DeepBlip: Estimating Conditional Average Treatment Effects Over Time

Structural nested mean models (SNMMs) are a principled approach to estimate the treatment effects over time. A particular strength of SNMMs is to break the joint effect of treatment sequences over time into localized, time-specific ``blip effects''. This decomposition promotes interpretability through the incremental effects and enables the efficient offline evaluation of optimal treatment policies without re-computation. However, neural frameworks for SNMMs are lacking, as their inherently sequential g-estimation scheme prevents end-to-end, gradient-based training. Here, we propose DeepBlip, the first neural framework for SNMMs, which overcomes this limitation with a novel double optimization trick to enable simultaneous learning of all blip functions. Our DeepBlip seamlessly integrates sequential neural networks like LSTMs or transformers to capture complex temporal dependencies. By design, our method correctly adjusts for time-varying confounding to produce unbiased estimates, and its Neyman-orthogonal loss function ensures robustness to nuisance model misspecification. Finally, we evaluate our DeepBlip across various clinical datasets, where it achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Beyond Means: A Dynamic Framework for Predicting Customer Satisfaction

Online ratings influence customer decision-making, yet standard aggregation methods, such as the sample mean, fail to adapt to quality changes over time and ignore review heterogeneity (e.g., review sentiment, a review's helpfulness). To address these challenges, we demonstrate the value of using the Gaussian process (GP) framework for rating aggregation. Specifically, we present a tailored GP model that captures the dynamics of ratings over time while additionally accounting for review heterogeneity. Based on 121,123 ratings from Yelp, we compare the predictive power of different rating aggregation methods in predicting future ratings, thereby finding that the GP model is considerably more accurate and reduces the mean absolute error by 10.2% compared to the sample mean. Our findings have important implications for marketing practitioners and customers. By moving beyond means, designers of online reputation systems can display more informative and adaptive aggregated rating scores that are accurate signals of expected customer satisfaction.

SurvDiff: A Diffusion Model for Generating Synthetic Data in Survival Analysis

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of clinical research by modeling time-to-event outcomes such as metastasis, disease relapse, or patient death. Unlike standard tabular data, survival data often come with incomplete event information due to dropout, or loss to follow-up. This poses unique challenges for synthetic data generation, where it is crucial for clinical research to faithfully reproduce both the event-time distribution and the censoring mechanism. In this paper, we propose SurvDiff, an end-to-end diffusion model specifically designed for generating synthetic data in survival analysis. SurvDiff is tailored to capture the data-generating mechanism by jointly generating mixed-type covariates, event times, and right-censoring, guided by a survival-tailored loss function. The loss encodes the time-to-event structure and directly optimizes for downstream survival tasks, which ensures that SurvDiff (i) reproduces realistic event-time distributions and (ii) preserves the censoring mechanism. Across multiple datasets, we show that \survdiff consistently outperforms state-of-the-art generative baselines in both distributional fidelity and downstream evaluation metrics across multiple medical datasets. To the best of our knowledge, SurvDiff is the first diffusion model explicitly designed for generating synthetic survival data.

LLM-Driven Treatment Effect Estimation Under Inference Time Text Confounding

Estimating treatment effects is crucial for personalized decision-making in medicine, but this task faces unique challenges in clinical practice. At training time, models for estimating treatment effects are typically trained on well-structured medical datasets that contain detailed patient information. However, at inference time, predictions are often made using textual descriptions (e.g., descriptions with self-reported symptoms), which are incomplete representations of the original patient information. In this work, we make three contributions. (1) We show that the discrepancy between the data available during training time and inference time can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. We formalize this issue as an inference time text confounding problem, where confounders are fully observed during training time but only partially available through text at inference time. (2) To address this problem, we propose a novel framework for estimating treatment effects that explicitly accounts for inference time text confounding. Our framework leverages large language models together with a custom doubly robust learner to mitigate biases caused by the inference time text confounding. (3) Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in real-world applications.

Foundation Models for Causal Inference via Prior-Data Fitted Networks

Prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) have recently been proposed as a promising way to train tabular foundation models. PFNs are transformers that are pre-trained on synthetic data generated from a prespecified prior distribution and that enable Bayesian inference through in-context learning. In this paper, we introduce CausalFM, a comprehensive framework for training PFN-based foundation models in various causal inference settings. First, we formalize the construction of Bayesian priors for causal inference based on structural causal models (SCMs) in a principled way and derive necessary criteria for the validity of such priors. Building on this, we propose a novel family of prior distributions using causality-inspired Bayesian neural networks that enable CausalFM to perform Bayesian causal inference in various settings, including back-door, front-door, and instrumental variable adjustment. Finally, we instantiate CausalFM and explicitly train a foundation model for estimating conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) using back-door adjustment. We show that CausalFM performs competitively for CATE estimation using various synthetic and semi-synthetic benchmarks. In sum, our framework can be used as a general recipe to train foundation models for various causal inference settings. In contrast to the current state-of-the-art in causal inference, CausalFM offers a novel paradigm with the potential to fundamentally change how practitioners perform causal inference in medicine, economics, and other disciplines.

PrivATE: Differentially Private Confidence Intervals for Average Treatment Effects

The average treatment effect (ATE) is widely used to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs and other medical interventions. In safety-critical applications like medicine, reliable inferences about the ATE typically require valid uncertainty quantification, such as through confidence intervals (CIs). However, estimating treatment effects in these settings often involves sensitive data that must be kept private. In this work, we present PrivATE, a novel machine learning framework for computing CIs for the ATE under differential privacy. Specifically, we focus on deriving valid privacy-preserving CIs for the ATE from observational data. Our PrivATE framework consists of three steps: (i) estimating a differentially private ATE through output perturbation; (ii) estimating the differentially private variance through a truncated output perturbation mechanism; and (iii) constructing the CIs while accounting for the uncertainty from both the estimation and privatization steps. Our PrivATE framework is model agnostic, doubly robust, and ensures valid CIs. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework using synthetic and real-world medical datasets. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to derive a general, doubly robust framework for valid CIs of the ATE under ($\varepsilon$, $\delta$)-differential privacy.

Generative AI and Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used to support a wide range of human tasks, yet empirical evidence on its effect on creativity remains scattered. Can GenAI generate ideas that are creative? To what extent can it support humans in generating ideas that are both creative and diverse? In this study, we conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of GenAI on the performance in creative tasks. For this, we first perform a systematic literature search, based on which we identify n = 28 relevant studies (m = 8214 participants) for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We then compute standardized effect sizes based on Hedges' g. We compare different outcomes: (i) how creative GenAI is; (ii) how creative humans augmented by GenAI are; and (iii) the diversity of ideas by humans augmented by GenAI. Our results show no significant difference in creative performance between GenAI and humans (g = -0.05), while humans collaborating with GenAI significantly outperform those working without assistance (g = 0.27). However, GenAI has a significant negative effect on the diversity of ideas for such collaborations between humans and GenAI (g = -0.86). We further analyze heterogeneity across different GenAI models (e.g., GPT-3.5, GPT-4), different tasks (e.g., creative writing, ideation, divergent thinking), and different participant populations (e.g., laypeople, business, academia). Overall, our results position GenAI as an augmentative tool that can support, rather than replace, human creativity-particularly in tasks benefiting from ideation support.

Orthogonal Survival Learners for Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects from Time-to-Event Data

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) is crucial for personalized decision-making. However, this task is challenging in survival analysis, which includes time-to-event data with censored outcomes (e.g., due to study dropout). In this paper, we propose a toolbox of novel orthogonal survival learners to estimate HTEs from time-to-event data under censoring. Our learners have three main advantages: (i) we show that learners from our toolbox are guaranteed to be orthogonal and thus come with favorable theoretical properties; (ii) our toolbox allows for incorporating a custom weighting function, which can lead to robustness against different types of low overlap, and (iii) our learners are model-agnostic (i.e., they can be combined with arbitrary machine learning models). We instantiate the learners from our toolbox using several weighting functions and, as a result, propose various neural orthogonal survival learners. Some of these coincide with existing survival learners (including survival versions of the DR- and R-learner), while others are novel and further robust w.r.t. low overlap regimes specific to the survival setting (i.e., survival overlap and censoring overlap). We then empirically verify the effectiveness of our learners for HTE estimation in different low-overlap regimes through numerical experiments. In sum, we provide practitioners with a large toolbox of learners that can be used for randomized and observational studies with censored time-to-event data.

Treatment Effect Estimation for Optimal Decision-Making

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 two-stage CATE estimators can be adapted for optimal decision-making.

Beware of "Explanations" of AI

Understanding the decisions made and actions taken by increasingly complex AI system remains a key challenge. This has led to an expanding field of research in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), highlighting the potential of explanations to enhance trust, support adoption, and meet regulatory standards. However, the question of what constitutes a "good" explanation is dependent on the goals, stakeholders, and context. At a high level, psychological insights such as the concept of mental model alignment can offer guidance, but success in practice is challenging due to social and technical factors. As a result of this ill-defined nature of the problem, explanations can be of poor quality (e.g. unfaithful, irrelevant, or incoherent), potentially leading to substantial risks. Instead of fostering trust and safety, poorly designed explanations can actually cause harm, including wrong decisions, privacy violations, manipulation, and even reduced AI adoption. Therefore, we caution stakeholders to beware of explanations of AI: while they can be vital, they are not automatically a remedy for transparency or responsible AI adoption, and their misuse or limitations can exacerbate harm. Attention to these caveats can help guide future research to improve the quality and impact of AI explanations.