Treatment Effect Risk: Bounds and Inference

References

• Ahmadi-Javid A (2012) Entropic value-at-risk: A new coherent risk measure. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 155(3):1105–1123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Artzner P, Delbaen F, Eber JM, Heath D (1999) Coherent measures of risk. Math. Finance 9(3):203–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Imbens G (2016) Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA 113(27):7353–7360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Wager S (2021) Policy learning with observational data. Econometrica 89:133–161. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA15732.Google Scholar
• Athey S, Eckles D, Imbens GW (2018) Exact p-values for network interference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 113(521):230–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Audibert JY, Tsybakov AB (2007) Fast learning rates for plug-in classifiers. Ann. Statist. 35(2):608–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bagnell JA (2005) Robust Supervised Learning (AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA).Google Scholar
• Behaghel L, Crépon B, Gurgand M (2014) Private and public provision of counseling to job seekers: Evidence from a large controlled experiment. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 6(4):142–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belloni A, Chernozhukov V, Fernández-Val I, Hansen C (2017) Program evaluation and causal inference with high-dimensional data. Econometrica 85(1):233–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ben-Tal A, Den Hertog D, De Waegenaere A, Melenberg B, Rennen G (2013) Robust solutions of optimization problems affected by uncertain probabilities. Management Sci. 59(2):341–357.Link, Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, Gupta V, Kallus N (2018) Robust sample average approximation. Math. Programming 171(1):217–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen J, Kallus N, Mao X, Svacha G, Udell M (2019) Fairness under unawareness: Assessing disparity when protected class is unobserved. Proc. Conf. Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT* ’19) (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 339–348.Google Scholar
• Chernozhukov V, Fernández-Val I, Galichon A (2010) Quantile and probability curves without crossing. Econometrica 78(3):1093–1125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernozhukov V, Demirer M, Duflo E, Fernandez-Val I (2018a) Generic machine learning inference on heterogeneous treatment effects in randomized experiments, with an application to immunization in India. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Chernozhukov V, Escanciano JC, Ichimura H, Newey WK, Robins JM (2022) Locally robust semiparametric estimation. Econometrica 90(4):1501–1535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernozhukov V, Chetverikov D, Demirer M, Duflo E, Hansen C, Newey W, Robins J (2018b) Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Econom. J. 21(1):C1–C68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crump RK, Hotz VJ, Imbens GW, Mitnik OA (2008) Nonparametric tests for treatment effect heterogeneity. Rev. Econom. Statist. 90(3):389–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davison A (1992) Treatment effect heterogeneity in paired data. Biometrika 79(3):463–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding P, Feller A, Miratrix L (2016) Randomization inference for treatment effect variation. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B Statist. Methodological 78(3):655–671.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ding P, Feller A, Miratrix L (2019) Decomposing treatment effect variation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 114(525):304–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dorn J, Guo K, Kallus N (2021) Doubly-valid/doubly-sharp sensitivity analysis for causal inference with unmeasured confounding. Preprint, submitted December 21, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.11449.Google Scholar
• Esfahani PM, Kuhn D (2018) Data-driven distributionally robust optimization using the wasserstein metric: Performance guarantees and tractable reformulations. Math. Programming 171(1):115–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Firpo S (2007) Efficient semiparametric estimation of quantile treatment effects. Econometrica 75(1):259–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gail M, Simon R (1985) Testing for qualitative interactions between treatment effects and patient subsets. Biometrics 41(2):361–372.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Györfi L, Kohler M, Krzyżak A, Walk H (2002) A Distribution-Free Theory of Nonparametric Regression (Springer, Berlin).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hardy GH, Littlewood JE, Pólya G, Pólya G (1952) Inequalities (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Smith J, Clements N (1997) Making the most out of programme evaluations and social experiments: Accounting for heterogeneity in programme impacts. Rev. Econom. Stud. 64(4):487–535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imai K, Ratkovic M (2013) Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized program evaluation. Ann. Appl. Statist. 7(1):443–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imbens GW, Rubin DB (2015) Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imbens GW, Wooldridge JM (2009) Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J. Econom. Literature 47(1):5–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johari R, Li H, Liskovich I, Weintraub GY (2022) Experimental design in two-sided platforms: An analysis of bias. Management Sci. 68(10):7069–7089.Link, Google Scholar
• Jung J, Shroff R, Feller A, Goel S (2020) Bayesian sensitivity analysis for offline policy evaluation. Proc. AAAI/ACM Conf. on AI, Ethics, and Society (AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA), 64–70.Google Scholar
• Kallus N (2018) Balanced policy evaluation and learning. Advan. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 31.Google Scholar
• Kallus N, Zhou A (2018) Residual unfairness in fair machine learning from prejudiced data. Internat. Conf. Machine Learn. 35:2439–2448.Google Scholar
• Kallus N, Zhou A (2019) Assessing disparate impacts of personalized interventions: Identifiability and bounds. Advan. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 32.Google Scholar
• Kallus N, Zhou A (2021) Minimax-optimal policy learning under unobserved confounding. Management Sci. 67(5):2870–2890.Link, Google Scholar
• Kallus N, Mao X, Uehara M (2019) Localized debiased machine learning: Efficient inference on quantile treatment effects and beyond.Google Scholar
• Kallus N, Mao X, Zhou A (2022) Assessing algorithmic fairness with unobserved protected class using data combination. Management Sci. 68(3):1959–1981.Link, Google Scholar
• Kearns M, Neel S, Roth A, Wu ZS (2018) Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness (ICML).Google Scholar
• Kennedy EH (2020) Towards optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects. Preprint, submitted April 29, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.14497.Google Scholar
• Kennedy EH, Balakrishnan S, G’Sell M (2020) Sharp instruments for classifying compliers and generalizing causal effects. Ann. Statist. 48(4):2008–2030.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilbertus N, Ball PJ, Kusner MJ, Weller A, Silva R (2020) The Sensitivity of Counterfactual Fairness to Unmeasured Confounding (UAI).Google Scholar
• Kitagawa T, Tetenov A (2018) Who should be treated? Empirical welfare maximization methods for treatment choice. Econometrica 86(2):591–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krokhmal P, Palmquist J, Uryasev S (2002) Portfolio optimization with conditional value-at-risk objective and constraints. J. Risk 4:43–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Künzel SR, Sekhon JS, Bickel PJ, Yu B (2019) Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA 116(10):4156–4165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lahoti P, Beutel A, Chen J, Lee K, Prost F, Thain N, Wang X, Chi E (2020) Fairness without demographics through adversarially reweighted learning. Advan. Neural Inform. Processing Systems, vol. 33 (NeurIPS, San Diego).Google Scholar
• Lakkaraju H, Kamar E, Caruana R, Leskovec J (2019) Faithful and Customizable Explanations of Black Box Models (AIES).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luedtke AR, van der Laan MJ (2016a) Optimal individualized treatments in resource-limited settings. Internat. J. Biostatist. 12(1):283–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luedtke AR, van der Laan MJ (2016b) Statistical inference for the mean outcome under a possibly non-unique optimal treatment strategy. Ann. Statist. 44(2):713.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luedtke AR, van der Laan MJ (2017) Evaluating the impact of treating the optimal subgroup. Statist. Methods Medical Res. 26(4):1630–1640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mammen E, Tsybakov AB (1999) Smooth discrimination analysis. Ann. Statist. 27(6):1808–1829.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nie X, Wager S (2021) Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Biometrika 108(2):299–319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qian M, Murphy SA (2011) Performance guarantees for individualized treatment rules. Ann. Statist. 39(2):1180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C (2016) “Why should I trust you?” explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proc. ACM SIGKDD Internat. Conf. Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (ACM, New York) 22:1135–1144.Google Scholar
• Robins JM, Rotnitzky A, Zhao LP (1994) Estimation of regression-coefficients when some regressors are not always observed. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 89(427):846–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rockafellar RT, Uryasev S (2000) Optimization of conditional value-at-risk. J. Risk 2:21–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubin DB (1986) Comment: Which ifs have causal answers. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 81(396):961–962.Google Scholar
• Ruszczyński A, Shapiro A (2006) Optimization of convex risk functions. Math. Oper. Res. 31(3):433–452.Link, Google Scholar
• Sawilowsky SS (1990) Nonparametric tests of interaction in experimental design. Rev. Ed. Res. 60(1):91–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schick A (1986) On asymptotically efficient estimation in semiparametric models. Ann. Statist. 14(3):1139–1151.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stone CJ (1982) Optimal global rates of convergence for nonparametric regression. Ann. Statist. 10(4):1040–1053.Google Scholar
• Tan Z (2006) A distributional approach for causal inference using propensity scores. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 101(476):1619–1637.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van der Vaart A (1998) Asymptotic Statistics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wager S, Athey S (2018) Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 113(523):1228–1242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wainwright MJ (2019) High-Dimensional Statistics: A Non-Asymptotic Viewpoint (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao Y, Zeng D, Rush AJ, Kosorok MR (2012) Estimating individualized treatment rules using outcome weighted learning. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 107(499):1106–1118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zheng W, van der Laan MJ (2011) Cross-validated targeted minimum-loss-based estimation. Targeted Learning (Springer, Berlin), 459–474.Crossref, Google Scholar