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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies
Rubin, D. B. (1974) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037350 · Cited by 9,436
Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction
Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139025751 · Cited by 4,210
Causal Diagrams for Epidemiologic Research
Greenland, S., Pearl, J., & Robins, J. M. (1999) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008 · Cited by 3,728
Causal diagrams for empirical research
PEARL, J. (1995) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/82.4.669 · Cited by 2,355 · cited 6×
“…for a population of interest has been a main focus of a rich literature on causal inference, and the last decades have seen the development of extensive statistical theory addressing important issues such as identification, estimation and uncertainty quantification (e.g. Pearl, 1995; Rubin, 1974).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hulleman, C. S., Hinojosa, C. P., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y · Cited by 1,513 · cited 3×
“The blue curves correspond to the median and the blue confidence bands are the 5% and 95% quantiles of these estimates across 100 replicates [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] BART (Naive) BART (Inexact) CQR (Naive) CQR (Exact) CQR (Inexact) C ATE Var(ITE | X ) 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7…”
MethodInfluentialMatrix Completion Methods for Causal Panel Data Models
Athey, S., Bayati, M., Doudchenko, N., Imbens, G., & Khosravi, K. (2018) · doi:10.3386/w25132 · Cited by 497
The Augmented Synthetic Control Method
Ben-Michael, E., Feller, A., & Rothstein, J. (2021) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2021.1929245 · Cited by 462
Conformalized Quantile Regression
Romano, Y., Patterson, E., & Candès, E. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.03222 · Cited by 236 · cited 3×
“For instance, with estimates q̂αlo(x) and q̂αhi(x) of the αlo-th and αhi-th conditional quantiles of Y | X = x, the conformal quantile regression (CQR) introduced in Romano et al. [2019] as a variant of the standard conformal inference, would produce an interval estimate of the form”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 75
- Athey, 2019, Generalized random forests, The Annals of Statistics, 47, 1148, 10.1214/18-AOS1709 · DOI
- Balasubramanian, 2014, Conformal prediction for reliable machine learning: theory, adaptations and applications
- Barber, 2019, The limits of distribution-free conditional predictive inference
- Barber, 2019, Predictive inference with the jackknife+
- Bolger, 2019, Causal processes in psychology are heterogeneous, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 601, 10.1037/xge0000558 · DOI
- 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
- Breen, 2015, Heterogeneous causal effects and sample selection bias, Sociological Science, 2, 351, 10.15195/v2.a17 · DOI
- Carvalho, 2019, Assessing treatment effect variation in observational studies: results from a data challenge, 10.1353/obs.2019.0000 · DOI
- Chipman, 2010, BART: Bayesian additive regression trees, The Annals of Applied Statistics, 4, 266, 10.1214/09-AOAS285 · DOI
- D’Amour, 2017, Overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates
- Djebbari, 2008, Heterogeneous impacts in PROGRESA, Journal of Econometrics, 145, 64, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.05.012 · DOI
- Dorie, 2017, aciccomp2016: Atlantic causal inference conference competition 2016 simulation, R package version, 1–0, 2017
- 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
- Efron, 2014, Estimation and accuracy after model selection, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 109, 991, 10.1080/01621459.2013.823775 · DOI
- 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
- Fort, 2016, Topics in theoretical and applied statistics, 15, 10.1007/978-3-319-27274-0_2 · DOI
- Foster, 2019, Orthogonal statistical learning
- Friedman, 2001, Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine, Annals of Statistics, 1189
- Gammerman, 2007, Hedging predictions in machine learning, The Computer Journal, 50, 151, 10.1093/comjnl/bxl065 · DOI
- Glymour, 2014, Discovering causal structure: artificial intelligence, philosophy of science, and statistical modeling
- Green, 2012, Modeling heterogeneous treatment effects in survey experiments with bayesian additive regression trees, Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 491, 10.1093/poq/nfs036 · DOI
- Greenwell, 2019, gbm: generalized boosted regression models, R package version, 2, 5
- 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
- Hahn, 2020, Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects, Bayesian Analysis, 15, 965, 10.1214/19-BA1195 · DOI
- Hill, 2011, Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference, Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 20, 217, 10.1198/jcgs.2010.08162 · DOI
- Hirano, 2003, Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score, Econometrica, 71, 1161, 10.1111/1468-0262.00442 · DOI
- 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
- Kang, 2007, Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data, Statistical Science, 22, 523
- Kapelner, 2016, bartMachine: machine learning with Bayesian additive regression trees, Journal of Statistical Software, 70, 1, 10.18637/jss.v070.i04 · DOI
- Kennedy, 2020, Optimal doubly robust estimation of heterogeneous causal effects
- Kivaranovic, 2020, Conformal prediction intervals for the individual treatment effect
- Koenker, 1994, Confidence intervals for regression quantiles, 349
- Koenker, 2005, Quantile regression, 10.1017/CBO9780511754098 · DOI
- Koenker, 2017, Quantile regression: 40 years on, Annual Review of Economics, 9, 155, 10.1146/annurev-economics-063016-103651 · DOI
- Koenker, 1978, Regression quantiles, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 46, 33, 10.2307/1913643 · DOI
- Koenker, 2001, Quantile regression, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 143, 10.1257/jep.15.4.143 · DOI
- 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
- Lei, 2018, Distribution-free predictive inference for regression, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113, 1094, 10.1080/01621459.2017.1307116 · DOI · Paper page
- Lei, 2013, Distribution-free prediction sets, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 108, 278, 10.1080/01621459.2012.751873 · DOI
- 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
- Meinshausen, 2006, Quantile regression forests, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7
- Morgan, 2001, Counterfactuals, causal effect heterogeneity, and the catholic school effect on learning, Sociology of Education, 74, 341, 10.2307/2673139 · DOI
- Neyman, 1923/1990, On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9, Statistical Science, 5, 465
- Nie, 2017, Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects
- Pearl, 2014, External validity: from do-calculus to transportability across populations, Statistical Science, 29, 579, 10.1214/14-STS486 · DOI
- Pearl, 2016, Causal inference in statistics: a primer
- Pearl, 2018, The book of why: the new science of cause and effect
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Romano, 2020, Classification with valid and adaptive coverage
- 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
- Rubin, 1978, Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization, The Annals of Statistics, 6, 34, 10.1214/aos/1176344064 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- 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
- Sesia, 2020, A comparison of some conformal quantile regression methods, Stat, 9, e261, 10.1002/sta4.261 · DOI
- Shafer, 2008, A tutorial on conformal prediction, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 371
- 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
- Spirtes, 2000, Causation, prediction, and search
- 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
- Tennant, 2019, Use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGS) in applied health research: review and recommendations, 10.1101/2019.12.20.19015511 · DOI
- Tibshirani, 2019, grf: generalized random forests, R package version, 1, 1
- Tibshirani, 2019, Conformal prediction under covariate shift, Advances in neural information processing systems, 2530
- 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
- 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
- Vovk, 2012, Asian conference on machine learning, Conditional validity of inductive conformal predictors, 475
- Vovk, 2013, IFIP international conference on artificial intelligence applications and innovations, Transductive conformal predictors Springer, 348
- Vovk, 2015, Cross-conformal predictors, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 74, 9, 10.1007/s10472-013-9368-4 · DOI
- Vovk, 2005, Algorithmic learning in a random world
- Vovk, 2009, On-line predictive linear regression, The Annals of Statistics, 37, 1566, 10.1214/08-AOS622 · DOI
- 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
- Wager, 2014, Confidence intervals for random forests: The jackknife and the infinitesimal jackknife, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15, 1625
- 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
- Xie, 2012, Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with observational data, Sociological Methodology, 42, 314, 10.1177/0081175012452652 · DOI
- Yu, 2001, Bayesian quantile regression, Statistics & Probability Letters, 54, 437, 10.1016/S0167-7152(01)00124-9 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Distribution-free, Risk-controlling Prediction Sets
Bates, S., Angelopoulos, A., Lei, L., Malik, J., & Jordan, M. (2021) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3478535 · Cited by 144
“Further extensions of conformal prediction address topics such as distribution estimation [25], causal inference [26], and handling or testing distribution shift [27–29].”
BackgroundSelf-citationCausal models for longitudinal and panel data: a survey
Arkhangelsky, D., & Imbens, G. (2024) · The Econometrics Journal · doi:10.1093/ectj/utae014 · Cited by 50
Angelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Fisch, A., Lei, L., & Schuster, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.02814 · Cited by 37
Self-citationAngelopoulos, A. N., Bates, S., Zrnic, T., & Jordan, M. I. (2022) · Harvard Data Science Review · doi:10.1162/99608f92.16c71dad · Cited by 8
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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