Related papers: RCT Rejection Sampling for Causal Estimation Evalu…
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard when developing policy guidelines. However, RCTs are often narrow, and lack data on broader populations of interest. Causal effects in these populations are often estimated using…
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly prevalent in education research, and are often regarded as a gold standard of causal inference. Two main virtues of randomized experiments are that they (1) do not suffer from…
With increasing data availability, causal effects can be evaluated across different data sets, both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RCTs isolate the effect of the treatment from that of unwanted (confounding)…
Methods that infer causal dependence from observational data are central to many areas of science, including medicine, economics, and the social sciences. A variety of theoretical properties of these methods have been proven, but empirical…
Randomized experiments can provide unbiased estimates of sample average treatment effects. However, estimates of population treatment effects can be biased when the experimental sample and the target population differ. In this case, the…
One of the major challenges in estimating conditional potential outcomes and conditional average treatment effects (CATE) is the presence of hidden confounders. Since testing for hidden confounders cannot be accomplished only with…
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are ideal for estimating causal effects, because the distributions of background covariates are similar in expectation across treatment groups. When estimating causal effects using observational data,…
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT)s are relied upon to assess new treatments, but suffer from limited power to guide personalized treatment decisions. On the other hand, observational (i.e., non-experimental) studies have large and diverse…
Observational studies provide the only evidence on the effectiveness of interventions when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are impractical due to cost, ethical concerns, or time constraints. While many methodologies aim to draw causal…
Unobserved confounding is one of the main challenges when estimating causal effects. We propose a causal reduction method that, given a causal model, replaces an arbitrary number of possibly high-dimensional latent confounders with a single…
Understanding the effects of interventions is central to scientific progress, with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarded as the gold standard for causal inference in many applied fields. However, RCTs are costly, time-consuming, and…
Observational data is increasingly used as a means for making individual-level causal predictions and intervention recommendations. The foremost challenge of causal inference from observational data is hidden confounding, whose presence…
While randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for estimating causal treatment effects, their limited sample sizes and restrictive criteria make it difficult to extrapolate to a broader population. Observational data, while…
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are the current gold standards to empirically measure the effect of a new drug. However, they may be of limited size and resorting to complementary non-randomized data, referred to as observational, is…
The gold standard for causal model evaluation involves comparing model predictions with true effects estimated from randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, RCTs are not always feasible or ethical to perform. In contrast, conditionally…
Understanding causality should be a core requirement of any attempt to build real impact through AI. Due to the inherent unobservability of counterfactuals, large randomised trials (RCTs) are the standard for causal inference. But large…
Matching is one of the simplest approaches for estimating causal effects from observational data. Matching techniques compare the observed outcomes across pairs of individuals with similar covariate values but different treatment statuses…
We develop new methods to integrate experimental and observational data in causal inference. While randomized controlled trials offer strong internal validity, they are often costly and therefore limited in sample size. Observational data,…
Causal inference is vital for informed decision-making across fields such as biomedical research and social sciences. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for internal validity of inferences, whereas…
Estimating causal effects from observational data is not always possible due to confounding. Identifying a set of appropriate covariates (adjustment set) and adjusting for their influence can remove confounding bias; however, such a set is…