Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jul 5;113(27):7353-60.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510489113.

Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects

Affiliations

Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects

Susan Athey et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

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%.

Keywords: causal inference; cross-validation; heterogeneous treatment effects; potential outcomes; supervised machine learning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: The authors received funding from Microsoft Research.

References

    1. Rubin D. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. Educ Psychol. 1974;66(5):688–701.
    1. Holland P. Statistics and causal inference (with discussion) J Am Stat Assoc. 1986;81(396):945–970.
    1. Imbens G, Rubin D. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. Cambridge Univ Press; Cambridge, UK: 2015. p. 159.
    1. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. 2nd Ed Springer; New York: 2011.
    1. Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth; Belmont, CA: 1984.