arXiv subjects

Etienne Peyrot

Publications and source records attributed to Etienne Peyrot.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Evaluating the influence of treatment-effect heterogeneity on discrimination

Analyzing the heterogeneity of treatment effects is crucial in personalized medicine to identify which patients will benefit from specific treatments. The performance of a conditional average treatment effects model to guide treatment decisions can be assessed in different ways, with an important one being the model's ability to effectively discriminate between individuals who benefit from the treatment and those who do not. While many methods and algorithms have been proposed to develop conditional average treatment effects models and individualized treatment rules, little is known about the discriminative ability that can be achieved according to the population's underlying distribution of treatment effects. In this work, we computed the discrimination that can be achieved under oracle CATE for a panel of 20 distributions with varying average treatment effects and levels of heterogeneity. The assessment included the following discrimination metrics: the c-statistic for benefit, the concentration of benefit, and the population average prescriptive effect (PAPE). Results showed that the three metrics employed in this study did not require the same levels of treatment effect heterogeneity to lead to high discrimination results. Notably, achieving high c-statistic for benefit and PAPE values required greater heterogeneity than obtaining high concentration of benefit values. The three metrics considered behave very differently across the distributions. For instance, the concentration of benefit can indicate perfect discrimination in settings with negligible treatment-effects heterogeneity.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2026

crossfit: A Graph-Based Cross-Fitting Engine in R

Cross-fitting is a key ingredient in many semiparametric estimation procedures, such as double/debiased machine learning (DML), enabling valid estimation of low-dimensional targets in the presence of high-dimensional nuisance functions by enforcing out-of-sample use of nuisance predictions. crossfit is an R package that provides a general-purpose, estimator-agnostic cross-fitting engine. Users specify (i) a target functional and (ii) a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of nuisance models, with node-specific training fold widths and target-specific evaluation windows. The engine executes a reproducible schedule over folds, panels, and repetitions, returning either a scalar estimate (mode="estimate") or a cross-fitted predictor function for application to new data (mode="predict"). Beyond standard cross-fitting, crossfit implements fold-allocation modes that control how training data are shared across nuisance components, including disjoint and independence-enforcing allocations that duplicate reused nodes to reduce dependence between nuisance branches. The implementation targets simulation-heavy benchmarking and method development, with explicit and auditable schedules, defensive validation of specifications and nuisance dependencies, reuse-aware caching to avoid redundant refits, and failure isolation policies for large experiment grids. The crossfit package is available on CRAN, openly developed on GitHub under GPL-3, and is intended as a lightweight, tested foundation to prototype and empirically evaluate cross-fitted estimators with explicit control over fold geometry, dependence, and computation.

stat.CO↗

arXiv2026

Choosing Covariate Balancing Methods for Causal Inference: Practical Insights from a Simulation Study

Background: Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) is used for confounding adjustment in observational studies. Newer weighting methods include energy balancing (EB), kernel optimal matching (KOM), and tailored-loss covariate balancing propensity scores (TLF), but practical guidance remains limited. We evaluate their performance when implemented according to published recommendations. Methods: We conducted Monte Carlo simulations across 36 scenarios varying sample size, treatment prevalence, and a complexity factor increasing confounding and reducing overlap. Data generation used predominantly categorical covariates with some correlation. Average treatment effect and average treatment effect on the treated were estimated using IPTW, EB, KOM, and TLF combined with weighted least squares and, when supported, a doubly robust (DR) estimators. Inference followed published recommendations for each method when feasible, using standard alternatives otherwise. \textsc{PROBITsim} dataset used for illustration. Results: DR reduced sensitivity to the weighting scheme with an outcome regression adjusted for all confounders, despite functional-form misspecification. EB and KOM were most reliable; EB was tuning-free but scale dependent, whereas KOM required kernel and penalty choices. IPTW was variance sensitive when treatment prevalence was far from 50\%. TLF traded lower variance for higher bias, producing an RMSE plateau and sub-nominal confidence interval coverage. \textsc{PROBITsim} results mirrored these patterns. Conclusions: Rather than identifying a best method, our findings highlight failure modes and tuning choices to monitor. When the outcome regression adjusts for all confounders, DR estimation can be dependable across weighting schemes. Incorporating weight-estimation uncertainty into confidence intervals remains a key challenge for newer approaches.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Do machine learning methods lead to similar individualized treatment rules? A comparison study on real data

Identifying patients who benefit from a treatment is a key aspect of personalized medicine, which allows the development of individualized treatment rules (ITRs). Many machine learning methods have been proposed to create such rules. However, to what extent the methods lead to similar ITRs, i.e., recommending the same treatment for the same individuals is unclear. In this work, we compared 22 of the most common approaches in two randomized control trials. Two classes of methods can be distinguished. The first class of methods relies on predicting individualized treatment effects from which an ITR is derived by recommending the treatment evaluated to the individuals with a predicted benefit. In the second class, methods directly estimate the ITR without estimating individualized treatment effects. For each trial, the performance of ITRs was assessed by various metrics, and the pairwise agreement between all ITRs was also calculated. Results showed that the ITRs obtained via the different methods generally had considerable disagreements regarding the patients to be treated. A better concordance was found among akin methods. Overall, when evaluating the performance of ITRs in a validation sample, all methods produced ITRs with limited performance, suggesting a high potential for optimism. For non-parametric methods, this optimism was likely due to overfitting. The different methods do not lead to similar ITRs and are therefore not interchangeable. The choice of the method strongly influences for which patients a certain treatment is recommended, drawing some concerns about their practical use.

stat.AP↗