Jonas Schweisthal

Sebastian Maier, Moritz Gunzenhäuser, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used for programming, yet it remains unclear when and where GenAI tools lead to productivity gains. Evidence on the effects of GenAI on the long-term development of programming skills is similarly mixed. Here, we present a meta-analysis of $n = 23$ studies reporting $k = 27$ effect sizes to quantify the effect of GenAI-powered coding assistants on productivity and learning. We systematically searched (i) ACM, (ii) arXiv, (iii) Scopus, and (iv) Web of Science for studies published between 2019 and 2025. Studies were required to compare GenAI-assisted with unassisted programming using quantitative measures of (1) productivity (i.e., task completion time, commits, and lines of code) and (2) learning (i.e., exam performance). We assessed the risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I and compared standardized effect sizes using Hedges' $g$. We find a statistically significant, but moderate positive effect of GenAI assistance on developer productivity ($g = 0.33$, $95\%$ CI: $[0.09, 0.58]$), yet with substantial heterogeneity across settings. Notably, productivity gains tend to be larger in controlled experimental settings, while effects are smaller in open-source and enterprise contexts. In contrast, we find no statistically significant effect of GenAI assistance on learning outcomes ($g = 0.14$, $95\%$ CI: $[-0.18, 0.47]$). Overall, these results highlight that GenAI coding assistants can increase developer productivity, although these gains depend strongly on context. In educational settings, however, the use of GenAI does not consistently translate into improved learning or skill development, which highlights the need for careful integration of GenAI into computer science education.

Emilio Dorigatti, Jonas Schweisthal, Bernd Bischl et al.

Learning from positive and unlabeled (PU) data is a setting where the learner only has access to positive and unlabeled samples while having no information on negative examples. Such PU setting is of great importance in various tasks such as medical diagnosis, social network analysis, financial markets analysis, and knowledge base completion, which also tend to be intrinsically imbalanced, i.e., where most examples are actually negatives. Most existing approaches for PU learning, however, only consider artificially balanced datasets and it is unclear how well they perform in the realistic scenario of imbalanced and long-tail data distribution. This paper proposes to tackle this challenge via robust and efficient self-supervised pretraining. However, training conventional self-supervised learning methods when applied with highly imbalanced PU distribution needs better reformulation. In this paper, we present \textit{ImPULSeS}, a unified representation learning framework for \underline{Im}balanced \underline{P}ositive \underline{U}nlabeled \underline{L}earning leveraging \underline{Se}lf-\underline{S}upervised debiase pre-training. ImPULSeS uses a generic combination of large-scale unsupervised learning with debiased contrastive loss and additional reweighted PU loss. We performed different experiments across multiple datasets to show that ImPULSeS is able to halve the error rate of the previous state-of-the-art, even compared with previous methods that are given the true prior. Moreover, our method showed increased robustness to prior misspecification and superior performance even when pretraining was performed on an unrelated dataset. We anticipate such robustness and efficiency will make it much easier for practitioners to obtain excellent results on other PU datasets of interest. The source code is available at \url{https://github.com/JSchweisthal/ImPULSeS}

Dennis Frauen, Marie Brockschmidt, Konstantin Hess et al.

Large language model (LLM) development is currently driven by large-scale empirical iteration over data mixtures, reward models, routing strategies, and evaluation pipelines. Here, we argue that many central questions in LLM development and evaluation are inherently causal: What is the effect of adding a data domain during pretraining? How do annotator preferences change when LLMs generate text in a different style? Should a prompt be routed to a larger or smaller model given inference cost constraints? In general, causal methods are well-suited to such settings where interventions change outcomes but, surprisingly, are underrepresented in LLM development. Our contribution is threefold: (1) We explain how causal methods can help develop modern LLM development and evaluation: LLM development relies heavily on logged data, which are often subject to confounding and distribution shifts; evaluation uses learned but potentially biased judges; and deployment environments are non-stationary. These conditions make purely predictive approaches fragile and create opportunities for principled identification and estimation methods from causal inference. (2) We further map opportunities for causal methods in the entire LLM development pipeline, including pretraining, alignment, routing, agentic workflows, and evaluation. (3) We discuss new research opportunities around leveraging causal methods for LLM development and evaluation. Overall, we argue that causal methods are potentially underutilized for the LLM development and evaluation pipeline, despite the fact that such methods can ensure a reliable and scientifically grounded design.

Maresa Schröder, Dennis Frauen, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

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 prediction intervals for 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.

Yuxin Wang, Dennis Frauen, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

Adaptive experimentation enables efficient estimation of causal effects, but existing methods are not designed for survival data with censoring, where event times are only partially observed (e.g., overall survival in cancer trials but with dropout). In this paper, we develop a novel framework for adaptive experimentation to estimate causal effects under right censoring. For this, we derive the semiparametric efficiency bound for the average survival effect curve as a function of the treatment allocation policy and thereby obtain a closed-form efficiency-optimal allocation policy. The policy generalizes classical Neyman allocation to survival settings by prioritizing patient strata where both event and censoring dynamics induce high uncertainty. Building on this, we propose the Adaptive Survival Estimator (ASE), an adaptive framework that learns the allocation policy and estimates the average survival effect curve sequentially. Our framework has three main benefits: (i) it accommodates arbitrary machine learning models for nuisance estimation; (ii) it is guided by a closed-form efficiency-optimal allocation policy; and (iii) it admits strong theoretical guarantees, including asymptotic normality via a martingale central limit theorem. We demonstrate our framework across various numerical experiments to show consistent efficiency gains over uniform randomization and censoring-agnostic baselines.

Stefan Feuerriegel, Dennis Frauen, Valentyn Melnychuk et al.

Causal machine learning (ML) offers flexible, data-driven methods for predicting treatment outcomes including efficacy and toxicity, thereby supporting the assessment and safety of drugs. A key benefit of causal ML is that it allows for estimating individualized treatment effects, so that clinical decision-making can be personalized to individual patient profiles. Causal ML can be used in combination with both clinical trial data and real-world data, such as clinical registries and electronic health records, but caution is needed to avoid biased or incorrect predictions. In this Perspective, we discuss the benefits of causal ML (relative to traditional statistical or ML approaches) and outline the key components and steps. Finally, we provide recommendations for the reliable use of causal ML and effective translation into the clinic.

Emil Javurek, Dennis Frauen, Marie Brockschmidt et al.

Causal sensitivity analysis aims to provide bounds for causal effect estimates in the presence of unobserved confounding. However, existing methods for causal sensitivity analysis are per-instance procedures, meaning that changes to the dataset, causal query, sensitivity level, or treatment require new computation. Here, we instead present an in-context learning approach. Specifically, we propose an amortized approach to causal sensitivity analysis based on prior-data fitted networks. A key challenge is that the sensitivity bounds are not directly available when sampling training data. To address this, we develop a general prior-data construction that is applicable across the class of generalized treatment sensitivity models. Our construction involves a Lagrangian scalarization of the objective to generate training labels for the bounds through a tradeoff between causal effect min/max-imization and sensitivity model violation, which avoids model-specific analytical derivations. We further show that, under standard convexity and linearity conditions, our objective recovers the full Pareto frontier of solutions. Empirically, we demonstrate our amortized approach across various datasets, causal queries, and sensitivity levels, where our approach achieves a test-time computation that is orders of magnitude faster than per-instance methods. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first foundation model for in-context learning for causal sensitivity analysis.

Yuchen Ma, Valentyn Melnychuk, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

Predicting potential outcomes of interventions from observational data is crucial for decision-making in medicine, but the task is challenging due to the fundamental problem of causal inference. Existing methods are largely limited to point estimates of potential outcomes with no uncertain quantification; thus, the full information about the distributions of potential outcomes is typically ignored. In this paper, we propose a novel causal diffusion model called DiffPO, which is carefully designed for reliable inferences in medicine by learning the distribution of potential outcomes. In our DiffPO, we leverage a tailored conditional denoising diffusion model to learn complex distributions, where we address the selection bias through a novel orthogonal diffusion loss. Another strength of our DiffPO method is that it is highly flexible (e.g., it can also be used to estimate different causal quantities such as CATE). Across a wide range of experiments, we show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Valentyn Melnychuk, Dennis Frauen, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

End-to-end representation learning has become a powerful tool for estimating causal quantities from high-dimensional observational data, but its efficiency remained unclear. Here, we face a central tension: End-to-end representation learning methods often work well in practice but lack asymptotic optimality in the form of the quasi-oracle efficiency. In contrast, two-stage Neyman-orthogonal learners provide such a theoretical optimality property but do not explicitly benefit from the strengths of representation learning. In this work, we step back and ask two research questions: (1) When do representations strengthen existing Neyman-orthogonal learners? and (2) Can a balancing constraint - commonly proposed technique in the representation learning literature - provide improvements to Neyman-orthogonality? We address these two questions through our theoretical and empirical analysis, where we introduce a unifying framework that connects representation learning with Neyman-orthogonal learners (namely, OR-learners). In particular, we show that, under the low-dimensional manifold hypothesis, the OR-learners can strictly improve the estimation error of the standard Neyman-orthogonal learners. At the same time, we find that the balancing constraint requires an additional inductive bias and cannot generally compensate for the lack of Neyman-orthogonality of the end-to-end approaches. Building on these insights, we offer guidelines for how users can effectively combine representation learning with the classical Neyman-orthogonal learners to achieve both practical performance and theoretical guarantees.

Yuxin Wang, Maresa Schröder, Dennis Frauen et al.

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 datasets can be effectively combined for this purpose. In our paper, we propose a new method that estimates the ATE from multiple observational 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 naïve approaches. We further prove the unbiasedness of our method and the validity of our CIs. We confirm our theoretical results through various numerical experiments. Finally, we provide an extension of our method for constructing CIs from combinations of experimental and observational datasets.

Yuchen Ma, Jonas Schweisthal, Hengrui Zhang et al.

In medicine, treatments often influence multiple, interdependent outcomes, such as primary endpoints, complications, adverse events, or other secondary endpoints. Hence, to make optimal treatment decisions, clinicians are interested in learning the distribution of multi-dimensional treatment outcomes. However, the vast majority of machine learning methods for predicting treatment effects focus on single-outcome settings, despite the fact that medical data often include multiple, interdependent outcomes. To address this limitation, we propose a novel diffusion-based method called DIME to learn the joint distribution of multiple outcomes of medical treatments. We addresses three challenges relevant in medical practice: (i)it is tailored to learn the joint interventional distribution of multiple medical outcomes, which enables reliable decision-making with uncertainty quantification rather than relying solely on point estimates; (ii)it explicitly captures the dependence structure between outcomes; (iii)it can handle outcomes of mixed type, including binary, categorical, and continuous variables. In DIME, we take into account the fundamental problem of causal inference through causal masking. For training, our method decomposes the joint distribution into a series of conditional distributions with a customized conditional masking to account for the dependence structure across outcomes. For inference, our method auto-regressively generates predictions. This allows our method to move beyond point estimates of causal quantities and thus learn the joint interventional distribution. To the best of our knowledge, DIME is the first neural method tailored to learn the joint, multi-outcome distribution of medical treatments. Across various experiments, we demonstrate that our method effectively learns the joint distribution and captures shared information among multiple outcomes.

Yuchen Ma, Dennis Frauen, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

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 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 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.

Jonas Schweisthal, Dennis Frauen, Maresa Schröder et al.

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).

Yuxin Wang, Dennis Frauen, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

Dropout is common in clinical studies, with up to half of patients leaving early due to side effects or other reasons. When dropout is informative (i.e., dependent on survival time), it introduces censoring bias, because of which treatment effect estimates are also biased. In this paper, we propose an assumption-lean framework to assess the robustness of conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimates in survival analysis when facing censoring bias. Unlike existing works that rely on strong assumptions, such as non-informative censoring, to obtain point estimation, we use partial identification to derive informative bounds on the CATE. Thereby, our framework helps to identify patient subgroups where treatment is effective despite informative censoring. We further develop a novel meta-learner that estimates the bounds using arbitrary machine learning models and with favorable theoretical properties, including double robustness and quasi-oracle efficiency. We demonstrate the practical value of our meta-learner through numerical experiments and in an application to a cancer drug trial. Together, our framework offers a practical tool for assessing the robustness of estimated treatment effects in the presence of censoring and thus promotes the reliable use of survival data for evidence generation in medicine and epidemiology.

Emil Javurek, Valentyn Melnychuk, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

Predicting individualized potential outcomes in sequential decision-making is central for optimizing therapeutic decisions in personalized medicine (e.g., which dosing sequence to give to a cancer patient). However, predicting potential outcomes over long horizons is notoriously difficult. Existing methods that break the curse of the horizon typically lack strong theoretical guarantees such as orthogonality and quasi-oracle efficiency. In this paper, we revisit the problem of predicting individualized potential outcomes in sequential decision-making (i.e., estimating Q-functions in Markov decision processes with observational data) through a causal inference lens. In particular, we develop a comprehensive theoretical foundation for meta-learners in this setting with a focus on beneficial theoretical properties. As a result, we yield a novel meta-learner called DRQ-learner and establish that it is: (1) doubly robust (i.e., valid inference under the misspecification of one of the nuisances), (2) Neyman-orthogonal (i.e., insensitive to first-order estimation errors in the nuisance functions), and (3) achieves quasi-oracle efficiency (i.e., behaves asymptotically as if the ground-truth nuisance functions were known). Our DRQ-learner is applicable to settings with both discrete and continuous state spaces. Further, our DRQ-learner is flexible and can be used together with arbitrary machine learning models (e.g., neural networks). We validate our theoretical results through numerical experiments, thereby showing that our meta-learner outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.

Valentyn Melnychuk, Dennis Frauen, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

The conditional average treatment effect (CATE) is widely used in personalized medicine to inform therapeutic decisions. However, state-of-the-art methods for CATE estimation (so-called meta-learners) often perform poorly in the presence of low overlap. In this work, we introduce a new approach to tackle this issue and improve the performance of existing meta-learners in the low-overlap regions. Specifically, we introduce Overlap-Adaptive Regularization (OAR) that regularizes target models proportionally to overlap weights so that, informally, the regularization is higher in regions with low overlap. To the best of our knowledge, our OAR is the first approach to leverage overlap weights in the regularization terms of the meta-learners. Our OAR approach is flexible and works with any existing CATE meta-learner: we demonstrate how OAR can be applied to both parametric and non-parametric second-stage models. Furthermore, we propose debiased versions of our OAR that preserve the Neyman-orthogonality of existing meta-learners and thus ensure more robust inference. Through a series of (semi-)synthetic experiments, we demonstrate that our OAR significantly improves CATE estimation in low-overlap settings in comparison to constant regularization.

Dennis Frauen, Valentyn Melnychuk, Jonas Schweisthal et al.

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 two-stage CATE estimators can be adapted for optimal decision-making.

Jonas Schweisthal, Dennis Frauen, Mihaela van der Schaar et al.

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.

Jonas Schweisthal, Dennis Frauen, Valentyn Melnychuk et al.

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.