Abstract:Machine learning for causal inference, particularly at the individual level, has attracted intense interest in many domains. Existing techniques focus on controlling differences in distribution between treatment groups in a data-driven manner, eliminating the effects of confounding factors. However, few of the current methods adequately discuss the difference in treatment group sizes. Two approaches, a direct and an indirect one, deal with potential missing data for estimating individual treatment with binary treatments and different treatment group sizes. We embed the two methods into certain frameworks based on the domain adaption and representation. We validate the performance of our method by two benchmarks in the causal inference community: simulated data and real-world data. Experiment results verify that our methods perform well.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to estimate the Individual Treatment Effect (ITE) under different treatment group sizes. Specifically, the paper focuses on how to more effectively estimate the treatment effect at the individual level in observational data, especially when the sample sizes of the treatment group and the control group are unbalanced. This imbalance usually leads to an increase in prediction error and a bias in causal effect estimation, so new methods need to be developed to meet this challenge.
### Background and Motivation
1. **Importance of Causal Inference**: Causal inference is a key research topic in many fields. Traditional statistical methods mainly focus on the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) of the population or sub - populations. However, with the increasing demand for personalized decision - making, researchers are increasingly concerned with the treatment effect at the individual level (ITE).
2. **Limitations of Existing Methods**: Although existing causal inference methods can control the distribution differences between treatment groups and eliminate the influence of confounding factors, they are insufficient in dealing with the problem of different treatment group sizes. In particular, when the sample sizes of the treatment group and the control group are severely unbalanced, the effectiveness of these methods will decrease significantly.
### Main Contributions of the Paper
1. **Define the DTGS Task**: The paper formally defines the task of estimating the individual treatment effect under different treatment group sizes (Different Treatment Group Sizes, DTGS).
2. **Propose Two Methods**: The paper proposes two simple and effective methods to solve the DTGS problem:
- **Minority in Treatment Over - sampling (MTOVA)**: By over - sampling the samples of the minority group, it compensates for the potentially missing data and makes the variance of the minority group gradually approach that of the majority group.
- **Factual Outcome Distribution Smoothing (FODS)**: By kernel density estimation, it smoothes the distribution of factual outcomes, adjusts the prediction loss weights, and reduces the impact of unbalanced sample sizes.
3. **Experimental Verification**: The paper conducts experiments on two benchmark datasets to verify the effectiveness of the proposed methods. The experimental results show that the method combining MTOVA and FODS outperforms existing ITE estimation methods in the DTGS task.
### Method Overview
1. **Problem Setup**: Define the space \( \mathcal{X} \subset \mathbb{R}^d \) of the covariate vector \( \mathbf{x} \) and the space \( \mathcal{Y} \subset \mathbb{R} \) of the continuous outcome \( Y \). Assume that the observational data contains \( n \) units, and each unit receives a binary treatment \( t \in \{0, 1\} \).
2. **Definitions and Assumptions**:
- **Consistency Assumption**: The potential outcome of the actually received treatment \( t \) is equal to the observed outcome.
- **Strong Ignorability Assumption**: Given the covariate \( \mathbf{x} \), the treatment assignment \( T \) is independent of the potential outcomes.
- **Average Treatment Effect (ATE)**: \[ \text{ATE} = \mathbb{E}(Y_1 - Y_0) = \mathbb{E}[\mathbb{E}(Y_1 - Y_0 | \mathbf{x})] \]
- **Individual Treatment Effect (ITE)**: \[ \tau(\mathbf{x}) = \mathbb{E}[Y_1 - Y_0 | \mathbf{x}] \]
3. **Theoretical Analysis**:
- **Upper Bound of ITE Error**: The paper cites the upper - bound formula of the ITE error, which consists of the prediction error, the imbalance measure in the representation space, and the variance of the outcome.
- **Impact of DTGS**: The paper theoretically analyzes and experimentally verifies the impact of DTGS on ITE estimation, especially that caused by unbalanced sample sizes.