← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

STABLE ESTIMATION OF SURVIVAL CAUSAL EFFECTS

Khiem Pham, David A. Hirshberg, Phuong-Mai Huynh-Pham, Michele Santacatterina, Ser-Nam Lim, Ramin Zabih

causal reasoningsurvival analysiscausal inferencecovariate balancingsemi-parametric efficiencydouble machine learning
49.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
43.20100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)
55.60100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We propose a balancing weight approach for counter-factual survival outcomes

Abstract

We study the problem of estimating survival causal effects, where the aim is to characterize the impact of an intervention on survival times, i.e., how long it takes for an event to occur. Applications include determining if a drug reduces the time to ICU discharge or if an advertising campaign increases customer dwell time. Historically, the most popular estimates have been based on parametric or semiparametric (e.g. proportional hazards) models; however, these methods suffer from problematic levels of bias. Recently debiased machine learning approaches are becoming increasingly popular, especially in applications to large datasets. However, despite their appealing theoretical properties, these estimators tend to be unstable because the debiasing step involves the use of the inverses of small estimated probabilities---small errors in the estimated probabilities can result in huge changes in their inverses and therefore the resulting estimator. This problem is exacerbated in survival settings where probabilities are a product of treatment assignment and censoring probabilities. We propose a covariate balancing approach to estimating these inverses directly, sidestepping this problem. The result is an estimator that is stable in practice and enjoys many of the same theoretical properties. In particular, under overlap and asymptotic equicontinuity conditions, our estimator is asymptotically normal with negligible bias and optimal variance. Our experiments on synthetic and semi-synthetic data demonstrate that our method has competitive bias and smaller variance than debiased machine learning approaches.

Author context

Most prolific author: 5 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

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 = 32)