Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5351/KJAS.2019.32.2.173

Causal inference from nonrandomized data: key concepts and recent trends  

Choi, Young-Geun (Data R&D Center, SK Telecom)
Yu, Donghyeon (Department of Statistics, Inha University)
Publication Information
The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics / v.32, no.2, 2019 , pp. 173-185 More about this Journal
Abstract
Causal questions are prevalent in scientific research, for example, how effective a treatment was for preventing an infectious disease, how much a policy increased utility, or which advertisement would give the highest click rate for a given customer. Causal inference theory in statistics interprets those questions as inferring the effect of a given intervention (treatment or policy) in the data generating process. Causal inference has been used in medicine, public health, and economics; in addition, it has received recent attention as a tool for data-driven decision making processes. Many recent datasets are observational, rather than experimental, which makes the causal inference theory more complex. This review introduces key concepts and recent trends of statistical causal inference in observational studies. We first introduce the Neyman-Rubin's potential outcome framework to formularize from causal questions to average treatment effects as well as discuss popular methods to estimate treatment effects such as propensity score approaches and regression approaches. For recent trends, we briefly discuss (1) conditional (heterogeneous) treatment effects and machine learning-based approaches, (2) curse of dimensionality on the estimation of treatment effect and its remedies, and (3) Pearl's structural causal model to deal with more complex causal relationships and its connection to the Neyman-Rubin's potential outcome model.
Keywords
causal inference; average treatment effect; conditional treatment effect; propensity score; structural causal model;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Fan, J., Imai, K., Liu, H., Ning, Y., and Yang, X. (2016). Improving covariate balancing propensity score: a doubly robust and efficient approach (Technical Report), Princeton University, Princeton.
2 Farrell, M. H. (2015). Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations. Journal of Econometrics, 189, 1-23.   DOI
3 Fong, C., Ratkovic, M., and Imai, K. (2018). CBPS: Covariate Balancing Propensity Score. R package version 0.19. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CBPS
4 Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., and Stuart, E. A. (2011). MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1-28.
5 Imai, K. and Ratkovic, M. (2014). Covariate balancing propensity score, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76, 243-263.   DOI
6 Imbens, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: a review, Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 4-29.   DOI
7 Imbens, G. W. and Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8 Kang, J. D. Y. and Schafer, J. L. (2007). Demystifying double robustness: a comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical Science, 22, 523-539.   DOI
9 Kim, M. (2018). Causal Inference in Statistics: A Primer, Kyowoo Book, Seoul.
10 Kunzel, S. R., Sekhon, J. S., Bickel, P. J., and Yu, B. (2017). Meta-learners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1706.03461, 1-39.
11 Lunceford, J. K. and Davidian, M. (2004). Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study, Statistics in Medicine, 23, 2937-2960.   DOI
12 Nie, X. and Wager, S. (2017). Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1712.04912, 1-43.
13 Ning, Y. and Liu, H. (2017). A general theory of hypothesis tests and confidence regions for sparse high dimensional models, The Annals of Statistics, 45, 158-195.   DOI
14 Ponomareva, M. and Powell, J. (2010). Irregular identification, support conditions, and inverse weight estimation, Econometrica, 78, 2021-2042.   DOI
15 Huh, M. (2014). Applied Data Analytics, Freedom Academy, Seoul.
16 Ning, Y., Peng, S., and Imai, K. (2017). High dimensional propensity score estimation via covariate balancing (Technical Report), Cornell University, 1-47.
17 Pearl, J. (2009a). Causal inference in statistics: an overview, Statistics Surveys, 3, 96-146.   DOI
18 Pearl, J. (2009b). Causality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19 Pearl, J., Glymour, M., and Jewell, N. P. (2016). Causal Inference in Statistics: A Primer, Wiley.
20 Qian, M. and Murphy, S. A. (2011). Performance guarantees for individualized treatment rules, The Annals of Statistics, 39, 1180-1210.   DOI
21 Robins, J. M., Rotnitzky, A., and Zhao, L. P. (1994). Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 846-866.   DOI
22 Robinson, P. M. (1988). Root-n-consistent semiparametric regression, Econometrica, 56, 931.   DOI
23 Rosenbaum, P. (2017). Observation and Experiment: An Introduction to Causal Inference. Harvard University Press.
24 Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516-524.   DOI
25 Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33-38.   DOI
26 Zhao, Q. and Percival, D. (2017). Entropy balancing is doubly robust. Journal of Causal Inference, 5(1):1-21.
27 Yang, S. and Ding, P. (2018). Asymptotic inference of causal effects with observational studies trimmed by the estimated propensity scores. Biometrika, (March), 1-7.
28 Zhang, B., Tsiatis, A. A., Davidian, M., Zhang, M., and Laber, E. (2012). Estimating optimal treatment regimes from a classification perspective, Stat, 1, 103-114.   DOI
29 Zhao, Q. (2019). Covariate balancing propensity score by tailored loss functions. The Annals of Statistics, 47(2):965-993.   DOI
30 Zhao, Q., Small, D. S., and Ertefaie, A. (2017). Selective inference for effect modification via the lasso. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1705.08020, 1-21.
31 van der Laan, M. J. and Rose, S. (2011). Targeted Learning, Springer Series in Statistics, Springer New York.
32 Rubin, D. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 322-331.   DOI
33 Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward, Statistical Science, 25, 1-21.   DOI
34 Van De Geer, S., Buhlmann, P., Ritov, Y., and Dezeure, R. (2014). On asymptotically optimal confidence regions and tests for high-dimensional models. The Annals of Statistics, 42, 1166-1202.   DOI
35 van der Laan, M. J. and Rose, S. (2018). Targeted Learning in Data Science, Springer Series in Statistics, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
36 Abadie, A. and Imbens, G. W. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects, Econometrica, 74, 235-267.   DOI
37 Zhao, Y., Zeng, D., Rush, A. J., and Kosorok, M. R. (2012). Estimating individualized treatment rules using outcome weighted learning, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107, 1106-1118.   DOI
38 Varian, H. R. (2016). Causal inference in economics and marketing. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 7310-7315.   DOI
39 Wager, S. and Athey, S. (2018). Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113, 1228-1242.   DOI
40 An, W. and Ding, Y. (2018). The landscape of causal inference: perspective from citation network analysis, The American Statistician, 72, 265-277.   DOI
41 Bang, H. and Robins, J. M. (2005). Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models, Biometrics, 61, 962-973.   DOI
42 Belloni, A., Chernozhukov, V., Fernandez-Val, I., and Hansen, C. (2017). Program evaluation and causal inference with high-dimensional data. Econometrica, 85, 233-298.   DOI
43 Benkeser, D. (2018). rtmle: Doubly-Robust Nonparametric Estimation and Inference. R package version 1.0.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=drtmle
44 Caliendo, M. and Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching, Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31-72.   DOI
45 Chakraborty, B. and Murphy, S. A. (2014). Dynamic treatment regimes, Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 1(1):447-464.   DOI
46 Crump, R. K., Hotz, V. J., Imbens, G. W., and Mitnik, O. A. (2009). Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects, Biometrika, 96, 187-199.   DOI
47 Chan, D., Ge, R., Gershony, O., Hesterberg, T., and Lambert, D. (2010). Evaluating online ad campaigns in a pipeline. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD '10), 7-15.
48 Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., Demirer, M., Duflo, E., Hansen, C., and Newey, W. (2017). Double/debiased/Neyman machine learning of treatment effects, American Economic Review, 107, 261-265.   DOI
49 Cornfield, J., Haenszel, W., Hammond, E. C., Lilienfeld, A. M., Shimkin, M. B., and Wynder, E. L. (2009). Smoking and lung cancer: Recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. International Journal of Epidemiology, 38, 1175-1191.   DOI
50 D'Amour, A., Ding, P., Feller, A., Lei, L., and Sekhon, J. (2017). Overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates, arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.02582, 1-31.
51 Dawid, A. P. (2000). Causal inference without counterfactuals, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 407-424.   DOI