Abstract
Estimating average causal effect (ACE) is useful whenever we want to know theeffect of an intervention on a given outcome. In the absence of a randomizedexperiment, many methods such as stratification and inverse propensityweighting have been proposed to estimate ACE. However, it is hard to know whichmethod is optimal for a given dataset or which hyperparameters to use for achosen method. To this end, we provide a framework to characterize the loss ofa causal inference method against the true ACE, by framing causal inference asa representation learning problem. We show that many popular methods, includingback-door methods can be considered as weighting or representation learningalgorithms, and provide general error bounds for their causal estimates. Inaddition, we consider the case when unobserved variables can confound thecausal estimate and extend proposed bounds using principles of robuststatistics, considering confounding as contamination under the Hubercontamination model. These bounds are also estimable; as an example, we provideempirical bounds for the Inverse Propensity Weighting (IPW) estimator and showhow the bounds can be used to optimize the threshold of clipping extremepropensity scores. Our work provides a new way to reason about competingestimators, and opens up the potential of deriving new methods by minimizingthe proposed error bounds.