Raghavendra Addanki, Siddharth Bhandari
arXiv 15 Mar 2024 · Machine Learning
arXiv:2403.10618 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text
Average Treatment Effect (ATE) estimation is a well-studied problem in causal inference. However, it does not necessarily capture the heterogeneity in the data, and several approaches have been proposed to tackle the issue, including estimating the Quantile Treatment Effects. In the finite population setting containing $n$ individuals, with treatment and control values denoted by the potential outcome vectors $\mathbf{a}, \mathbf{b}$, much of the prior work focused on estimating median$(\mathbf{a}) -$ median$(\mathbf{b})$, where median($\mathbf x$) denotes the median value in the sorted ordering of all the values in vector $\mathbf x$. It is known that estimating the difference of medians is easier than the desired estimand of median$(\mathbf{a-b})$, called the Median Treatment Effect (MTE). The fundamental problem of causal inference -- for every individual $i$, we can only observe one of the potential outcome values, i.e., either the value $a_i$ or $b_i$, but not both, makes estimating MTE particularly challenging. In this work, we argue that MTE is not estimable and detail a novel notion of approximation that relies on the sorted order of the values in $\mathbf{a-b}$. Next, we identify a quantity called variability that exactly captures the complexity of MTE estimation. By drawing connections to instance-optimality studied in theoretical computer science, we show that every algorithm for estimating the MTE obtains an approximation error that is no better than the error of an algorithm that computes variability. Finally, we provide a simple linear time algorithm for computing the variability exactly. Unlike much prior work, a particular highlight of our work is that we make no assumptions about how the potential outcome vectors are generated or how they are correlated, except that the potential outcome values are $k$-ary, i.e., take one of $k$ discrete values.
appendix boundary found by none_found · 100% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.
The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.
| Reference | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | Main text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | James J Heckman, Jeffrey Smith, and Nancy Clements (1997) Making the most out of programme evaluations and social experiments: Accounting for heterogeneity in programme impacts | 0.511 | 2 | 1 | 100% |
| 2 | Nathan Kallus (2022) What's the harm? sharp bounds on the fraction negatively affected by treatment | 0.511 | 2 | 1 | 100% |
| 3 | Raghavendra Addanki, David Arbour, Tung Mai, Cameron Musco, and Anup… (2022) Sample constrained treatment effect estimation self | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 4 | Susan Athey and Guido Imbens (2016) Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 5 | Iavor Bojinov, Guillaume Saint-Jacques, and Martin Tingley (2020) Avoid the pitfalls of a/b testing make sure your experiments recognize customers' varying needs | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 6 | Victor Chernozhukov and Christian Hansen (2005) An iv model of quantile treatment effects | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 7 | Victor Chernozhukov, Denis Chetverikov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo,… (2018) Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters, 2018 | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 8 | Peng Ding, Avi Feller, and Luke Miratrix (2019) Decomposing treatment effect variation | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 9 | Christopher Harshaw, Fredrik Sävje, Daniel A Spielman, and Peng Zhang (2023) Balancing covariates in randomized experiments with the gram–schmidt walk design | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 10 | Steven R Howard and Aaditya Ramdas (2022) Sequential estimation of quantiles with applications to a/b testing and best-arm identification | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
Showing the top 10 of 16 scored citations.