Causal Inference in Economics

This paper focuses on the design of spatial experiments to optimize the amount of information derived from the experimental data and enhance the accuracy of the resulting causal effect estimator. We propose a surrogate function for the mean squared error (MSE) of the estimator, which facilitates the use of classical graph cut algorithms to learn the optimal design. Our proposal offers three key advances: (1) it accommodates moderate to large spatial interference effects; (2) it adapts to different spatial covariance functions; (3) it is computationally efficient. Theoretical results and numerical experiments based on synthetic environments and a dispatch simulator that models a city-scale ridesharing market, further validate the effectiveness of our design. A python implementation of our method is available at https://github.com/Mamba413/CausalGraphCut.

Uplift modeling is crucial for identifying individuals likely to respond to a treatment in applications like marketing and customer retention, but evaluating these models is challenging due to the inaccessibility of counterfactual outcomes in real-world settings. In this paper, we identify a fundamental limitation in existing evaluation metrics, such as the uplift and Qini curves, which fail to rank individuals with binary negative outcomes accurately. This can lead to biased evaluations, where biased models receive higher curve values than unbiased ones, resulting in suboptimal model selection. To address this, we propose the Principled Uplift Curve (PUC), a novel evaluation metric that assigns equal curve values of individuals with both positive and negative binary outcomes, offering a more balanced and unbiased assessment. We then derive the Principled Uplift Loss (PUL) function from the PUC and integrate it into a new uplift model, the Principled Treatment and Outcome Network (PTONet), to reduce bias during uplift model training. Experiments on both simulated and real-world datasets demonstrate that the PUC provides less biased evaluations, while PTONet outperforms existing methods. The source code is available at: https://github.com/euzmin/PUC.

Estimating causal effects is crucial in domains like healthcare, economics, and education. Despite advances in machine learning (ML) for estimating conditional average treatment effects (CATE), the practical adoption of these methods remains limited, due to the complexities of implementing, tuning, and validating them. To address these challenges, we formalize the search for an optimal ML pipeline for CATE estimation as a counterfactual Combined Algorithm Selection and Hyperparameter (CASH) optimization. We introduce AutoCATE, the first end-to-end, automated solution for CATE estimation. Unlike prior approaches that address only parts of this problem, AutoCATE integrates evaluation, estimation, and ensembling in a unified framework. AutoCATE enables comprehensive comparisons of different protocols, yielding novel insights into CATE estimation and a final configuration that outperforms commonly used strategies. To facilitate broad adoption and further research, we release AutoCATE as an open-source software package.

Causal reasoning and compositional reasoning are two core aspirations in AI. Measuring the extent of these behaviors requires principled evaluation methods. We explore a unified perspective that considers both behaviors simultaneously, termed *compositional causal reasoning* (CCR): the ability to infer how causal measures compose and, equivalently, how causal quantities propagate through graphs. We instantiate a framework for the systematic evaluation of CCR for the average treatment effect and the probability of necessity and sufficiency. As proof of concept, we demonstrate CCR evaluation for language models in the Llama, Phi, and GPT families. On a math word problem, our framework revealed a range of taxonomically distinct error patterns. CCR errors increased with the complexity of causal paths for all models except o1.

Causal machine learning has the potential to revolutionize decision-making by combining the predictive power of machine learning algorithms with the theory of causal inference. However, these methods remain underutilized by the broader machine learning community, in part because current empirical evaluations do not permit assessment of their reliability and robustness, undermining their practical utility. Specifically, one of the principal criticisms made by the community is the extensive use of synthetic experiments. We argue, on the contrary, that **synthetic experiments are essential and necessary to precisely assess and understand the capabilities of causal machine learning methods**. To substantiate our position, we critically review the current evaluation practices, spotlight their shortcomings, and propose a set of principles for conducting rigorous empirical analyses with synthetic data. Adopting the proposed principles will enable comprehensive evaluations that build trust in causal machine learning methods, driving their broader adoption and impactful real-world use.

Benchmark contamination has become a significant concern in the LLM evaluation community. Previous Agents-as-an-Evaluator address this issue by involving agents in the generation of questions. Despite their success, the biases in Agents-as-an-Evaluator methods remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we present a theoretical formulation of evaluation bias, providing valuable insights into designing unbiased evaluation protocols. Furthermore, we identify two type of bias in Agents-as-an-Evaluator through carefully designed probing tasks on a minimal Agents-as-an-Evaluator setup. To address these issues, we propose the Unbiased Evaluator, an evaluation protocol that delivers a more comprehensive, unbiased, and interpretable assessment of LLMs. Extensive experiments reveal significant room for improvement in current LLMs. Additionally, we demonstrate that the Unbiased Evaluator not only offers strong evidence of benchmark contamination but also provides interpretable evaluation results.