Papers › Estimating Complier Average Causal Effects with Mixtures of Experts
Estimating Complier Average Causal Effects with Mixtures of Experts
François Grolleau, Céline Béji, Raphaël Porcher, François Petit
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Treatment non-compliance, where individuals deviate from their assigned experimental conditions, frequently complicates the estimation of causal effects. To address this, we introduce a novel learning framework based on a mixture of experts architecture to estimate the Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE). Our framework provides a flexible alternative to classical instrumental variable methods by relaxing their strict monotonicity and exclusion restriction assumptions. We develop a principled, two-step procedure where each step is optimized with a dedicated Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm. Crucially, we provide formal proofs that the model's components are identifiable, ensuring the learning procedure is well-posed. The resulting CACE estimators are proven to be consistent and asymptotically normal. Extensive simulations demonstrate that our method achieves a substantially lower root mean squared error than traditional instrumental variable approaches when their assumptions fail, an advantage that persists even when our own mixture of experts are misspecified. We illustrate the framework's practical utility on data from a large-scale randomized trial.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections