Bounds on Representation-Induced Confounding Bias for Treatment Effect Estimation

Overview

• This paper proposes a new framework for estimating bounds on the bias introduced by using low-dimensional representations in conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation.
• CATE estimation is an important task in causal inference, but existing state-of-the-art methods that use representation learning can introduce bias by losing information about observed confounders.
• The paper establishes theoretical conditions under which CATE is non-identifiable given low-dimensional representations, and introduces a neural refutation framework to partially identify CATE and estimate bounds on the representation-induced confounding bias.

Plain English Explanation

When trying to understand the causal effects of an intervention or treatment, researchers often use a statistical measure called the conditional average treatment effect (CATE). This tells us the average effect of the treatment, but only for a specific group or set of characteristics.

A common approach to estimating CATE is to use representation learning - reducing the information about the observed characteristics (confounders) down to a lower-dimensional form. This can help reduce the variance in the CATE estimate, especially when dealing with small datasets.

However, this dimensionality reduction can also lose important information about the confounders, which can then introduce bias into the CATE estimate. This means the CATE estimate may not accurately reflect the true causal effect.

This paper proposes a new refutation framework to address this issue. First, it establishes the theoretical conditions under which CATE estimation becomes non-identifiable when using low-dimensional representations. Then, it introduces a neural network-based method to partially identify the CATE and estimate bounds on the bias introduced by the dimensionality reduction.

Through experiments, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach in bounding the representation-induced confounding bias. This is an important contribution, as accurately estimating CATE is crucial in many real-world applications where causal inference is needed, such as policy evaluation or dynamic network analysis.

Technical Explanation

The key insight of this paper is that while representation learning can help reduce the variance in CATE estimation, it can also introduce bias by losing information about observed confounders. The authors first establish the theoretical conditions under which CATE becomes non-identifiable given low-dimensional representations.

To address this issue, the authors propose a neural refutation framework that performs partial identification of CATE. This means instead of trying to point-identify the CATE, the framework aims to estimate lower and upper bounds on the CATE to account for the representation-induced confounding bias.

The framework works by training a neural network to generate multiple representations of the confounders, each with different levels of dimensionality reduction. These representations are then used to estimate bounds on the CATE that are valid regardless of the true underlying representation.

The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach through a series of experiments, showing that their bounds successfully capture the true CATE even when representation learning introduces substantial bias. This is an important contribution, as it provides a way to quantify the uncertainty in CATE estimates due to dimensionality reduction, which is crucial for causal sensitivity analysis and maintaining data confidentiality.

Critical Analysis

One potential limitation of this work is that it focuses solely on the bias introduced by dimensionality reduction in representation learning, and does not consider other sources of bias that may arise in CATE estimation, such as model misspecification or violation of the unconfoundedness assumption.

Additionally, the authors' proposed neural refutation framework, while effective, may be computationally intensive, especially for large-scale applications. Further research could explore more efficient or scalable methods for estimating the bounds on representation-induced confounding bias.

That said, the authors do acknowledge these limitations and suggest several directions for future work, such as extending the framework to handle other sources of bias or exploring alternative approaches to partial identification of CATE. Overall, this paper makes an important contribution to the field of causal inference by providing a principled way to quantify and address the bias introduced by representation learning in CATE estimation.

Conclusion

This paper presents a new refutation framework for estimating bounds on the bias introduced by using low-dimensional representations in conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation. The authors establish the theoretical conditions under which CATE becomes non-identifiable given low-dimensional representations, and then propose a neural network-based method to partially identify CATE and estimate bounds on the representation-induced confounding bias.

Through experiments, the authors demonstrate the effectiveness of their approach in bounding the bias, which is an important contribution to the field of causal inference. Accurately estimating CATE is crucial for many real-world applications, such as policy evaluation and dynamic network analysis, where causal inference is needed. The proposed framework provides a way to quantify the uncertainty in CATE estimates due to dimensionality reduction, which can help researchers and practitioners make more informed decisions based on the available data.