Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Combining Observational and Randomized Data for Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2202.12891 v1 pith:2WUTJUKZ submitted 2022-02-25 stat.ML cs.LG

classification stat.MLcs.LG
keywords dataobservationalrandomizedeffectstreatmentheterogeneouscombininglearn
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects is an important problem across many domains. In order to accurately estimate such treatment effects, one typically relies on data from observational studies or randomized experiments. Currently, most existing works rely exclusively on observational data, which is often confounded and, hence, yields biased estimates. While observational data is confounded, randomized data is unconfounded, but its sample size is usually too small to learn heterogeneous treatment effects. In this paper, we propose to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects by combining large amounts of observational data and small amounts of randomized data via representation learning. In particular, we introduce a two-step framework: first, we use observational data to learn a shared structure (in form of a representation); and then, we use randomized data to learn the data-specific structures. We analyze the finite sample properties of our framework and compare them to several natural baselines. As such, we derive conditions for when combining observational and randomized data is beneficial, and for when it is not. Based on this, we introduce a sample-efficient algorithm, called CorNet. We use extensive simulation studies to verify the theoretical properties of CorNet and multiple real-world datasets to demonstrate our method's superiority compared to existing methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Uncovering Bias Mechanisms in Observational Studies

    stat.ME 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Covariances between the size of causal bias and conditional variances of treatment, selection, and outcome form a fingerprint that distinguishes transportability, confounding, and selection bias mechanisms.

  2. B-CALM: Bias-Limited Bayesian Borrowing for RCT-Anchored Treatment Effects under Covariate Mismatch

    stat.ME 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Observational contrast information about a trial's treatment-effect function is capped by the prior precision of an explicit comparative-bias function, so borrowing saturates and can be tuned as a sensitivity analysis.

  3. Mitigating Hidden Confounding by Progressive Confounder Imputation via Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    ProCI uses LLMs to iteratively generate and impute hidden confounders, then validates them with a conditional independence test to improve treatment effect estimation.

  4. Conditional Average Treatment Effect Estimation Under Hidden Confounders

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A CATE estimator is proposed that uses outcome-only RCT data to regularize observational-data predictions via marginal and projection balancing, with experiments on synthetic and real datasets.

  5. Deconfounded Warm-Start Thompson Sampling with Applications to Precision Medicine

    stat.ML 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    DWTS debiases and selects features from observational data, then warm-starts Thompson sampling with those estimates, achieving lower cumulative regret than LinTS in simulations.

Pith tools