Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Sequential Treatment Effect Estimation with Unmeasured Confounders

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes DSIV-CFR, a framework that estimates sequential treatment effects under unmeasured confounders by recovering latent instrumental variables from observed covariates using negative controls.

desk verdict A serious attempt at a hard problem, but the identification proof is invalid and the experiments validate only factual prediction, so the causal claims are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09113 v1 pith:XQP4FHPU submitted 2025-05-14 cs.LG stat.ME

Yingrong Wang , Anpeng Wu , Baohong Li , Ziyang Xiao , Ruoxuan Xiong , Qing Han , Kun Kuang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ME
keywords sequentialtreatmenteffectsunmeasuredconfoundinginstrumentalvariablesnegativecontrolscounterfactualregressiongeneralizedmethodofmomentstimeseriescausalinference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tackles a standard failure mode in sequential decision-making: treatments are chosen partly on hidden factors that also affect future outcomes, so estimators that ignore those factors are biased. It claims that the causal effect of a sequence of treatments can still be recovered by treating the previous outcome as a negative control outcome and a hidden instrumental variable as a negative control exposure. The identification rests on an additive-noise model plus a generalized moment condition, which turns counterfactual regression into a two-stage instrumental-variable problem. If the claim holds, optimal treatment plans can be selected from observational records without ever measuring the confounders, which matters for medicine, finance, and policy.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the IV/confounder decomposition of the observed pre-treatment covariates, enforced by mutual-information losses, together with the generalized method of moments (GMM), a standard way to estimate parameters from moment conditions. The moment condition is $$E[Y_t\mid\bar{C}_{t-1},Z_{t-1}]=\int h(A_t,\bar{A}_{t-1},\bar{C}_{t-1})\,dF(A_t\mid\bar{A}_{t-1},\bar{C}_{t-1},Z_{t-1}).$$ The previous outcome $Y_{t-1}$ serves as a negative control outcome because, under the additive-noise assumption, the unmeasured confounder $U_{t-1}$ is the only common cause it shares with $Y_t$. The bridge function $f$ learns weights $M_{t-1}$ in an adversarial loss that enforces the moment condition while the outcome network $h$ minimizes prediction error.

What would settle it

Simulate the paper's data-generating process, then break one load-bearing premise at a time: shift $E[U\mid X]$ away from zero, add a direct edge $Y_{t-1}\rightarrow Y_t$, or let $U_{t-1}$ affect $Y_{t-1}$ and $Y_t$ with different coefficients. Comparing DSIV-CFR's estimated treatment-response function $h$ to the true one in these variants would show whether the identification holds under the assumed graph and fails when the graph changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.8's identification: from observed history one can decompose the covariates $\bar{X}_{t-1}$ into an instrument $Z_{t-1}$ and confounders $\bar{C}_{t-1}$ such that $Z_{t-1}\perp\perp \bar{C}_{t-1}$ and $Z_{t-1}\perp\perp Y_t\mid\{A_t,\bar{A}_{t-1},\bar{C}_{t-1},Y_{t-1}\}$. Under this decomposition, the conditional expectation $E[Y_t\mid\bar{C}_{t-1},Z_{t-1}]$ becomes the integral of the treatment-response function $h$ against the conditional treatment distribution, so $h$ is identified by two-stage regression. The paper implements this by learning $\phi_Z$ and $\phi_C$ representations with a transformer, enforcing the independence conditions through mutual-information losses, and adding a bridge function that supplies adversarial moment weights. In experiments on four datasets it reports lower one-step-ahead prediction error than six baselines, and on a simulator it selects five-step treatment plans close to the oracle.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unmeasured confounder makes no net contribution after conditioning on observed covariates ($E[U\mid X]=0$), that neither the hidden confounder nor the outcome carries over from one time step to the next, and that the hidden confounder enters the previous and current outcomes through the same functional form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the identification holds, one can estimate personalized counterfactual outcomes for the next treatment without measuring latent confounders, using only observed history and the previous outcome as a negative control.
  • The learned IV and confounder representations plug directly into a GMM objective, giving a principled estimation target that goes beyond plain supervised loss and extends two-stage least squares to high-dimensional sequential settings.
  • Multi-step decision making follows by enumerating treatment sequences and scoring each with the estimated response function, which the paper demonstrates on a simulator with a five-step horizon.
  • If the framework transfers to real clinical, financial, or policy logs, treatment policies can be selected from observational records where unmeasured lifestyle, socioeconomic, or market factors would otherwise confound decisions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The same negative-control construction could transfer to off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning, where a lagged action and a lagged reward often satisfy the required exclusion restrictions; testing the moment condition on logged bandit or RL data would be a natural next step.
  • Inference: The paper's own Impact Statement concedes that when $E[U\mid X]\neq 0$ the outcome prediction is biased but the treatment-effect estimate may remain consistent, so a follow-up could report effect-error separately from prediction error.
  • Inference: Because the additive-noise assumption forbids autoregressive outcomes and persistent hidden confounders, real-world use would hinge on preprocessing such as detrending or differencing to make residuals approximately independent, a burden the paper does not discuss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the estimation of sequential treatment effects E[Y_t(a_t) | H_{t-1}] in the presence of unmeasured confounders. The proposed method, DSIV-CFR, uses a transformer to embed the observed history, separates the covariates into instrument and confounder representations via mutual information losses, and then estimates the outcome with a GMM-style two-stage regression that includes an adversarial loss on the residuals. The identification argument relies on Theorem 3.8, which claims that a latent instrument Z_{t-1} can be recovered from observed covariates using the previous outcome as a negative control, and on the moment condition in Eq. (5). Experiments are reported on one synthetic dataset, Tumor Growth, Cryptocurrency, and MIMIC-III, with one-step-ahead MSE and a five-step decision-making experiment.

Significance. The problem addressed is important, and a valid method for sequential treatment effects with unmeasured confounders would be a significant contribution. The paper contains concrete algorithmic details, a hyperparameter study, running-time measurements, and an extended decision-making experiment, which are useful elements of an experimental study. However, the theoretical foundation of the method is not established. The proof of the central identification theorem contains unstated assumptions and invalid steps, the moment condition is not derived correctly, and the empirical evaluation uses factual prediction error rather than counterfactual outcomes. As a result, the paper's central claim is currently unsupported. If the identification result can be repaired and the experiments re-focused on the target estimand, the approach could become promising; in its present form the contribution does not meet the standard for publication.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Theorem 3.8 and proof] The proof of Theorem 3.8 is not valid as written. It introduces an unstated assumption in the proof paragraph: 'we assume that the function of U_{t-1} on Y_{t-1} and Y_t is the same,' which appears neither in Assumptions 3.1-3.5 nor in Assumption 3.7. Eq. (3) is tautological: once epsilon(U_{t-1}) is conditioned on, the expression h(A_t, A_{t-1}, C_{t-1}) + epsilon(U_{t-1}) is deterministic given A_t, A_{t-1}, C_{t-1}, so its independence from Z_{t-1} is vacuous and cannot serve as a characterization of a valid instrument. The step from Eq. (3) to Eq. (4) replaces the conditioning on epsilon(U_{t-1}) with conditioning on Y_{t-1}; by the paper's own Eq. (2), Y_{t-1} also contains epsilon(U_{t-2}), so conditioning on Y_{t-1} does not fix epsilon(U_{t-1}). Consequently the claimed conditional independence Z_{t-1} independent of Y_t given {A_t, A_{t-1}, C_{t-1}, Y_{t-1}} is unsupported, and the recovered representation cannot be claimed to be a valid instrument.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] Eq. (5) is not a valid derivation of the moment condition. The left-hand side conditions on C_{t-1} and Z_{t-1}, while the right-hand side integrates h(A_t, A_{t-1}, C_{t-1}) over the treatment distribution conditional on A_{t-1}, C_{t-1}, and Z_{t-1}; these conditioning sets must match, and a term conditioning on A_{t-1} is missing on the left. In addition, the term E[epsilon(U_{t-1}) | C_{t-1}, Z_{t-1}] is dropped using Assumption 3.4's E[U|X]=0, but epsilon is an arbitrary function, so E[epsilon(U)|X]=0 does not follow from E[U|X]=0. The expectation also omits E[epsilon(U_t) | C_{t-1}, Z_{t-1}] that appears in Eq. (2). The Impact Statement admits that E[U|X] not equal to 0 biases the potential outcome, but even under E[U|X]=0 the displayed moment condition is not established.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (18)] The adversarial objective in Eq. (18) is unbounded. The bridge function f is unconstrained, so M_{t-1}=f(A_{t-1}, C_{t-1}, Z_{t-1}) can take arbitrarily large values; for a fixed h the maximum over f of sum_i M_i (Y_hat_i - Y_i) is either +infinity or -infinity. No normalization or boundedness condition is imposed on the weights. The text describes this as 'a special form of the generalized method of moments,' but no argument connects Eq. (18) to the moment condition in Eq. (5). Without a well-posed minimax objective, the overall optimization in Eq. (19) is not well defined.
  4. [Section 5, Table 2 and Eq. (17)] The reported one-step-ahead results evaluate factual predictive accuracy, not the counterfactual estimand in Eq. (1). The loss in Eq. (17) compares h(A_t^i, A_{t-1}^i, C_{t-1}^i) to the factual outcome Y_t^i observed under the assigned treatment A_t^i. This does not measure E[Y_t(a_t)|H_{t-1}] for alternative treatments, so the large improvement over baselines in Table 2 is not evidence that unmeasured confounding bias is corrected. The five-step decision-making experiment does compare against oracle counterfactual outcomes, but it is limited to one synthetic setting; no counterfactual evaluation is reported on the real-world datasets.
  5. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (8)-(15)] The representation-learning losses impose the conditions that define the instrument: L_ZY enforces Z_{t-1} independent of Y_t given the conditioning set, and L_ZC enforces Z_{t-1} independent of C_{t-1}. Since the representation is optimized to satisfy these conditions, the good performance in Table 2 cannot be read as empirical evidence that valid instruments are discovered from observed covariates; the conditions are built into the objective rather than tested. This does not, by itself, invalidate the estimation strategy, but it means the experiments provide no independent support for the identification assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, near Eq. (19)] The line 'Calculate overall loss L <- L_MSE by Equation (19)' appears to be a typo; it should read L <- L_MSE + alpha*L_MI + beta*L_adv as in Eq. (19).
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] The notation E[epsilon(U)t-1 | C_{t-1}, Z_{t-1}] contains a misplaced parenthesis; it should presumably be E[epsilon(U_{t-1}) | C_{t-1}, Z_{t-1}], and the surrounding derivation should be corrected accordingly.
  3. [Section 4.1, Eq. (11)] The softmax normalization of the RBF kernel weights is unclear as written because softmax is applied to a single scalar exp(-||v_i-v_j||^2/2 sigma^2) rather than to a vector; please specify the domain over which the softmax is taken and how this yields the claimed conditional independence weighting.
  4. [Section 3, Assumption 3.4] Assumption 3.4 informally states Y_{t-1} does not cause Y_t and U_{t-1} does not cause U_t, but Eq. (2) places the same epsilon(U_{t-1}) in both Y_{t-1} and Y_t; the formal relationship between this assumption and the structural equations should be clarified.
  5. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract and Section 1 claim the method identifies optimal treatments for dynamic systems, but the decision-making evaluation is conducted only on the synthetic simulator over a horizon of 5 steps; the wording should be tempered to match the evidence.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The IV exclusion restriction in Theorem 3.8 is imposed, not derived: the LZY loss defines the recovered instrument to satisfy the theorem's conclusion by construction, though the GMM step retains independent Newey-Powell grounding.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1, 'Learning IV Representation', Eq. (10); cf. Theorem 3.8 and its proof, Eqs. (2)–(4).]
    "As mentioned in Theorem 3.8, we require Zt−1⊥⊥Yt|{ At, ¯At−1, ¯Ct−1, Yt−1}. Similarly, LZY,t = 1 n2 Pn i=1 Pn j=1 {wij t−1[ log qθZY (Yi t|ϕZ(ψ( ¯H i t−1))) − log qθZY (Yj t|ϕZ(ψ( ¯H i t−1))) ]},"

    The exclusion restriction that Theorem 3.8 is supposed to identify is directly turned into the training loss LZY for the IV representation, so the recovered φZ is by construction the variable that satisfies the theorem's conclusion. The theorem proof does not establish this independence from the stated assumptions: Eq. (3) is tautological because conditioning on ε(Ut−1) makes {h(...) + ε(Ut−1)} deterministic, and Eq. (4) swaps ε(Ut−1) for Yt−1 although Eq. (2) shows Yt−1 also contains ε(Ut−2); the 'we assume that the function of Ut−1 on Yt−1 and Yt is the same' clause is introduced only inside the proof. Hence the identifying conditional independence is imposed by the loss, not derived, and the moment-condition estimate of h inherits this imposed assumption.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from Assumptions 3.1–3.7 through Theorem 3.8, Eq. (5), and the DSIV-CFR losses. The one partially circular link is in Section 4.1: the exclusion restriction stated in Theorem 3.8 is converted directly into the LZY mutual-information loss, so the learned representation φZ is by construction the object that satisfies the theorem's conclusion. The proof of Theorem 3.8 does not supply this condition from the assumptions: Eq. (3) is tautological, Eq. (4) is not implied because Yt−1 contains additional noise ε(Ut−2), and the 'same function' condition is an unstated assumption introduced in the proof. Thus the identification condition is imposed rather than independently derived. This is only partial circularity: the moment-condition estimator in Eq. (5) is a standard Newey-Powell/GMM inverse problem, and the negative-control scaffolding is taken from external work (Miao et al., 2018, 2024), not from the authors' own prior results. The AutoIV citation (Yuan et al., 2022), which overlaps with the present authors, is used only to motivate the relevance loss and is not load-bearing. The Impact Statement's E[U|X]≠0 caveat is a stated limitation rather than a circular step, and the proof gap is also a correctness risk, but the self-definitional construction of the IV through LZY is what raises the circularity score to 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method rests on standard causal assumptions, several strong domain assumptions about the absence of temporal autocorrelation and mean independence of unmeasured confounders, and an ad hoc decomposition of X into independent IV and confounder sources. The invented latent instrument has no independent evidence.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (α) = 0.1
    Weight for the mutual information loss L_MI; selected via hyperparameter analysis on the Cryptocurrency dataset (Figure 4), with no separate validation set described.
  • beta (β) = 0.1
    Weight for the adversarial GMM loss L_adv; same selection process as α on the Cryptocurrency dataset.
  • sigma (σ) in RBF kernel = 1
    Width of the Gaussian kernel used to compute sample pair weights w_ij in Eq (11); set by hand without sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Consistency (Assumption 3.1): observed outcome equals potential outcome under assigned treatment
    Standard causal inference assumption, stated in Section 3.
  • standard math Overlap (Assumption 3.2): positive probability of each treatment given confounders
    Standard causal inference assumption, needed for inverse probability weighting and two-stage regression.
  • domain assumption Sequential Latent Ignorability (Assumption 3.3): Y_t(a_t) ⊥⊥ A_t | {C_{t-1}, U_{t-1}}
    Assumes all confounders, observed and unobserved, are captured in the conditioning set; this is the core unconfoundedness-type assumption despite the paper's claim to relax it.
  • domain assumption Additive Noise Model (Assumption 3.4): Y_{t-1} not -> Y_t, U_{t-1} not -> U_t, and E[U|X]=0
    Strong and often unrealistic in time series: outcomes usually depend on past outcomes, and unmeasured confounders typically persist and correlate with observed X.
  • domain assumption Time-invariant treatment effect function h (Assumption 3.5)
    The function h is assumed not to change over time; used in the derivation of Eq (5).
  • domain assumption Negative control proportionality (Assumption 3.7): effects of U_{t-1} on NCE/A_t and NCO/Y_t are proportional
    Bridges the unmeasured confounder to the negative control variables; needed for identification but not explicitly used in the proof equations.
  • ad hoc to paper Static independent decomposition of X into Z and C (footnote in Section 3)
    Assumes observed covariates decompose into independent instrumental and confounding sources with static (time-invariant) mapping; this is specific to the proposed model.
  • ad hoc to paper Same function of U_{t-1} on Y_{t-1} and Y_t (used in proof of Theorem 3.8)
    The proof states 'we assume that the function of U_{t-1} on Y_{t-1} and Y_t is the same'; this is an unstated assumption not listed among the formal assumptions.
invented entities (1)
  • Latent instrument Z_{t-1} recovered from observed covariates X_{t-1}
    purpose: Serves as an instrumental variable to isolate the direct causal effect h from unmeasured confounding in the GMM moment condition.
    Z_{t-1} is a learned representation constrained by mutual information losses to satisfy IV conditions. No external or falsifiable evidence validates that the recovered Z is a true instrument; validity is enforced by construction within the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequential Treatment Effect Estimation with Unmeasured Confounders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XQP4FHPU

@misc{pith2026250509113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequential Treatment Effect Estimation with Unmeasured Confounders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XQP4FHPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09113}
}
read the original abstract

This paper studies the cumulative causal effects of sequential treatments in the presence of unmeasured confounders. It is a critical issue in sequential decision-making scenarios where treatment decisions and outcomes dynamically evolve over time. Advanced causal methods apply transformer as a backbone to model such time sequences, which shows superiority in capturing long time dependence and periodic patterns via attention mechanism. However, even they control the observed confounding, these estimators still suffer from unmeasured confounders, which influence both treatment assignments and outcomes. How to adjust the latent confounding bias in sequential treatment effect estimation remains an open challenge. Therefore, we propose a novel Decomposing Sequential Instrumental Variable framework for CounterFactual Regression (DSIV-CFR), relying on a common negative control assumption. Specifically, an instrumental variable (IV) is a special negative control exposure, while the previous outcome serves as a negative control outcome. This allows us to recover the IVs latent in observation variables and estimate sequential treatment effects via a generalized moment condition. We conducted experiments on 4 datasets and achieved significant performance in one- and multi-step prediction, supported by which we can identify optimal treatments for dynamic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09113 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A case of counterfactual prediction and decision making on the time series data in a medical setting. scenarios involve decisions that must dynamically adapt to evolving conditions, where the outcomes of previous deci￾sions directly influence subsequent choices. For example, we consider a cancer patient undergoing treatment, as il￾lustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Casual graphs for illustrating the relationships between different variables from time series data. On the left, we describe the causalities in details, where the subscript associated with t in each variable reflects the time dependence. Unobserved variables are marked in shadow. In this paper, we focus on the cumulative effect of treatment (A1, . . . , At) on outcome Y t. For simplicity, we give its summary graph o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of our model DSIV-CFR. Some explanations have been displayed in the right panel. Historical observations H¯ are input into the first transformer ψ(·) to learn the representation of IVs ϕZ and confounders ϕC , which is optimized by the mutual information (MI) loss. The second transformer h(·) is trained as a backbone with the objective of accurately predicting future potential outcomes Y , measured by the MS… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of decision making 5 steps ahead. It is a detailed version of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J., Xing, Y., and Zhang, X

    Ang, A., Hodrick, R. J., Xing, Y., and Zhang, X. The cross-section of volatility and expected returns. The journal of finance, 61 0 (1): 0 259--299, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Estimating the effect of training programs on earnings

    Ashenfelter, O. Estimating the effect of training programs on earnings. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 60 0 (1): 0 47--57, 1978

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    and Imbens, G

    Athey, S. and Imbens, G. W. Identification and inference in nonlinear difference-in-differences models. Econometrica, 74 0 (2): 0 431--497, 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    J., Kiros, J

    Ba, L. J., Kiros, J. R., and Hinton, G. E. Layer normalization. CoRR, abs/1607.06450, 2016. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06450

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Estimating the long-term effects of novel treatments

    Battocchi, K., Dillon, E., Hei, M., Lewis, G., Oprescu, M., and Syrgkanis, V. Estimating the long-term effects of novel treatments. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2021, NeurIPS 2021, December 6-14, 2021, virtual, pp.\ 2925--2935, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    M., and van der Schaar, M

    Bica, I., Alaa, A. M., and van der Schaar, M. Time series deconfounder: Estimating treatment effects over time in the presence of hidden confounders. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event , volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp.\ 884--895. PMLR , 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    CLUB: A contrastive log-ratio upper bound of mutual information

    Cheng, P., Hao, W., Dai, S., Liu, J., Gan, Z., and Carin, L. CLUB: A contrastive log-ratio upper bound of mutual information. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 July 2020, Virtual Event , volume 119 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp.\ 1779--1788. PMLR , 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Elman, J. L. Finding structure in time. Cogn. Sci., 14 0 (2): 0 179--211, 1990

    work page 1990

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    S., and van der Schaar, M

    Feuerriegel, S., Frauen, D., Melnychuk, V., Schweisthal, J., Hess, K., Curth, A., Bauer, S., Kilbertus, N., Kohane, I. S., and van der Schaar, M. Causal machine learning for predicting treatment outcomes. Nature Medicine, 30 0 (4): 0 958--968, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    and Pedersen, L

    G \^a rleanu, N. and Pedersen, L. H. Dynamic trading with predictable returns and transaction costs. The Journal of Finance, 68 0 (6): 0 2309--2340, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Prediction of treatment response for combined chemo- and radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients using a bio-mathematical model

    Geng., C., Paganetti, H., and Grassberger, C. Prediction of treatment response for combined chemo- and radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients using a bio-mathematical model. Scientific Reports, 7 0 (1): 0 13542, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Hall, A. R. Generalized method of moments. A companion to theoretical econometrics, pp.\ 230--255, 2003

    2003

  5. [13]

    S., Veitch, V., Sridhar, D., and Leyton - Brown, K

    Hartford, J. S., Veitch, V., Sridhar, D., and Leyton - Brown, K. Valid causal inference with (some) invalid instruments. In Meila, M. and Zhang, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 18-24 July 2021, Virtual Event , volume ...

    2021

  6. [14]

    T., Juuti, A

    Hizli, C., John, S. T., Juuti, A. T., Saarinen, T. T., Pietil \" a inen, K. H., and Marttinen, P. Causal modeling of policy interventions from treatment-outcome sequences. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA , volu...

    2023

  7. [15]

    and Schmidhuber, J

    Hochreiter, S. and Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput., 9 0 (8): 0 1735--1780, 1997

    1997

  8. [16]

    and Ning, J

    Huang, X. and Ning, J. Analysis of multi-stage treatments for recurrent diseases. Statistics in medicine, 31 0 (24): 0 2805--2821, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Joint policy-value learning for recommendation

    Jeunen, O., Rohde, D., Vasile, F., and Bompaire, M. Joint policy-value learning for recommendation. In KDD '20: The 26th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Virtual Event, CA, USA, August 23-27, 2020 , pp.\ 1223--1233. ACM , 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    E., Pollard, T

    Johnson, A. E., Pollard, T. J., Shen, L., wei H. Lehman, L., Feng, M., Ghassemi, M., Moody, B., Szolovits, P., Celi, L. A., and Mark, R. G. Mimic-iii: a freely accessible critical care database. Scientific Data, 3 0 (1): 0 160035, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    A cross-moment approach for causal effect estimation

    Kivva, Y., Salehkaleybar, S., and Kiyavash, N. A cross-moment approach for causal effect estimation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, ...

    2023

  12. [20]

    and Pearl, J

    Kuroki, M. and Pearl, J. Measurement bias and effect restoration in causal inference. Biometrika, 101 0 (2): 0 423--437, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Causal transformer for estimating counterfactual outcomes

    Melnychuk, V., Frauen, D., and Feuerriegel, S. Causal transformer for estimating counterfactual outcomes. In International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2022, 17-23 July 2022, Baltimore, Maryland, USA , volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp.\ 15293-...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Miao, W., Geng, Z., and Tchetgen, E. J. T. Identifying causal effects with proxy variables of an unmeasured confounder. Biometrika, 105 0 (4): 0 pp. 987--993, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Miao, W., Shi, X., Li, Y., and Tchetgen, E. T. A confounding bridge approach for double negative control inference on causal effects, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04945

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Causal inference for time series analysis: problems, methods and evaluation

    Moraffah, R., Sheth, P., Karami, M., Bhattacharya, A., Wang, Q., Tahir, A., Raglin, A., and Liu, H. Causal inference for time series analysis: problems, methods and evaluation. Knowl. Inf. Syst., 63 0 (12): 0 3041--3085, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Newey, W. K. and Powell, J. L. Instrumental variable estimation of nonparametric models. Econometrica, 71 0 (5): 0 1565--1578, 2003

    2003

  18. [26]

    Robins, J. M. and Greenland, S. The role of model selection in causal inference from nonexperimental data. American Journal of Epidemiology, 123 0 (3): 0 392--402, 1986

    1986

  19. [27]

    D., and Sontag, D

    Shalit, U., Johansson, F. D., and Sontag, D. A. Estimating individual treatment effect: generalization bounds and algorithms. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017 , volume 70 of Proceedings...

    2017

  20. [28]

    Shirakawa, T., Li, Y., Wu, Y., Qiu, S., Li, Y., Zhao, M., Iso, H., and van der Laan, M. J. Longitudinal targeted minimum loss-based estimation with temporal-difference heterogeneous transformer. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Au...

    2024

  21. [29]

    E., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Salakhutdinov, R

    Srivastava, N., Hinton, G. E., Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Salakhutdinov, R. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 15 0 (1): 0 1929--1958, 2014

    1929

  22. [30]

    Inferring the long-term causal effects of long-term treatments from short-term experiments

    Tran, A., Bibaut, A., and Kallus, N. Inferring the long-term causal effects of long-term treatments from short-term experiments. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024 . OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    N., Kaiser, L., and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., and Polosukhin, I. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2017, December 4-9, 2017,...

    2017

  24. [32]

    A dual-module framework for counterfactual estimation over time

    Wang, X., Lyu, S., Yang, L., Zhan, Y., and Chen, H. A dual-module framework for counterfactual estimation over time. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024 . OpenReview.net, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    and Blei, D

    Wang, Y. and Blei, D. M. The blessings of multiple causes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114 0 (528): 0 1574--1596, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Auto IV: counterfactual prediction via automatic instrumental variable decomposition

    Yuan, J., Wu, A., Kuang, K., Li, B., Wu, R., Wu, F., and Lin, L. Auto IV: counterfactual prediction via automatic instrumental variable decomposition. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data , 16 0 (4): 0 74:1--74:20, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.