arXiv subjects

Harsh Parikh

Publications and source records attributed to Harsh Parikh.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Towards Optimal Estimators for Randomized Control Trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are fundamental tools for causal inference across technology companies, pharmaceutical research, and federal agencies. While the standard difference-in-means estimator provides unbiased treatment effect estimates, it often lacks precision, particularly when treatment effects are heterogeneous or outcomes exhibit heavy-tailed distributions. Although numerous precision-enhancing methods exist---from covariate adjustment techniques to variance reduction strategies---recent research demonstrates that no single estimator performs optimally across all datasets. Rather than seeking the best estimator for individual RCTs, which risks compromising scientific validity through convenient selection, we propose a principled framework for identifying optimal estimators within families of RCTs based on specific analytical goals. Our approach uses sample splitting to estimate the distribution of evaluation metrics (e.g., mean squared error, regret) across RCT families, enabling systematic comparisons between estimators while maintaining asymptotic guarantees. We demonstrate this framework using a sample of Amazon's Supply Chain Optimization Technology trials and the Strengthening Democracy Challenge dataset (25 interventions). Results reveal that optimal estimators vary significantly by analytical objective: weighted least squares performs best for inference goals, while difference-in-means minimizes regret for decision-making contexts. This work provides actionable guidance for estimator selection while preserving methodological rigor across diverse research applications.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2026

Mind the Sim-to-Real Gap & Think Like a Scientist

Suppose a planner has a pre-trained simulator of a sequential decision problem and the option to run real experiments in the field. The simulator is cheap to query but inherits confounding and drift from its calibration data. Experimentation is unbiased but consumes one real unit per trial. We study when, and how, the planner should supplement the simulator with experiments. We give three results. First, an extended simulation lemma decomposes the simulator's value error into a calibration--deployment shift that randomization can identify and a parametric residual that no further interaction can reduce. Second, the value gap between the simulator-optimal policy and the optimum splits into a local component, on states the deployed policy already visits, and a reachability component, on states it does not. The reachability component stays bounded away from zero at any horizon under purely passive learning. Third, we propose Fisher-SEP, a simulation-aided experimental policy (SEP) that minimizes the posterior predictive variance of a target policy's value, with reward-only and transition-only specializations. Two case studies illustrate the regimes. In a vending-machine supply chain, front-loaded experimentation overtakes posterior updating once the horizon is long enough to amortize the pilot. In an HIV mobile-testing example with a corridor that separates a well-surveilled region from a poorly-surveilled one, only designed exploration reaches the poorly-surveilled region.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Data (in)equities in data science: Dissecting systemic and systematic biases in pulse oximetry

Data equity is an emerging framework for responsible data science. However, its core concepts, including fairness, representativeness, and information bias, remain largely abstract and general, lacking the mathematical specificity needed for practical implementation. In this paper, we demonstrate how statisticians can operationalize data equity by translating its tenets into precise, testable formulations tailored to a given problem. Using the well-documented case of differential measurement error across racial groups in pulse oximetry, we first adopt an oracle approach, tracing how a single upstream violation of information bias compounds through the analytic pipeline into treatment disparities, fairness violations, and adverse health outcomes. We then demonstrate the inverse: starting from an observed outcome disparity, the data equity framework provides a principled structure for systematically identifying its statistical sources. Our exposition underscores how data equity, prediction equity, and decision equity are distinct requirements with distinct evaluation and policy needs--a nuance that highlights both the unique role of statisticians in the era of artificial intelligence as well as the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2026

The Epidemiology of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly shape how people access health information, make medical decisions, and receive care -- yet epidemiology lacks frameworks for measuring AI exposure or studying its health effects at the population level. Here we argue that AI now functions as a determinant of health and propose a conceptual framework, borrowed from environmental epidemiology, for studying it. We distinguish ambient AI exposure -- algorithmic curation and AI-mediated institutional decisions that affect populations regardless of individual choice -- from personal AI exposure -- direct, volitional use of AI tools. We characterize AI's possible causal roles in epidemiological models, show that existing experimental approaches are inadequate for capturing chronic, population-level effects, and illustrate these ideas with nationally representative US survey data. We discuss implications for study design, health equity, and AI governance.

stat.OT↗

arXiv2026

When Does Agroforestry Income Reduce Deforestation? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Madagascar

Tropical deforestation and rural poverty are deeply intertwined, yet isolating the causal effect of income on forest loss remains challenging. We use the 2015 global vanilla price boom, triggered by food-industry shifts toward natural flavoring, as an exogenous income shock affecting Madagascar's primary vanilla-producing region. Using a matching-augmented synthetic control design, we estimate that income gains reduced annual deforestation by 1.7 percentage points in 2017, equivalent to approximately 701 hectares of avoided forest loss. Under a monotonicity assumption linking the price boom to farmers' income, the sign of this reduced-form effect is informative about the causal direction of income on deforestation. However, effects were strongly heterogeneous: higher incomes reduced deforestation in drier, more accessible municipalities but increased clearing in wetter, low-elevation areas with high agricultural potential. These divergent patterns suggest that income simultaneously relaxes subsistence pressures driving forest dependence and raises the opportunity cost of conservation where agricultural returns are high. Our findings indicate that commodity-based agroforestry can align poverty alleviation with forest conservation under conditions of low agricultural opportunity cost. Still, policies must anticipate contexts where rising incomes amplify deforestation in agriculturally suitable land. The strategic targeting of livelihood interventions based on local agricultural potential may help reconcile development and conservation objectives in tropical forest frontiers.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2026

TEA-Time: Transporting Effects Across Time

Treatment effects estimated from a randomized controlled trial are local not only to the study population but also to the time at which the trial was conducted. The literature on generalizing experimental findings to new populations is extensive, yet transporting effects across time has received far less attention, and even defining the target estimand is nonobvious. We formalize the transported average treatment effect under a separable temporal effects assumption, derive two identification strategies: replicated trials and common arm, and develop doubly robust, semiparametrically efficient estimators for each. Applied to a large archive of headline A/B tests, the common arm strategy is substantially more precise but exhibits systematic bias when the temporal factor depends on the gap between intervention and measurement rather than on measurement time alone, while the replicated trials strategy, which allows this dependence, tracks the ground truth more faithfully. Simulation studies investigate when each strategy is reliable and when it silently fails.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Controllable Generative Sandbox for Causal Inference

Method validation and study design in causal inference rely on synthetic data with known counterfactuals. Existing simulators trade off distributional realism, the ability to capture mixed-type and multimodal tabular data, against causal controllability, including explicit control over overlap, unmeasured confounding, and treatment effect heterogeneity. We introduce CausalMix, a variational generative framework that closes this gap by coupling a mixture of Gaussian latent priors with data-type-specific decoders for continuous, binary, and categorical variables. The model incorporates explicit causal controls: an overlap regularizer shaping propensity-score distributions, alongside direct parameterizations of confounding strength and effect heterogeneity. This unified objective preserves fidelity to the observed data while enabling factorial manipulation of causal mechanisms, allowing overlap, confounding strength, and treatment effect heterogeneity to be varied independently at design time. Across benchmarks, CausalMix achieves state-of-the-art distributional metrics on mixed-type tables while providing stable, fine-grained causal control. We demonstrate practical utility in a comparative safety study of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatments, using CausalMix to compare estimators under calibrated data-generating processes, tune hyperparameters, and conduct simulation-based power analyses under targeted treatment effect heterogeneity scenarios.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying Prediction Powered Inference

Machine learning predictions are increasingly used to supplement incomplete or costly-to-measure outcomes in fields such as biomedical research, environmental science, and social science. However, treating predictions as ground truth introduces bias while ignoring them wastes valuable information. Prediction-Powered Inference (PPI) offers a principled framework that leverages predictions from large unlabeled datasets to improve statistical efficiency while maintaining valid inference through explicit bias correction using a smaller labeled subset. Despite its potential, the growing PPI variants and the subtle distinctions between them have made it challenging for practitioners to determine when and how to apply these methods responsibly. This paper demystifies PPI by synthesizing its theoretical foundations, methodological extensions, connections to existing statistics literature, and diagnostic tools into a unified practical workflow. Using the MOSAIKS housing price data, we show that PPI variants produce tighter confidence intervals than complete-case analysis, but that double-dipping, i.e. reusing training data for inference, leads to anti-conservative confidence intervals and below-nominal coverage. Under missing-not-at-random mechanisms, all methods, including classical inference using only labeled data, yield biased estimates. We provide a decision flowchart linking assumption violations to appropriate PPI variants, a summary table of representative methods, and practical diagnostic strategies for evaluating core assumptions. By framing PPI as a general recipe rather than a single estimator, this work bridges methodological innovation and applied practice, helping researchers responsibly integrate predictions into valid inference.

stat.ML↗

arXiv2026

Why are there many equally good models? An Anatomy of the Rashomon Effect

The Rashomon effect -- the existence of multiple, distinct models that achieve nearly equivalent predictive performance -- has emerged as a fundamental phenomenon in modern machine learning and statistics. In this paper, we explore the causes underlying the Rashomon effect, organizing them into three categories: statistical sources arising from finite samples and noise in the data-generating process; structural sources arising from non-convexity of optimization objectives and unobserved variables that create fundamental non-identifiability; and procedural sources arising from limitations of optimization algorithms and deliberate restrictions to suboptimal model classes. We synthesize insights from machine learning, statistics, and optimization literature to provide a unified framework for understanding why the multiplicity of good models arises. A key distinction emerges: statistical multiplicity diminishes with more data, structural multiplicity persists asymptotically and cannot be resolved without different data or additional assumptions, and procedural multiplicity reflects choices made by practitioners. Beyond characterizing causes, we discuss both the challenges and opportunities presented by the Rashomon effect, including implications for inference, interpretability, fairness, and decision-making under uncertainty.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Demystifying Proximal Causal Inference

Proximal causal inference (PCI) has emerged as a promising framework for identifying and estimating causal effects in the presence of unobserved confounders. While many traditional causal inference methods rely on the assumption of no unobserved confounding, this assumption is likely often violated. PCI addresses this challenge by relying on an alternative set of assumptions regarding the relationships between treatment, outcome, and auxiliary variables that serve as proxies for unmeasured confounders. We review existing identification results, discuss the assumptions necessary for valid causal effect estimation via PCI, and compare different PCI estimation methods. We offer practical guidance on operationalizing PCI, with a focus on selecting and evaluating proxy variables using domain knowledge, measurement error perspectives, and negative control analogies. Through conceptual examples, we demonstrate tensions in proxy selection and discuss the importance of clearly defining the unobserved confounding mechanism. By bridging formal results with applied considerations, this work aims to demystify PCI, encourage thoughtful use in practice, and identify open directions for methodological development and empirical research.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Regularizing Extrapolation in Causal Inference

Many common estimators in machine learning and causal inference are linear smoothers, where the prediction is a weighted average of the training outcomes. Some estimators, such as ordinary least squares and kernel ridge regression, allow for arbitrarily negative weights, which improve feature imbalance but often at the cost of increased dependence on parametric modeling assumptions and higher variance. By contrast, estimators like importance weighting and random forests (sometimes implicitly) restrict weights to be non-negative, reducing dependence on parametric modeling and variance at the cost of worse imbalance. In this paper, we propose a unified framework that directly penalizes the level of extrapolation, replacing the current practice of a hard non-negativity constraint with a soft constraint and corresponding hyperparameter. We derive a worst-case extrapolation error bound and introduce a novel "bias-bias-variance" tradeoff, encompassing biases due to feature imbalance, model misspecification, and estimator variance; this tradeoff is especially pronounced in high dimensions, particularly when positivity is poor. We then develop an optimization procedure that regularizes this bound while minimizing imbalance and outline how to use this approach as a sensitivity analysis for dependence on parametric modeling assumptions. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through synthetic experiments and a real-world application, involving the generalization of randomized controlled trial estimates to a target population of interest.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Precision Mental Health: Predicting Heterogeneous Treatment Effects for Depression through Data Integration

When treating depression, clinicians are interested in determining the optimal treatment for a given patient, which is challenging given the amount of treatments available. To advance individualized treatment allocation, integrating data across multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can enhance our understanding of treatment effect heterogeneity by increasing available information. However, extending these inferences to individuals outside of the original RCTs remains crucial for clinical decision-making. We introduce a two-stage meta-analytic method that predicts conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) in target patient populations by leveraging the distribution of CATEs across RCTs. Our approach generates 95\% prediction intervals for CATEs in target settings using first-stage models that can incorporate parametric regression or non-parametric methods such as causal forests or Bayesian additive regression trees (BART). We validate our method through simulation studies and operationalize it to integrate multiple RCTs comparing depression treatments, duloxetine and vortioxetine, to generate prediction intervals for target patient profiles. Our analysis reveals no strong evidence of effect heterogeneity across trials, with the exception of potential age-related variability. Importantly, we show that CATE prediction intervals capture broader uncertainty than study-specific confidence intervals when warranted, reflecting both within-study and between-study variability.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2025

Towards Enhancing Data Equity in Public Health Data Science

Data-driven decisions shape public health policies and practice, yet persistent disparities in data representation skew insights and undermine interventions. To address this, we advance a structured roadmap that integrates public health data science with computer science and is grounded in reflexivity. We adopt data equity as a guiding concept: ensuring the fair and inclusive representation, collection, and use of data to prevent the introduction or exacerbation of systemic biases that could lead to invalid downstream inference and decisions. To underscore urgency, we present three public health cases where non-representative datasets and skewed knowledge impede decisions across diverse subgroups. These challenges echo themes in two literatures: public health highlights gaps in high-quality data for specific populations, while computer science and statistics contribute criteria and metrics for diagnosing bias in data and models. Building on these foundations, we propose a working definition of public health data equity and a structured self-audit framework. Our framework integrates core computational principles (fairness, accountability, transparency, ethics, privacy, confidentiality) with key public health considerations (selection bias, representativeness, generalizability, causality, information bias) to guide equitable practice across the data life cycle, from study design and data collection to measurement, analysis, interpretation, and translation. Embedding data equity in routine practice offers a practical path for ensuring that data-driven policies, artificial intelligence, and emerging technologies improve health outcomes for all. Finally, we emphasize the critical understanding that, although data equity is an essential first step, it does not inherently guarantee information, learning, or decision equity.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2025

Data Fusion for Partial Identification of Causal Effects

Data fusion techniques integrate information from heterogeneous data sources to improve learning, generalization, and decision making across data sciences. In causal inference, these methods leverage rich observational data to improve causal effect estimation, while maintaining the trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials. Existing approaches often relax the strong no unobserved confounding assumption by instead assuming exchangeability of counterfactual outcomes across data sources. However, when both assumptions simultaneously fail - a common scenario in practice - current methods cannot identify or estimate causal effects. We address this limitation by proposing a novel partial identification framework that enables researchers to answer key questions such as: Is the causal effect positive or negative? and How severe must assumption violations be to overturn this conclusion? Our approach introduces interpretable sensitivity parameters that quantify assumption violations and derives corresponding causal effect bounds. We develop doubly robust estimators for these bounds and operationalize breakdown frontier analysis to understand how causal conclusions change as assumption violations increase. We apply our framework to the Project STAR study, which investigates the effect of classroom size on students' third-grade standardized test performance. Our analysis reveals that the Project STAR results are robust to simultaneous violations of key assumptions, both on average and across various subgroups of interest. This strengthens confidence in the study's conclusions despite potential unmeasured biases in the data.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

A Cautionary Tale on Integrating Studies with Disparate Outcome Measures for Causal Inference

Data integration approaches are increasingly used to enhance the efficiency and generalizability of studies. However, a key limitation of these methods is the assumption that outcome measures are identical across datasets -- an assumption that often does not hold in practice. Consider the following opioid use disorder (OUD) studies: the XBOT trial and the POAT study, both evaluating the effect of medications for OUD on withdrawal symptom severity (not the primary outcome of either trial). While XBOT measures withdrawal severity using the subjective opiate withdrawal scale, POAT uses the clinical opiate withdrawal scale. We analyze this realistic yet challenging setting where outcome measures differ across studies and where neither study records both types of outcomes. Our paper studies whether and when integrating studies with disparate outcome measures leads to efficiency gains. We introduce three sets of assumptions -- with varying degrees of strength -- linking both outcome measures. Our theoretical and empirical results highlight a cautionary tale: integration can improve asymptotic efficiency only under the strongest assumption linking the outcomes. However, misspecification of this assumption leads to bias. In contrast, a milder assumption may yield finite-sample efficiency gains, yet these benefits diminish as sample size increases. We illustrate these trade-offs via a case study integrating the XBOT and POAT datasets to estimate the comparative effect of two medications for opioid use disorder on withdrawal symptoms. By systematically varying the assumptions linking the SOW and COW scales, we show potential efficiency gains and the risks of bias. Our findings emphasize the need for careful assumption selection when fusing datasets with differing outcome measures, offering guidance for researchers navigating this common challenge in modern data integration.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Graph Machine Learning based Doubly Robust Estimator for Network Causal Effects

We address the challenge of inferring causal effects in social network data. This results in challenges due to interference -- where a unit's outcome is affected by neighbors' treatments -- and network-induced confounding factors. While there is extensive literature focusing on estimating causal effects in social network setups, a majority of them make prior assumptions about the form of network-induced confounding mechanisms. Such strong assumptions are rarely likely to hold especially in high-dimensional networks. We propose a novel methodology that combines graph machine learning approaches with the double machine learning framework to enable accurate and efficient estimation of direct and peer effects using a single observational social network. We demonstrate the semiparametric efficiency of our proposed estimator under mild regularity conditions, allowing for consistent uncertainty quantification. We demonstrate that our method is accurate, robust, and scalable via an extensive simulation study. We use our method to investigate the impact of Self-Help Group participation on financial risk tolerance.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Towards Generalizing Inferences from Trials to Target Populations

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are pivotal in generating internally valid estimates with minimal assumptions, serving as a cornerstone for researchers dedicated to advancing causal inference methods. However, extending these findings beyond the experimental cohort to achieve externally valid estimates is crucial for broader scientific inquiry. This paper delves into the forefront of addressing these external validity challenges, encapsulating the essence of a multidisciplinary workshop held at the Institute for Computational and Experimental Research in Mathematics (ICERM), Brown University, in Fall 2023. The workshop congregated experts from diverse fields including social science, medicine, public health, statistics, computer science, and education, to tackle the unique obstacles each discipline faces in extrapolating experimental findings. Our study presents three key contributions: we integrate ongoing efforts, highlighting methodological synergies across fields; provide an exhaustive review of generalizability and transportability based on the workshop's discourse; and identify persistent hurdles while suggesting avenues for future research. By doing so, this paper aims to enhance the collective understanding of the generalizability and transportability of causal effects, fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration and offering valuable insights for researchers working on refining and applying causal inference methods.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Who Are We Missing? A Principled Approach to Characterizing the Underrepresented Population

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) serve as the cornerstone for understanding causal effects, yet extending inferences to target populations presents challenges due to effect heterogeneity and underrepresentation. Our paper addresses the critical issue of identifying and characterizing underrepresented subgroups in RCTs, proposing a novel framework for refining target populations to improve generalizability. We introduce an optimization-based approach, Rashomon Set of Optimal Trees (ROOT), to characterize underrepresented groups. ROOT optimizes the target subpopulation distribution by minimizing the variance of the target average treatment effect estimate, ensuring more precise treatment effect estimations. Notably, ROOT generates interpretable characteristics of the underrepresented population, aiding researchers in effective communication. Our approach demonstrates improved precision and interpretability compared to alternatives, as illustrated with synthetic data experiments. We apply our methodology to extend inferences from the Starting Treatment with Agonist Replacement Therapies (START) trial -- investigating the effectiveness of medication for opioid use disorder -- to the real-world population represented by the Treatment Episode Dataset: Admissions (TEDS-A). By refining target populations using ROOT, our framework offers a systematic approach to enhance decision-making accuracy and inform future trials in diverse populations.

stat.ME↗