Learning Representations for Counterfactual Inference
Open accessAbstract
Observational studies are rising in importance due to the widespread accumulation of data in fields such as healthcare, education, employment and ecology. We consider the task of answering counterfactual questions such as, "Would this patient have lower blood sugar had she received a different medication?". We propose a new algorithmic framework for counterfactual inference which brings together ideas from domain adaptation and representation learning. In addition to a theoretical justification, we perform an empirical comparison with previous approaches to causal inference from observational data. Our deep learning algorithm significantly outperforms the previous state-of-the-art.
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
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?
Counterfactual inference techniques explicitly assume that there are no unmeasured confounders (unobservable variables Z) that could affect the outcome Y.
“However, counterfactual inference techniques explicitly assume that there are no unmeasured confounders (that is, no unobservable variables Z) that could affect the outcome Y.”
From The Selective Labels Problem (2017) · cites this paper as [16]
The Problem setup (p. 2) defines potential outcomes in terms of context, and the discussion after Algorithm 1 (p. 3) describes treatment assignment conditional on context. Neither passage states that counterfactual inference techniques explicitly assume there are no unmeasured confounders affecting outcomes. Searches for unmeasured confounders, hidden variables, and ignorability found no passage making that claim. (LLM, conf=0.70)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 396
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Austin, Peter C. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate behavioral research , 46(3): 399-424, 2011.
- Bang, Heejung and Robins, James M. Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics , 61(4):962-973, 2005.
- Ben-David, Shai, Blitzer, John, Crammer, Koby, Pereira, Fernando, et al. Analysis of representations for domain adaptation. Advances in neural information processing systems , 19:137, 2007.
- Bengio, Yoshua, Courville, Aaron, and Vincent, Pierre. Representation learning: A review and new perspectives. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on , 35(8):1798-1828, 2013.
- Beygelzimer, Alina, Langford, John, Li, Lihong, Reyzin, Lev, and Schapire, Robert E. Contextual bandit algorithms with supervised learning guarantees. arXiv preprint arXiv:1002.4058 , 2010. · arXiv
- Bottou, L´ eon, Peters, Jonas, Quinonero-Candela, Joaquin, Charles, Denis X, Chickering, D Max, Portugaly, Elon, Ray, Dipankar, Simard, Patrice, and Snelson, Ed. Counterfactual reasoning and learning systems: The example of computational advertising. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 14(1):3207-3260, 2013.
- Chernozhukov, Victor, Fern´ andez-Val, Iv´ an, and Melly, Blaise. Inference on counterfactual distributions. Econometrica , 81(6):2205-2268, 2013.
- Chipman, Hugh A, George, Edward I, and McCulloch, Robert E. Bart: Bayesian additive regression trees. The Annals of Applied Statistics , pp. 266-298, 2010.
- Dud´ ık, Miroslav, Langford, John, and Li, Lihong. Doubly robust policy evaluation and learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1103.4601 , 2011. · arXiv
- Gani, Yaroslav, Ustinova, Evgeniya, Ajakan, Hana, Germain, Pascal, Larochelle, Hugo, Laviolette, Franc ¸ois, Marchand, Mario, and Lempitsky, Victor. Domainadversarial training of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.07818 , 2015. · arXiv
- Gelman, Andrew and Hill, Jennifer. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models . Cambridge University Press, 2006.
- Hill, Jennifer L. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics , 20(1), 2011.
- Kang, Joseph DY and Schafer, Joseph L. Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical science , pp. 523-539, 2007.
- Langford, John, Li, Lihong, and Dud´ ık, Miroslav. Doubly robust policy evaluation and learning. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11) , pp. 1097-1104, 2011.
- Lewis, David. Causation. The journal of philosophy , pp. 556-567, 1973.
- Louizos, Christos, Swersky, Kevin, Li, Yujia, Welling, Max, and Zemel, Richard. The variational fair auto encoder. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.00830 , 2015. · arXiv
- Morgan, Stephen L and Winship, Christopher. Counterfactuals and causal inference . Cambridge University Press, 2014.
- Pearl, Judea. Causality . Cambridge university press, 2009.
- Pearl, Judea. Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification. American journal of epidemiology , 174(11): 1223-1227, 2011.
- Prentice, Ross. Use of the logistic model in retrospective studies. Biometrics , pp. 599-606, 1976.
- Robins, James M, Hernan, Miguel Angel, and Brumback, Babette. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology , pp. 550-560, 2000.
- Rosenbaum, Paul R. Observational studies . Springer, 2002.
- Rosenbaum, Paul R and Rubin, Donald B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika , 70(1):41-55, 1983.
- Rubin, Donald B. Causal inference using potential outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 2011.
- Sch¨ olkopf, B., Janzing, D., Peters, J., Sgouritsa, E., Zhang, K., and Mooij, J. On causal and anticausal learning. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 1255-1262, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Omnipress.
- Strehl, Alex, Langford, John, Li, Lihong, and Kakade, Sham M. Learning from logged implicit exploration data. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 2217-2225, 2010.
- Sutton, Richard S and Barto, Andrew G. Reinforcement learning: An introduction , volume 1. MIT press Cambridge, 1998.
- Swaminathan, Adith and Joachims, Thorsten. Batch learning from logged bandit feedback through counterfactual risk minimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 16:1731-1755, 2015.
- Tian, Lu, Alizadeh, Ash A, Gentles, Andrew J, and Tibshirani, Robert. A simple method for estimating interactions between a treatment and a large number of covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 109(508):1517-1532, 2014.
- van der Laan, Mark J and Petersen, Maya L. Causal effect models for realistic individualized treatment and intention to treat rules. The International Journal of Biostatistics , 3(1), 2007.
- Wager, Stefan and Athey, Susan. Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.04342 , 2015. · arXiv
- Weiss, Jeremy C, Kuusisto, Finn, Boyd, Kendrick, Lui, Jie, and Page, David C. Machine learning for treatment assignment: Improving individualized risk attribution. American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium , 2015.
- Zemel, Rich, Wu, Yu, Swersky, Kevin, Pitassi, Toni, and Dwork, Cynthia. Learning fair representations. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-13) , pp. 325-333, 2013.
- Authors
- Johansson, F. D., Shalit, U., & Sontag, D.
- Affiliations
- Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
- New York University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2016
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1605.03661
- OpenAlex
- W2389937032
- Cited by
- 396
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- counterfactual inference, causal inference, observational data, representation learning, domain adaptation, deep learning
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
