Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Conformal Counterfactual Inference under Hidden Confounding

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.12387 v1 pith:4V4G2DMO submitted 2024-05-20 cs.LG

Conformal Counterfactual Inference under Hidden Confounding

classification cs.LG
keywords intervalsinterventionaloutcomesunderconfidencecounterfactualdatapotential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Personalized decision making requires the knowledge of potential outcomes under different treatments, and confidence intervals about the potential outcomes further enrich this decision-making process and improve its reliability in high-stakes scenarios. Predicting potential outcomes along with its uncertainty in a counterfactual world poses the foundamental challenge in causal inference. Existing methods that construct confidence intervals for counterfactuals either rely on the assumption of strong ignorability, or need access to un-identifiable lower and upper bounds that characterize the difference between observational and interventional distributions. To overcome these limitations, we first propose a novel approach wTCP-DR based on transductive weighted conformal prediction, which provides confidence intervals for counterfactual outcomes with marginal converage guarantees, even under hidden confounding. With less restrictive assumptions, our approach requires access to a fraction of interventional data (from randomized controlled trials) to account for the covariate shift from observational distributoin to interventional distribution. Theoretical results explicitly demonstrate the conditions under which our algorithm is strictly advantageous to the naive method that only uses interventional data. After ensuring valid intervals on counterfactuals, it is straightforward to construct intervals for individual treatment effects (ITEs). We demonstrate our method across synthetic and real-world data, including recommendation systems, to verify the superiority of our methods compared against state-of-the-art baselines in terms of both coverage and efficiency

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.