Defining Expertise: Applications to Treatment Effect Estimation
Alihan Hüyük, Qiyao Wei, Alicia Curth, Mihaela van der Schaar
Abstract
Decision-makers are often experts of their domain and take actions based on their domain knowledge. Doctors, for instance, may prescribe treatments by predicting the likely outcome of each available treatment. Actions of an expert thus naturally encode part of their domain knowledge, and can help make inferences within the same domain: Knowing doctors try to prescribe the best treatment for their patients, we can tell treatments prescribed more frequently are likely to be more effective. Yet in machine learning, the fact that most decision-makers are experts is often overlooked, and"expertise"is seldom leveraged as an inductive bias. This is especially true for the literature on treatment effect estimation, where often the only assumption made about actions is that of overlap. In this paper, we argue that expertise - particularly the type of expertise the decision-makers of a domain are likely to have - can be informative in designing and selecting methods for treatment effect estimation. We formally define two types of expertise, predictive and prognostic, and demonstrate empirically that: (i) the prominent type of expertise in a domain significantly influences the performance of different methods in treatment effect estimation, and (ii) it is possible to predict the type of expertise present in a dataset, which can provide a quantitative basis for model selection.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 6397f9be-03e0-4790-bcf5-a97575b5e694Cited by top-tier papers2
- Human Expertise in Algorithmic PredictionRohan Alur, Manish Raghavan, Devavrat ShahNeurIPS 2024 · 18 citations
- Improving the Generation and Evaluation of Synthetic Data for Downstream Medical Causal InferenceHarry Amad, Zhaozhi Qian, Dennis Frauen, Julianna Piskorz et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 6 citations
Builds on12
- Estimating counterfactual treatment outcomes over time through adversarially balanced representationsIoana Bica, Ahmed M. Alaa, James Jordon, Mihaela van der SchaarICLR 2020 · 224 citations
- Learning Counterfactual Representations for Estimating Individual Dose-Response CurvesPatrick Schwab, Lorenz Linhardt, Stefan Bauer, Joachim M. Buhmann et al.AAAI 2020 · 159 citations
- Time Series Deconfounder: Estimating Treatment Effects over Time in the Presence of Hidden ConfoundersIoana Bica, Ahmed M. Alaa, Mihaela van der SchaarICML 2020 · 133 citations
- On Inductive Biases for Heterogeneous Treatment Effect EstimationAlicia Curth, Mihaela van der SchaarNeurIPS 2021 · 114 citations
- Inverse Decision Modeling: Learning Interpretable Representations of BehaviorDaniel Jarrett, Alihan Hüyük, Mihaela van der SchaarICML 2021 · 30 citations
Related papers
- Domain constraints improve risk prediction when outcome data is missingSidhika Balachandar, Nikhil Garg, Emma PiersonICLR 2024 · 11 citations
- Comparing Targeting Strategies for Maximizing Social Welfare with Limited ResourcesVibhhu Sharma, Bryan WilderICLR 2025
- In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect EstimationAlicia Curth, Mihaela van der SchaarICML 2023 · 36 citations
- LLM-Driven Treatment Effect Estimation Under Inference Time Text ConfoundingYuchen Ma, Dennis Frauen, Jonas Schweisthal, Stefan FeuerriegelNeurIPS 2025 · 7 citations
- Finding Regions of Heterogeneity in Decision-Making via Expected Conditional CovarianceJustin Lim, Christina X. Ji, Michael Oberst, Saul Blecker et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 5 citations
