PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effect with Delayed Response

Anpeng Wu, Haoxuan Li, Yuhao Deng, Yi Wang, Bo Li, Fei Wu, Kun Kuang

causal reasoningHeterogeneous Treatment EffectsDelayed ResponsePotential Response TimePotential Outcomes
64.60100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
64.60100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)
72.30100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We propose CFR-DF, a principled learning approach that extends counterfactual regression (CFR) to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects with delayed response by incorporating delayed feedback outcomes.

Abstract

Estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects has gathered much attention in recent years and has been widely adopted in medicine, economics, and marketing. Previous studies assumed that one of the potential outcomes of interest could be observed timely and accurately. However, a more practical scenario is that treatment takes time to produce causal effects on the outcomes. For example, drugs take time to produce medical utility for patients and users take time to purchase items after being recommended, and ignoring such delays in feedback can lead to biased estimates of heterogeneous treatment effects. To address the above problem, we study the impact of observation time on estimating heterogeneous treatment effects by further considering the potential response time that potential outcomes have. We theoretically prove the identifiability results and further propose a principled learning approach, known as CFR-DF (Counterfactual Regression with Delayed Feedback), to simultaneously learn potential response times and potential outcomes of interest. Results on both simulated and real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

Author context

Most prolific author: 13 submissions (credibility 0.17).

Delta if applied: -1.4 percentile

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)