Leveraging a Simulator for Learning Causal Representations from Post-Treatment Covariates for CATE

TMLR Paper3567 Authors

26 Oct 2024 (modified: 27 Nov 2024)Under review for TMLREveryoneRevisionsBibTeXCC BY 4.0
Abstract: Treatment effect estimation involves assessing the impact of different treatments on individual outcomes. Current methods estimate Conditional Average Treatment Effect (CATE) using observational datasets where covariates are collected before treatment assignment and outcomes are observed afterward, under assumptions like positivity and unconfoundedness. In this paper, we address a scenario where both covariates and outcomes are gathered after treatment. We show that post-treatment covariates render CATE unidentifiable, and recovering CATE requires learning treatment-independent causal representations. Prior work shows that such representations can be learned through contrastive learning if counterfactual supervision is available in observational data. However, since counterfactuals are rare, other works have explored using simulators that offer synthetic counterfactual supervision. Our goal in this paper is to systematically analyze the role of simulators in estimating CATE. We analyze the CATE error of several baselines and highlight their limitations. We then establish a generalization bound that characterizes the CATE error from jointly training on real and simulated distributions, as a function of the real-simulator mismatch. Finally, we introduce SimPONet, a novel method whose loss function is inspired from our generalization bound. We further show how SimPONet adjusts the simulator’s influence on the learning objective based on the simulator’s relevance to the CATE task. We experiment with various DGPs, by systematically varying the real-simulator distribution gap to evaluate SimPONet’s efficacy against state-of-the-art CATE baselines.
Submission Length: Long submission (more than 12 pages of main content)
Changes Since Last Submission: We have thoroughly addressed numerous reviewer questions during the rebuttal process. Additionally, we conducted several new experiments to further strengthen our findings and incorporated the results into the revised version of the paper.
Assigned Action Editor: ~Fredrik_Daniel_Johansson1
Submission Number: 3567
Loading