Statistical Inference for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Discovered by Generic Machine Learning in Randomized Experiments
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Researchers are increasingly turning to machine learning (ML) algorithms to investigate causal heterogeneity in randomized experiments. Despite their promise, ML algorithms may fail to accurately ascertain heterogeneous treatment effects under practical settings with many covariates and small sample size. In addition, the quantification of estimation uncertainty remains a challenge. We develop a general approach to statistical inference for heterogeneous treatment effects discovered by a generic ML algorithm. We apply the Neyman's repeated sampling framework to a common setting, in which researchers use an ML algorithm to estimate the conditional average treatment effect and then divide the sample into several groups based on the magnitude of the estimated effects. We show how to estimate the average treatment effect within each of these groups, and construct a valid confidence interval. In addition, we develop nonparametric tests of treatment effect homogeneity across groups, and rank-consistency of within-group average treatment effects. The validity of our methodology does not rely on the properties of ML algorithms because it is solely based on the randomization of treatment assignment and random sampling of units. Finally, we generalize our methodology to the cross-fitting procedure by accounting for the additional uncertainty induced by the random splitting of data.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Mar 2022.
Builds on
8 of 35 references.
References · 8
- 2015Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forestscited by 600
- 2017Automated versus do-it-yourself methods for causal inference: Lessons learned from a data analysis competitioncited by 106
- 2017Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effectscited by 41
- 2021Evaluating Treatment Prioritization Rules via Rank-Weighted Average Treatment Effectscited by 31
- 2020Stable discovery of interpretable subgroups via calibration in causal studiescited by 18
- 2019Experimental Evaluation of Individualized Treatment Rulescited by 16
- 2014Randomization Inference for Treatment Effect Variationcited by 9
- 2016Decomposing Treatment Effect Variationcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2024Evaluating the Effectiveness of Index-Based Treatment Allocationcited by 5
- 2025Fostering the Ecosystem of AI for Social Impact Requires Expanding and Strengthening Evaluation Standardscited by 2
- 2026A Statistical Test for the Benefits of Personalizing Interventionscited by 2
- 2023Statistical Performance Guarantee for Subgroup Identification with Generic Machine Learningcited by 0
- 2024Neyman Meets Causal Machine Learning: Experimental Evaluation of Individualized Treatment Rulescited by 0
- 2025Honesty in Causal Forests: When It Helps and When It Hurtscited by 0
- 2026Target-Weighted Neyman Allocation: Experimental Design for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects under Population Shiftcited by 0
- 2026Target-Weighted Neyman Allocation: Experimental Design for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects under Population Shift6 Aug 2026
- 2026A Statistical Test for the Benefits of Personalizing Interventions9 Jul 2026
- 2025Fostering the Ecosystem of AI for Social Impact Requires Expanding and Strengthening Evaluation Standards21 Oct 2025
- 2025Honesty in Causal Forests: When It Helps and When It Hurts16 Jun 2025
- 2024Neyman Meets Causal Machine Learning: Experimental Evaluation of Individualized Treatment Rules25 Apr 2024
- 2024Evaluating the Effectiveness of Index-Based Treatment Allocation19 Feb 2024
- 2023Statistical Performance Guarantee for Subgroup Identification with Generic Machine Learning12 Oct 2023