Abstract
Estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects (HTE) is of prime importance inmany disciplines, ranging from personalized medicine to economics among manyothers. Random forests have been shown to be a flexible and powerful approachto HTE estimation in both randomized trials and observational studies. Inparticular "causal forests", introduced by Athey, Tibshirani and Wager (2019),along with the R implementation in package grf were rapidly adopted. A relatedapproach, called "model-based forests", that is geared towards randomizedtrials and simultaneously captures effects of both prognostic and predictivevariables, was introduced by Seibold, Zeileis and Hothorn (2018) along with amodular implementation in the R package model4you. Here, we present a unifying view that goes beyond the theoretical motivationsand investigates which computational elements make causal forests so successfuland how these can be blended with the strengths of model-based forests. To doso, we show that both methods can be understood in terms of the same parametersand model assumptions for an additive model under L2 loss. This theoreticalinsight allows us to implement several flavors of "model-based causal forests"and dissect their different elements in silico. The original causal forests and model-based forests are compared with the newblended versions in a benchmark study exploring both randomized trials andobservational settings. In the randomized setting, both approaches performedakin. If confounding was present in the data generating process, we found localcentering of the treatment indicator with the corresponding propensities to bethe main driver for good performance. Local centering of the outcome was lessimportant, and might be replaced or enhanced by simultaneous split selectionwith respect to both prognostic and predictive effects.