Learning Individual Treatment Effects under Heterogeneous Interference in Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating individual treatment effects in networked observational data is a crucial and increasingly recognized problem. One major challenge of this problem is violating the stable unit treatment value assumption (SUTVA), which posits that a unit’s outcome is independent of others’ treatment assignments. However, in network data, a unit’s outcome is influenced not only by its treatment (i.e., direct effect) but also by the treatments of others (i.e., spillover effect) since the presence of interference. Moreover, the interference from other units is always heterogeneous (e.g., friends with similar interests have a different influence than those with different interests). In this article, we focus on the problem of estimating individual treatment effects (including direct effect and spillover effect) under heterogeneous interference in networks. To address this problem, we propose a novel dual weighting regression (DWR) algorithm by simultaneously learning attention weights to capture the heterogeneous interference from neighbors and sample weights to eliminate the complex confounding bias in networks. We formulate the learning process as a bi-level optimization problem. Theoretically, we give a generalization error bound for the expected estimation error of the individual treatment effects. Extensive experiments on four benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed DWR algorithm outperforms the state-of-the-art methods in estimating individual treatment effects under heterogeneous network interference.
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 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".