Batch-Adaptive Causal Annotations

arXiv stat.ML / 4/21/2026

💬 OpinionIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper tackles efficient estimation of causal effects when outcomes are missing and when measurement error may not be standard, a common issue in policy and decision-making.
  • It formulates an optimal batch sampling strategy that selects which data points to label for outcomes by minimizing the asymptotic variance of a doubly robust (AIPW/doubly robust) causal estimator.
  • The authors derive a closed-form expression for the optimal batch sampling probability, improving efficiency in average treatment effect (ATE) estimation under missing outcomes.
  • Extending the method to costly unstructured-data annotations (e.g., text and images) in healthcare and social services, experiments on simulated and real datasets—including homelessness street outreach interventions—show lower mean-squared error and fewer labels needed.
  • In practice, the approach can reproduce confidence intervals from 361 random samples using only 90 optimized samples, cutting labeling cost by about 75%.

Abstract

Estimating the causal effects of interventions is crucial to policy and decision-making, yet outcome data are often missing or subject to non-standard measurement error. While ground-truth outcomes can sometimes be obtained through costly data annotation or follow-up, budget constraints typically allow only a fraction of the dataset to be labeled. We address this challenge by optimizing which data points should be sampled for outcome information in order to improve efficiency in average treatment effect estimation with missing outcomes. We derive a closed-form solution for the optimal batch sampling probability by minimizing the asymptotic variance of a doubly robust estimator for causal inference with missing outcomes. Motivated by our street outreach partners, we extend the framework to costly annotations of unstructured data, such as text or images in healthcare and social services. Across simulated and real-world datasets, including one of outreach interventions in homelessness services, our approach achieves substantially lower mean-squared error and recovers the AIPW estimate with fewer labels than existing baselines. In practice, we show that our method can match confidence intervals obtained with 361 random samples using only 90 optimized samples - saving 75% of the labeling budget.