Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison
Martin Cousineau, Vedat Verter, Susan A. Murphy, Joelle Pineau

TL;DR
This paper reviews and empirically compares optimization-based causal inference methods, highlighting their strengths, limitations, and potential for further development in balancing covariates and estimating causal effects.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive overview and comparison of optimization-based causal inference methods, identifying gaps and opportunities for operational research contributions.
Findings
Optimization methods improve covariate balance over traditional approaches
Empirical comparison reveals strengths and weaknesses of different methods
Opportunities for new optimization-based causal inference techniques are discussed
Abstract
In the absence of randomized controlled and natural experiments, it is necessary to balance the distributions of (observable) covariates of the treated and control groups in order to obtain an unbiased estimate of a causal effect of interest; otherwise, a different effect size may be estimated, and incorrect recommendations may be given. To achieve this balance, there exist a wide variety of methods. In particular, several methods based on optimization models have been recently proposed in the causal inference literature. While these optimization-based methods empirically showed an improvement over a limited number of other causal inference methods in their relative ability to balance the distributions of covariates and to estimate causal effects, they have not been thoroughly compared to each other and to other noteworthy causal inference methods. In addition, we believe that there…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
