Variable importance for causal forests: breaking down the heterogeneity of treatment effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Causal random forests provide efficient estimates of heterogeneous treatment effects. However, forest algorithms are also well-known for their black-box nature, and therefore, do not characterize how input variables are involved in treatment effect heterogeneity, which is a strong practical limitation. In this article, we develop a new importance variable algorithm for causal forests, to quantify the impact of each input on the heterogeneity of treatment effects. The proposed approach is inspired from the drop and relearn principle, widely used for regression problems. Importantly, we show how to handle the forest retrain without a confounding variable. If the confounder is not involved in the treatment effect heterogeneity, the local centering step enforces consistency of the importance measure. Otherwise, when a confounder also impacts heterogeneity, we introduce a corrective term in the retrained causal forest to recover consistency. Additionally, experiments on simulated, semi-synthetic, and real data show the good performance of our importance measure, which outperforms competitors on several test cases. Experiments also show that our approach can be efficiently extended to groups of variables, providing key insights in practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".