ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Causal effect estimation from observational data is an important but challenging problem. Causal effect estimation with unobserved variables in data is even more difficult. The challenges lie in (1) whether the causal effect can be estimated from observational data (identifiability); (2) accuracy of estimation (unbiasedness), and (3) fast data-driven algorithm for the estimation (efficiency). Each of the above problems by its own, is challenging. There does not exist many data-driven methods for causal effect estimation so far, and they solve one or two of the above problems, but not all. In this paper, we present an algorithm that is fast, unbiased and is able to confirm if a causal effect is identifiable or not under a very practical and commonly seen problem setting. To achieve high efficiency, we approach the causal effect estimation problem as a local search for the minimal adjustment variable sets in data. We have shown that identifiability and unbiased estimation can be both resolved using data in our problem setting, and we have developed theorems to support the local search for searching for adjustment variable sets to achieve unbiased causal effect estimation. We make use of frequent pattern mining strategy to further speed up the search process. Experiments performed on an extensive collection of synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that the proposed algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art causal effect estimation methods in both accuracy and time-efficiency.
When estimating the treatment effect in an observational study, we use a semiparametric locally efficient dimension reduction approach to assess both the treatment assignment mechanism and the average responses in both treated and nontreated groups.
Causal effect estimation from observational data is a crucial but challenging task. Currently, only a limited number of data-driven causal effect estimation methods are available. These methods either provide only a bound estimation of the causal eff
Missing data and confounding are two problems researchers face in observational studies for comparative effectiveness. Williamson et al. (2012) recently proposed a unified approach to handle both issues concurrently using a multiply-robust (MR) metho
Standard Mendelian randomization analysis can produce biased results if the genetic variant defining the instrumental variable (IV) is confounded and/or has a horizontal pleiotropic effect on the outcome of interest not mediated by the treatment. We
Scientists frequently generalize population level causal quantities such as average treatment effect from a source population to a target population. When the causal effects are heterogeneous, differences in subject characteristics between the source