Cited by 166Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conformal Inference of Counterfactuals and Individual Treatment Effects

Open access
Lei, Lihua, Candès, Emmanuel J.·2021·Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology

Abstract

Evaluating treatment effect heterogeneity widely informs treatment decision making. At the moment, much emphasis is placed on the estimation of the conditional average treatment effect via flexible machine learning algorithms. While these methods enjoy some theoretical appeal in terms of consistency and convergence rates, they generally perform poorly in terms of uncertainty quantification. This is troubling since assessing risk is crucial for reliable decision-making in sensitive and uncertain environments. In this work, we propose a conformal inference-based approach that can produce reliable interval estimates for counterfactuals and individual treatment effects under the potential outcome framework. For completely randomized or stratified randomized experiments with perfect compliance, the intervals have guaranteed average coverage in finite samples regardless of the unknown data generating mechanism. For randomized experiments with ignorable compliance and general observational studies obeying the strong ignorability assumption, the intervals satisfy a doubly robust property which states the following: the average coverage is approximately controlled if either the propensity score or the conditional quantiles of potential outcomes can be estimated accurately. Numerical studies on both synthetic and real data sets empirically demonstrate that existing methods suffer from a significant coverage deficit even in simple models. In contrast, our methods achieve the desired coverage with reasonably short intervals.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/rssb.12445

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When the covariate shift w(x) is unknown but unlabeled data in the test domain are available, it can be estimated, up to a multiplicative factor that does not affect ˆλ(x), by any probabilistic classification algorithm.

    “When the covariate shift w ( x ) is unknown but unlabeled data in the test domain are available, it can be estimated, up to a multiplicative factor that does not affect ˆ λ ( x ), by any probabilistic classification algorithm; see [37] and [38] in the context of missing and censored data, respectively.”

    From Conformal Risk Control (2022) · cites this paper as [37]

    Section 3.3 says weighted conformal inference is invariant to rescaling the likelihood ratio, and Section 3.2 discusses using an estimated ratio. The paper does not state that unlabeled test-domain data can be used to estimate the ratio by any probabilistic classification algorithm; its examples instead estimate treatment propensity scores. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Athey, 2019, Generalized random forests, The Annals of Statistics, 47, 1148, 10.1214/18-AOS1709 · DOI
  2. Balasubramanian, 2014, Conformal prediction for reliable machine learning: theory, adaptations and applications
  3. Barber, 2019, The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference
  4. Barber, 2019, Predictive inference with the jackknife+
  5. Bolger, 2019, Causal processes in psychology are heterogeneous, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 601, 10.1037/xge0000558 · DOI
  6. Brand, 2010, Who benefits most from college? Evidence for negative selection in heterogeneous economic returns to higher education, American Sociological Review, 75, 273, 10.1177/0003122410363567 · DOI
  7. Breen, 2015, Heterogeneous causal effects and sample selection bias, Sociological Science, 2, 351, 10.15195/v2.a17 · DOI
  8. Carvalho, 2019, Assessing treatment effect variation in observational studies: results from a data challenge, 10.1353/obs.2019.0000 · DOI
  9. Chipman, 2010, BART: Bayesian additive regression trees, The Annals of Applied Statistics, 4, 266, 10.1214/09-AOAS285 · DOI
  10. D’Amour, 2017, Overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates
  11. Djebbari, 2008, Heterogeneous impacts in PROGRESA, Journal of Econometrics, 145, 64, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.05.012 · DOI
  12. Dorie, 2017, aciccomp2016: Atlantic causal inference conference competition 2016 simulation, R package version, 1–0, 2017
  13. Dorie, 2019, Automated versus do-it-yourself methods for causal inference: lessons learned from a data analysis competition, Statistical Science, 34, 43, 10.1214/18-STS667 · DOI
  14. Efron, 2014, Estimation and accuracy after model selection, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109, 991, 10.1080/01621459.2013.823775 · DOI
  15. Florens, 2008, Identification of treatment effects using control functions in models with continuous, endogenous treatment and heterogeneous effects, Econometrica, 76, 1191, 10.3982/ECTA5317 · DOI
  16. Fort, 2016, Topics in theoretical and applied statistics, 15, 10.1007/978-3-319-27274-0_2 · DOI
  17. Foster, 2019, Orthogonal statistical learning
  18. Friedman, 2001, Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine, Annals of Statistics, 1189
  19. Gammerman, 2007, Hedging predictions in machine learning, The Computer Journal, 50, 151, 10.1093/comjnl/bxl065 · DOI
  20. Glymour, 2014, Discovering causal structure: artificial intelligence, philosophy of science, and statistical modeling
  21. Green, 2012, Modeling heterogeneous treatment effects in survey experiments with bayesian additive regression trees, Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 491, 10.1093/poq/nfs036 · DOI
  22. Greenwell, 2019, gbm: generalized boosted regression models, R package version, 2, 5
  23. Grimmer, 2017, Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects and the effects of heterogeneous treatments with ensemble methods, Political Analysis, 25, 413, 10.1017/pan.2017.15 · DOI
  24. Hahn, 2020, Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects, Bayesian Analysis, 15, 965, 10.1214/19-BA1195 · DOI
  25. Hill, 2011, Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 20, 217, 10.1198/jcgs.2010.08162 · DOI
  26. Hirano, 2003, Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score, Econometrica, 71, 1161, 10.1111/1468-0262.00442 · DOI
  27. Imai, 2011, Estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects from randomized experiments, with application to the optimal planning of the get-out-the-vote campaign, Political Analysis, 19, 1, 10.1093/pan/mpq035 · DOI
  28. Kang, 2007, Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data, Statistical Science, 22, 523
  29. Kapelner, 2016, bartMachine: machine learning with Bayesian additive regression trees, Journal of Statistical Software, 70, 1, 10.18637/jss.v070.i04 · DOI
  30. Kennedy, 2020, Optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects
  31. Kivaranovic, 2020, Conformal prediction intervals for the individual treatment effect
  32. Koenker, 1994, Confidence intervals for regression quantiles, 349
  33. Koenker, 2005, Quantile regression, 10.1017/CBO9780511754098 · DOI
  34. Koenker, 2017, Quantile regression: 40 years on, Annual Review of Economics, 9, 155, 10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103651 · DOI
  35. Koenker, 1978, Regression quantiles, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46, 33, 10.2307/1913643 · DOI
  36. Koenker, 2001, Quantile regression, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 143, 10.1257/jep.15.4.143 · DOI
  37. Künzel, 2019, Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 4156, 10.1073/pnas.1804597116 · DOI
  38. Lei, 2018, Distribution-free predictive inference for regression, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113, 1094, 10.1080/01621459.2017.1307116 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Lei, 2013, Distribution-free prediction sets, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 108, 278, 10.1080/01621459.2012.751873 · DOI
  40. Lei, 2014, Distribution-free prediction bands for non-parametric regression, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76, 71, 10.1111/rssb.12021 · DOI
  41. Meinshausen, 2006, Quantile regression forests, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7
  42. Morgan, 2001, Counterfactuals, causal effect heterogeneity, and the catholic school effect on learning, Sociology of Education, 74, 341, 10.2307/2673139 · DOI
  43. Neyman, 1923/1990, On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9, Statistical Science, 5, 465
  44. Nie, 2017, Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects
  45. Pearl, 2014, External validity: from do-calculus to transportability across populations, Statistical Science, 29, 579, 10.1214/14-STS486 · DOI
  46. Pearl, 2016, Causal inference in statistics: a primer
  47. Pearl, 2018, The book of why: the new science of cause and effect
  48. Peters, 2016, Causal inference by using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 78, 947, 10.1111/rssb.12167 · DOI
  49. Richardson, 2013, Single world intervention graphs (SWIGS): a unification of the counterfactual and graphical approaches to causality. Center for the Statistics and the Social Sciences, University of Washington Series, Working Paper, 128
  50. Robins, 1994, Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed, Journal of the American statistical Association, 89, 846, 10.1080/01621459.1994.10476818 · DOI
  51. Romano, 2020, Classification with valid and adaptive coverage
  52. Rosenbaum, 1983, The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika, 70, 41, 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Rubin, 1978, Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 34, 10.1214/aos/1176344064 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Rubin, 1990, Formal mode of statistical inference for causal effects, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 25, 279, 10.1016/0378-3758(90)90077-8 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Sadinle, 2019, Least ambiguous set-valued classifiers with bounded error levels, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114, 223, 10.1080/01621459.2017.1395341 · DOI
  56. Sesia, 2020, A comparison of some conformal quantile regression methods, Stat, 9, e261, 10.1002/sta4.261 · DOI
  57. Shafer, 2008, A tutorial on conformal prediction, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 371
  58. Shimodaira, 2000, Improving predictive inference under covariate shift by weighting the log-likelihood function, Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 90, 227, 10.1016/S0378-3758(00)00115-4 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Spirtes, 2000, Causation, prediction, and search
  60. Stuart, 2011, The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 174, 369, 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00673.x · DOI · Paper page
  61. Tennant, 2019, Use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGS) in applied health research: review and recommendations, 10.1101/2019.12.20.19015511 · DOI
  62. Tibshirani, 2019, grf: generalized random forests, R package version, 1, 1
  63. Tibshirani, 2019, Conformal prediction under covariate shift, Advances in neural information processing systems, 2530
  64. Tipton, 2013, Improving generalizations from experiments using propensity score subclassification: Assumptions, properties, and contexts, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 239, 10.3102/1076998612441947 · DOI
  65. Tipton, 2014, How generalizable is your experiment? An index for comparing experimental samples and populations, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39, 478, 10.3102/1076998614558486 · DOI
  66. Vovk, 2012, Asian conference on machine learning, Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors, 475
  67. Vovk, 2013, IFIP international conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations, Transductive conformal predictors Springer, 348
  68. Vovk, 2015, Cross-conformal predictors, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 74, 9, 10.1007/s10472-013-9368-4 · DOI
  69. Vovk, 2005, Algorithmic learning in a random world
  70. Vovk, 2009, On-line predictive linear regression, The Annals of Statistics, 37, 1566, 10.1214/08-AOS622 · DOI
  71. Wager, 2018, Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113, 1228, 10.1080/01621459.2017.1319839 · DOI · Paper page
  72. Wager, 2014, Confidence intervals for random forests: The jackknife and the infinitesimal jackknife, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15, 1625
  73. Winkelbeiner, 2019, Evaluation of differences in individual treatment response in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis, JAMA Psychiatry, 76, 1063, 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1530 · DOI
  74. Xie, 2012, Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with observational data, Sociological Methodology, 42, 314, 10.1177/0081175012452652 · DOI
  75. Yu, 2001, Bayesian quantile regression, Statistics & Probability Letters, 54, 437, 10.1016/S0167-7152(01)00124-9 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lei, L., & Candès, E. J.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Lei, Lihua
Venue
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology
Published
2021-10-07
Volume
83
Issue
5
Pages
911-938
ISSN
  • 1369-7412 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9868
OpenAlex
W3206159334
Cited by
166
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12
FWCI
12.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • NSF
  • OAC (1934578)
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-20-12157)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
conformal inference, counterfactuals, individual treatment effects, treatment effect heterogeneity, potential outcomes, uncertainty quantification, interval estimation, coverage guarantees, doubly robust estimation, propensity score, randomized experiments, observational studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review