Causal Inference in Economics

Generalization methods offer a powerful solution to one of the key drawbacks of randomized controlled trials (RCTs): their limited representativeness. By enabling the transport of treatment effect estimates to target populations subject to distributional shifts, these methods are increasingly recognized as the future of meta-analysis, the current gold standard in evidence-based medicine. Yet most existing approaches focus on the risk difference, overlooking the diverse range of causal measures routinely reported in clinical research. Reporting multiple effect measures—both absolute (e.g., risk difference, number needed to treat) and relative (e.g., risk ratio, odds ratio)—is essential to ensure clinical relevance, policy utility, and interpretability across contexts. To address this gap, we propose a unified framework for transporting a broad class of first-moment population causal effect measures under covariate shift. We provide identification results under two conditional exchangeability assumptions, derive both classical and semiparametric estimators, and evaluate their performance through theoretical analysis, simulations, and real-world applications. Our analysis shows the specificity of different causal measures and thus the interest of studying them all: for instance, two common approaches (one-step, estimating equation) lead to similar estimators for the risk difference but to two distinct estimators for the odds ratio.

A central challenge in organ transplantation is the extremely low acceptance rate of donor organ offers—typically in the single digits—leading to high discard rates and suboptimal use of available grafts. Current acceptance models embedded in allocation systems are non-causal, trained on observational data, and fail to generalize to policy-relevant counterfactuals. This limits their reliability for both policy evaluation and simulator-based optimization. In this work, we reframe organ offer acceptance as a counterfactual prediction problem and propose a method to learn from routinely recorded—but often overlooked—refusal explanations. These refusal reasons act as direction-only counterfactual signals: for example, a refusal reason such as "old donor age" implies acceptance might have occurred had the donor been younger. We formalize this setting and introduce ClexNet, a novel causal model that learns policy-invariant representations via balanced training and an explanation-guided augmentation loss. On both synthetic and semi-synthetic data, ClexNet outperforms existing acceptance models in predictive performance, generalization, and calibration, offering a robust drop-in improvement for simulators and allocation policy evaluation. Beyond transplantation, our approach provides a general method for incorporating human direction-only explanations as a form of model supervision, improving performance in settings where only observational data is available.

Estimating causal effects from spatiotemporal observational data is essential in public health, environmental science, and policy evaluation, where randomized experiments are often infeasible. Existing approaches, however, either rely on strong structural assumptions or fail to handle key challenges such as interference, spatial confounding, temporal carryover, and *time-varying confounding*—where covariates are influenced by past treatments and, in turn, affect future ones. We introduce the **GST-UNet** (**G**-computation **S**patio-**T**emporal **UNet**), a theoretically grounded neural framework that combines a U-Net-based spatiotemporal encoder with regression-based iterative G-computation to estimate location-specific potential outcomes under complex intervention sequences. GST-UNet explicitly adjusts for time-varying confounders and captures non-linear spatial and temporal dependencies, enabling valid causal inference from a *single* observed trajectory in data-scarce settings. We validate its effectiveness in synthetic experiments and in a real-world analysis of wildfire smoke exposure and respiratory hospitalizations during the 2018 California Camp Fire. Together, these results position GST-UNet as a **principled and ready-to-use framework** for spatiotemporal causal inference, advancing reliable estimation in policy-relevant and scientific domains.

This paper studies how to integrate historical control data with experimental data to enhance A/B testing, while addressing the distributional shift between historical and experimental datasets. We propose a pessimistic data integration method that combines two causal effect estimators constructed based on experimental and historical datasets. Our main idea is to conceptualize the weight function for this combination as a policy so that existing pessimistic policy learning algorithms are applicable to learn the optimal weight that minimizes the resulting weighted estimator's mean squared error. Additionally, we conduct comprehensive theoretical and empirical analyses to compare our method against various baseline estimators across five scenarios. Both our theoretical and numerical findings demonstrate that the proposed estimator achieves near-optimal performance across all scenarios.

Decision-making across various fields, such as medicine, heavily relies on conditional average treatment effects (CATEs). Practitioners commonly make decisions by checking whether the estimated CATE is positive, even though the decision-making performance of modern CATE estimators is poorly understood from a theoretical perspective. In this paper, we study optimal decision-making based on two-stage CATE estimators (e.g., DR-learner), which are considered state-of-the-art and widely used in practice. We prove that, while such estimators may be optimal for estimating CATE, they can be suboptimal when used for decision-making. Intuitively, this occurs because such estimators prioritize CATE accuracy in regions far away from the decision boundary, which is ultimately irrelevant to decision-making. As a remedy, we propose a novel two-stage learning objective that retargets the CATE to balance CATE estimation error and decision performance. We then propose a neural method that optimizes an adaptively-smoothed approximation of our learning objective. Finally, we confirm the effectiveness of our method both empirically and theoretically. In sum, our work is the first to show how state-of-the-art CATE estimators can be adapted for optimal decision-making.

Estimating the distribution of outcomes under counterfactual policies is critical for decision-making in domains such as recommendation, advertising, and healthcare. We propose and analyze a novel framework—Counterfactual Policy Mean Embedding (CPME)—that represents the entire counterfactual outcome distribution in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS), enabling flexible and nonparametric distributional off-policy evaluation. We introduce both a plug-in estimator and a doubly robust estimator; the latter enjoys improved convergence rates by correcting for bias in both the outcome embedding and propensity models. Building on this, we develop a doubly robust kernel test statistic for hypothesis testing, which achieves asymptotic normality and thus enables computationally efficient testing and straightforward construction of confidence intervals. Our framework also supports sampling from the counterfactual distribution. Numerical simulations illustrate the practical benefits of CPME over existing methods.