Integration of Causal Inference with Machine Learning for Improved Treatment Effect Estimation in Observational Studies

Geoffrey Hinton

Authors

Geoffrey Hinton Machine Learning Scientist, Canada Author

Keywords:

Causal inference, machine learning, treatment effect estimation, observational data, confounding, heterogeneous treatment effect

Abstract

Estimating treatment effects accurately in observational studies is a persistent challenge due to confounding, selection bias, and the non-random assignment of treatments. Traditional causal inference frameworks, while statistically grounded, often struggle with high-dimensional data and non-linear relationships. Conversely, machine learning (ML) excels in handling such data complexities but lacks a principled approach to causal interpretation. This paper explores the integration of causal inference techniques with machine learning models to improve the estimation of average and heterogeneous treatment effects (ATE, HTE) in observational studies. We discuss existing approaches, such as doubly robust learners, causal forests, and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE), and propose a synthesis framework grounded in the Neyman-Rubin causal model. Our results highlight that hybrid models significantly outperform traditional estimators under varied confounding scenarios and offer better generalizability in real-world applications.

References

Athey, Susan, and Guido W. Imbens. “Recursive Partitioning for Heterogeneous Causal Effects.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, no. 27, 2016, pp. 7353–7360.

Athey, Susan, and Stefan Wager. “Estimating Treatment Effects with Causal Forests: An Application.” Observational Studies, vol. 5, 2019, pp. 37–51.

Belloni, Alexandre, et al. “High-Dimensional Methods and Inference on Structural and Treatment Effects.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 2, 2014, pp. 29–50.

Chernozhukov, Victor, et al. “Double Machine Learning for Treatment and Causal Parameters.” The Econometrics Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, 2018, pp. C1–C68.

Dorie, Vincent, et al. “Automated Versus Do-It-Yourself Methods for Causal Inference: Lessons Learned from a Data Analysis Competition.” Statistical Science, vol. 34, no. 1, 2019, pp. 43–68.

Hahn, P. Richard, et al. “Bayesian Regression Tree Models for Causal Inference: Regularization, Confounding, and Heterogeneous Effects.” Bayesian Analysis, vol. 15, no. 3, 2020, pp. 965–1056.

Hill, Jennifer L. “Bayesian Nonparametric Modeling for Causal Inference.” Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, vol. 20, no. 1, 2011, pp. 217–240.

Imbens, Guido W., and Donald B. Rubin. Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Johansson, Fredrik, et al. “Learning Representations for Counterfactual Inference.” Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 48, 2016, pp. 3020–3029.

King, Gary, and Richard Nielsen. “Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching.” Political Analysis, vol. 27, no. 4, 2019, pp. 435–454.

Künzel, Sören R., et al. “Metalearners for Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Using Machine Learning.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116, no. 10, 2019, pp. 4156–4165.

Pearl, Judea. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Donald B. Rubin. “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika, vol. 70, no. 1, 1983, pp. 41–55.

Rubin, Donald B. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 66, no. 5, 1974, pp. 688–701.

Van der Laan, Mark J., and Sherri Rose. Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data. Springer, 2011