Causal Estimation for Text Data with (Apparent) Overlap Violations

TL;DR

This paper introduces a method for causal effect estimation in text data that overcomes overlap violations by learning representations that retain confounding information but remove treatment-predictive features, enabling robust causal inference.

Contribution

It proposes a supervised representation learning approach to address overlap violations in causal estimation with text data, ensuring valid adjustment and uncertainty quantification.

Findings

Significant bias reduction compared to baseline methods

Improved uncertainty quantification in causal estimates

Robustness to outcome misestimation

Abstract

Consider the problem of estimating the causal effect of some attribute of a text document; for example: what effect does writing a polite vs. rude email have on response time? To estimate a causal effect from observational data, we need to adjust for confounding aspects of the text that affect both the treatment and outcome -- e.g., the topic or writing level of the text. These confounding aspects are unknown a priori, so it seems natural to adjust for the entirety of the text (e.g., using a transformer). However, causal identification and estimation procedures rely on the assumption of overlap: for all levels of the adjustment variables, there is randomness leftover so that every unit could have (not) received treatment. Since the treatment here is itself an attribute of the text, it is perfectly determined, and overlap is apparently violated. The purpose of this paper is to show how to handle causal identification and obtain robust causal estimation in the presence of apparent overlap violations. In brief, the idea is to use supervised representation learning to produce a data representation that preserves confounding information while eliminating information that is only predictive of the treatment. This representation then suffices for adjustment and can satisfy overlap. Adapting results on non-parametric estimation, we find that this procedure is robust to conditional outcome misestimation, yielding a low-bias estimator with valid uncertainty quantification under weak conditions. Empirical results show strong improvements in bias and uncertainty quantification relative to the natural baseline.