Justin Whitehouse

Justin Whitehouse, Morgane Austern, Vasilis Syrgkanis

Constructing confidence intervals for the value of an optimal treatment policy is an important problem in causal inference. Insight into the optimal policy value can guide the development of reward-maximizing, individualized treatment regimes. However, because the functional that defines the optimal value is non-differentiable, standard semi-parametric approaches for performing inference fail to be directly applicable. Existing approaches for handling this non-differentiability fall roughly into two camps. In one camp are estimators based on constructing smooth approximations of the optimal value. These approaches are computationally lightweight, but typically place unrealistic parametric assumptions on outcome regressions. In another camp are approaches that directly de-bias the non-smooth objective. These approaches don't place parametric assumptions on nuisance functions, but they either require the computation of intractably-many nuisance estimates, assume unrealistic $L^\infty$ nuisance convergence rates, or make strong margin assumptions that prohibit non-response to a treatment. In this paper, we revisit the problem of constructing smooth approximations of non-differentiable functionals. By carefully controlling first-order bias and second-order remainders, we show that a softmax smoothing-based estimator can be used to estimate parameters that are specified as a maximum of scores involving nuisance components. In particular, this includes the value of the optimal treatment policy as a special case. Our estimator obtains $\sqrt{n}$ convergence rates, avoids parametric restrictions/unrealistic margin assumptions, and is often statistically efficient.

Ayush Sawarni, Jikai Jin, Justin Whitehouse et al. · stanford

Policy learning algorithms are widely used in areas such as personalized medicine and advertising to develop individualized treatment regimes. However, most methods force a decision even when predictions are uncertain, which is risky in high-stakes settings. We study policy learning with abstention, where a policy may defer to a safe default or an expert. When a policy abstains, it receives a small additive reward on top of the value of a random guess. We propose a two-stage learner that first identifies a set of near-optimal policies and then constructs an abstention rule from their disagreements. We establish fast O(1/n)-type regret guarantees when propensities are known, and extend these guarantees to the unknown-propensity case via a doubly robust (DR) objective. We further show that abstention is a versatile tool with direct applications to other core problems in policy learning: it yields improved guarantees under margin conditions without the common realizability assumption, connects to distributionally robust policy learning by hedging against small data shifts, and supports safe policy improvement by ensuring improvement over a baseline policy with high probability.

Justin Whitehouse, Christopher Jung, Vasilis Syrgkanis et al.

Estimates of heterogeneous treatment effects such as conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) and conditional quantile treatment effects (CQTEs) play an important role in real-world decision making. Given this importance, one should ensure these estimates are calibrated. While there is a rich literature on calibrating estimators of non-causal parameters, very few methods have been derived for calibrating estimators of causal parameters, or more generally estimators of quantities involving nuisance parameters. In this work, we develop general algorithms for reducing the task of causal calibration to that of calibrating a standard (non-causal) predictive model. Throughout, we study a notion of calibration defined with respect to an arbitrary, nuisance-dependent loss $\ell$, under which we say an estimator $θ$ is calibrated if its predictions cannot be changed on any level set to decrease loss. For losses $\ell$ satisfying a condition called universal orthogonality, we present a simple algorithm that transforms partially-observed data into generalized pseudo-outcomes and applies any off-the-shelf calibration procedure. For losses $\ell$ satisfying a weaker assumption called conditional orthogonality, we provide a similar sample splitting algorithm the performs empirical risk minimization over an appropriately defined class of functions. Convergence of both algorithms follows from a generic, two term upper bound of the calibration error of any model. We demonstrate the practical applicability of our results in experiments on both observational and synthetic data. Our results are exceedingly general, showing that essentially any existing calibration algorithm can be used in causal settings, with additional loss only arising from errors in nuisance estimation.