Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1804.05146

A comparison of methods for model selection when estimating individual treatment effects

Alejandro Schuler·Michael Baiocchi·Robert Tibshirani·Nigam Shah
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Practitioners in medicine, business, political science, and other fields are increasingly aware that decisions should be personalized to each patient, customer, or voter. A given treatment (e.g. a drug or advertisement) should be administered only to those who will respond most positively, and certainly not to those who will be harmed by it. Individual-level treatment effects can be estimated with tools adapted from machine learning, but different models can yield contradictory estimates. Unlike risk prediction models, however, treatment effect models cannot be easily evaluated against each other using a held-out test set because the true treatment effect itself is never directly observed. Besides outcome prediction accuracy, several metrics that can leverage held-out data to evaluate treatment effects models have been proposed, but they are not widely used. We provide a didactic framework that elucidates the relationships between the different approaches and compare them all using a variety of simulations of both randomized and observational data. Our results show that researchers estimating heterogenous treatment effects need not limit themselves to a single model-fitting algorithm. Instead of relying on a single method, multiple models fit by a diverse set of algorithms should be evaluated against each other using an objective function learned from the validation set. The model minimizing that objective should be used for estimating the individual treatment effect for future individuals.

Explore related subjects

stat.MLcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alejandro Schuler, Michael Baiocchi, Robert Tibshirani, Nigam Shah. 2018-06-13. A comparison of methods for model selection when estimating individual treatment effects. https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05146

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Attack-Resistant Uniform Fairness for Linear and Smooth Contextual Bandits

Modern digital platforms use contextual bandits to allocate valuable exposure and opportunities among competing participants. Fair treatment is therefore an important concern, yet reward maximization alone does not ensure that preferential allocation reflects participants' merits. We develop algorithms for linear and smooth contextual bandits under uniform merit-based fairness, requiring the reward ordering to justify preferential allocation across all contexts and rounds, and study how these guarantees are affected by adversarial reward corruption. Our algorithms achieve \((1-\widetilde O(1/T))\)-fairness, with regret that is minimax optimal among fair policies for linear rewards and nearly minimax optimal for smooth rewards. In the linear setting, matching lower bounds identify the price of fairness exactly: minimax regret increases from \(\log T\) to \(\log^2 T\). For smooth rewards, the cost of fairness is at most polylogarithmic. We further establish a separation between regret and fairness robustness: an \(\widetilde O(1)\) corruption budget can cause substantial fairness violations without worsening the regret order. We therefore develop robust algorithms that adapt sampling, estimation, and fairness certification to corruption, which preserve uniform fairness and achieve minimax-optimal and nearly optimal regrets for linear and smooth rewards, respectively. Numerical and semi-synthetic experiments illustrate these findings.

stat.ML↗
arXiv2026

The Cost of Privacy: Rates of Convergence for Parameter Estimation with Differential Privacy

We study the minimax cost of $(\varepsilon,δ)$-differential privacy for mean estimation and Gaussian linear regression in low and high dimensions. For low-dimensional mean estimation, a resampling reduction to fingerprinting yields the privacy contribution $d^2\log(1/δ)/(n^2\varepsilon^2)$ in the stated polynomial-$δ$ regime. For low-dimensional regression, a tracing argument gives the contribution $d^2/(n^2\varepsilon^2)$ under an explicit approximate-DP remainder condition. For sparse mean estimation and sparse regression, a constant-weight packing and a private Fano lemma produce an effective privacy entropy of order $\min\{s\log(ed/s),[\log((e^\varepsilon-1)/δ)]_+\}$ for $δ>0$, up to universal constants and a fixed threshold; for pure DP it is $s\log(ed/s)$. Thus, when $δ$ is polynomially smaller than $\varepsilon$, the pure-DP dependence is retained up to polylogarithmic factors whenever the effective dimension is polylogarithmic in $n$, including regimes with $\varepsilon=o(1)$. Coordinatewise-clipping estimators for means and split-sample noisy-gradient estimators for regression attain the lower bounds up to explicit logarithmic factors. Simulations and data examples illustrate related implementations.

stat.ML↗
arXiv2026

Robust Mixture Models for Algorithmic Fairness Under Latent Heterogeneity

Machine learning models optimized for average performance can perform poorly on vulnerable subpopulations. Existing approaches often rely on groups specified in advance, yet fairness-relevant subgroup structure may be latent, intersectional, and driven by complex interactions among continuous and discrete attributes. We introduce \textbf{ROME} (\textbf{\underline{RO}}bust \textbf{\underline{M}}ixture \textbf{\underline{E}}nsemble), a framework that learns latent group structure while optimizing worst-group predictive performance. ROME connects latent-variable modeling with distributionally robust optimization (DRO) through two complementary approaches: an Expectation-Maximization formulation with robust aggregation for linear models and a neural Mixture-of-Experts formulation for nonlinear settings. Across simulations and three real-world regression datasets, ROME improves worst-group performance while maintaining competitive overall accuracy, including in comparisons with established group-aware and group-label-free robust learning methods. ROME provides a flexible approach to robust prediction when fairness-relevant attributes are available for subgroup discovery but their direct use in group-specific outcome models is restricted.

stat.ML↗