PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences· 2016Q1

Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects

Susan Athey, Guido W. Imbens

Short summary

A new 'honest' estimation method using recursive partitioning accurately identifies subpopulations with differing causal treatment effects, achieving 90% confidence interval coverage compared to 74-84% for non-honest methods in simulations.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Proposes an 'honest' recursive partitioning approach to estimate heterogeneous causal effects.
  • Valid confidence intervals are constructed for treatment effects, even with many covariates.
  • Simulation results show honest estimation achieves 90% nominal coverage for 90% confidence intervals.
  • Non-honest estimation approaches resulted in coverage between 74% and 84% in simulations.
  • The honest method incurs a 7-22% mean squared error cost for treatment effect estimation.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

In this paper we propose methods for estimating heterogeneity in causal effects in experimental and observational studies and for conducting hypothesis tests about the magnitude of differences in treatment effects across subsets of the population. We provide a data-driven approach to partition the data into subpopulations that differ in the magnitude of their treatment effects. The approach enables the construction of valid confidence intervals for treatment effects, even with many covariates relative to the sample size, and without "sparsity" assumptions. We propose an "honest" approach to estimation, whereby one sample is used to construct the partition and another to estimate treatment effects for each subpopulation. Our approach builds on regression tree methods, modified to optimize for goodness of fit in treatment effects and to account for honest estimation. Our model selection criterion anticipates that bias will be eliminated by honest estimation and also accounts for the effect of making additional splits on the variance of treatment effect estimates within each subpopulation. We address the challenge that the "ground truth" for a causal effect is not observed for any individual unit, so that standard approaches to cross-validation must be modified. Through a simulation study, we show that for our preferred method honest estimation results in nominal coverage for 90% confidence intervals, whereas coverage ranges between 74% and 84% for nonhonest approaches. Honest estimation requires estimating the model with a smaller sample size; the cost in terms of mean squared error of treatment effects for our preferred method ranges between 7-22%.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2016 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Statistics and Probability

Statistics and ProbabilityMathematics