessment tool is to inform actions, such as medical treatments or release conditions, often with the aim of reducing the likelihood of an adverse event such as hospital readmission or recidivism. Problematically, most tools are trained and evaluated on historical data in which the outcomes observed depend on the historical decision-making policy. These tools thus reflect risk under the historical policy, rather than under the different decision options that the tool is intended to inform. Even when tools are constructed to predict risk under a specific decision, they are often improperly evaluated as predictors of the target outcome. Focusing on the evaluation task, in this paper we define counterfactual analogues of common predictive performance and algorithmic fairness metrics that we argue are better suited for the decision-making context. We introduce a new method for estimating the proposed metrics using doubly robust estimation. We provide theoretical results that show that only under strong conditions can fairness according to the standard metric and the counterfactual metric simultaneously hold. Consequently, fairness-promoting methods that target parity in a standard fairness metric may --- and as we show empirically, do --- induce greater imbalance in the counterfactual analogue. We provide empirical comparisons on both synthetic data and a real world child welfare dataset to demonstrate how the proposed method improves upon standard practice.

Kwangho Kim, Edward H. Kennedy, Ashley I. Naimi

Modern longitudinal studies collect feature data at many timepoints, often of the same order of sample size. Such studies are typically affected by {dropout} and positivity violations. We tackle these problems by generalizing effects of recent incremental interventions (which shift propensity scores rather than set treatment values deterministically) to accommodate multiple outcomes and subject dropout. We give an identifying expression for incremental intervention effects when dropout is conditionally ignorable (without requiring treatment positivity), and derive the nonparametric efficiency bound for estimating such effects. Then we present efficient nonparametric estimators, showing that they converge at fast parametric rates and yield uniform inferential guarantees, even when nuisance functions are estimated flexibly at slower rates. We also study the variance ratio of incremental intervention effects relative to more conventional deterministic effects in a novel infinite time horizon setting, where the number of timepoints can grow with sample size, and show that incremental intervention effects yield near-exponential gains in statistical precision in this setup. Finally we conclude with simulations and apply our methods in a study of the effect of low-dose aspirin on pregnancy outcomes.

Kwangho Kim, Jisu Kim, Edward H. Kennedy

Comparing counterfactual distributions can provide more nuanced and valuable measures for causal effects, going beyond typical summary statistics such as averages. In this work, we consider characterizing causal effects via distributional distances, focusing on two kinds of target parameters. The first is the counterfactual outcome density. We propose a doubly robust-style estimator for the counterfactual density and study its rates of convergence and limiting distributions. We analyze asymptotic upper bounds on the $L_q$ and the integrated $L_q$ risks of the proposed estimator, and propose a bootstrap-based confidence band. The second is a novel distributional causal effect defined by the $L_1$ distance between different counterfactual distributions. We study three approaches for estimating the proposed distributional effect: smoothing the counterfactual density, smoothing the $L_1$ distance, and imposing a margin condition. For each approach, we analyze asymptotic properties and error bounds of the proposed estimator, and discuss potential advantages and disadvantages. We go on to present a bootstrap approach for obtaining confidence intervals, and propose a test of no distributional effect. We conclude with a numerical illustration and a real-world example.