IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2505.08908.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Statistical Decision Theory with Counterfactual Loss

Author

Listed:
  • Benedikt Koch
  • Kosuke Imai

Abstract

Classical statistical decision theory evaluates treatment choices based solely on observed outcomes. However, by ignoring counterfactual outcomes, it cannot assess the quality of decisions relative to feasible alternatives. For example, the quality of a physician's decision may depend not only on patient survival, but also on whether a less invasive treatment could have produced a similar result. To address this limitation, we extend standard decision theory to incorporate counterfactual losses--criteria that evaluate decisions using all potential outcomes. The central challenge in this generalization is identification: because only one potential outcome is observed for each unit, the associated risk under a counterfactual loss is generally not identifiable. We show that under the assumption of strong ignorability, a counterfactual risk is identifiable if and only if the counterfactual loss function is additive in the potential outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrate that additive counterfactual losses can yield treatment recommendations that differ from those based on standard loss functions, provided that the decision problem involves more than two treatment options.

Suggested Citation

  • Benedikt Koch & Kosuke Imai, 2025. "Statistical Decision Theory with Counterfactual Loss," Papers 2505.08908, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2505.08908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.08908
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Constantine E. Frangakis & Donald B. Rubin, 2002. "Principal Stratification in Causal Inference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 21-29, March.
    2. Toru Kitagawa & Aleksey Tetenov, 2018. "Who Should Be Treated? Empirical Welfare Maximization Methods for Treatment Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 591-616, March.
    3. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Statistical Treatment Rules for Heterogeneous Populations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1221-1246, July.
    4. Manski, Charles F., 2000. "Identification problems and decisions under ambiguity: Empirical analysis of treatment response and normative analysis of treatment choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 415-442, April.
    5. Susan Athey & Stefan Wager, 2021. "Policy Learning With Observational Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 133-161, January.
    6. Eli Ben-Michael & D. James Greiner & Melody Huang & Kosuke Imai & Zhichao Jiang & Sooahn Shin, 2024. "Does AI help humans make better decisions? A statistical evaluation framework for experimental and observational studies," Papers 2403.12108, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    7. Charles F. Manski, 2011. "Choosing Treatment Policies Under Ambiguity," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 25-49, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lihua Lei & Roshni Sahoo & Stefan Wager, 2023. "Policy Learning under Biased Sample Selection," Papers 2304.11735, arXiv.org.
    2. Garbero, Alessandra & Sakos, Grayson & Cerulli, Giovanni, 2023. "Towards data-driven project design: Providing optimal treatment rules for development projects," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Charles F. Manski, 2021. "Econometrics for Decision Making: Building Foundations Sketched by Haavelmo and Wald," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(6), pages 2827-2853, November.
    4. Toru Kitagawa & Sokbae Lee & Chen Qiu, 2023. "Treatment choice, mean square regret and partial identification," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 573-602, October.
    5. Toru Kitagawa & Sokbae Lee & Chen Qiu, 2022. "Treatment Choice with Nonlinear Regret," Papers 2205.08586, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    6. Manski, Charles F., 2023. "Probabilistic prediction for binary treatment choice: With focus on personalized medicine," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 647-663.
    7. Yuchen Hu & Henry Zhu & Emma Brunskill & Stefan Wager, 2024. "Minimax-Regret Sample Selection in Randomized Experiments," Papers 2403.01386, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    8. Sarah Moon, 2025. "Optimal Policy Choices Under Uncertainty," Papers 2503.03910, arXiv.org.
    9. Kock, Anders Bredahl & Preinerstorfer, David & Veliyev, Bezirgen, 2023. "Treatment recommendation with distributional targets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 234(2), pages 624-646.
    10. Davide Viviano & Kaspar Wuthrich & Paul Niehaus, 2021. "A model of multiple hypothesis testing," Papers 2104.13367, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2025.
    11. Weibin Mo & Yufeng Liu, 2022. "Efficient learning of optimal individualized treatment rules for heteroscedastic or misspecified treatment‐free effect models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(2), pages 440-472, April.
    12. Shosei Sakaguchi, 2021. "Estimation of Optimal Dynamic Treatment Assignment Rules under Policy Constraints," Papers 2106.05031, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2024.
    13. Henrika Langen & Martin Huber, 2022. "How causal machine learning can leverage marketing strategies: Assessing and improving the performance of a coupon campaign," Papers 2204.10820, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    14. Tobias Cagala & Ulrich Glogowsky & Johannes Rincke & Anthony Strittmatter, 2021. "Optimal Targeting in Fundraising: A Machine-Learning Approach," Economics working papers 2021-08, Department of Economics, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    15. Keisuke Hirano & Jack R. Porter, 2016. "Panel Asymptotics and Statistical Decision Theory," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 67(1), pages 33-49, March.
    16. Neil Christy & Amanda Ellen Kowalski, 2024. "Counting Defiers in Health Care: A Design-Based Model of an Experiment Can Reveal Evidence Against Monotonicity," Papers 2412.16352, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2025.
    17. Toru Kitagawa & Weining Wang & Mengshan Xu, 2022. "Policy Choice in Time Series by Empirical Welfare Maximization," Papers 2205.03970, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    18. Timothy Christensen & Hyungsik Roger Moon & Frank Schorfheide, 2020. "Robust Forecasting," Papers 2011.03153, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2020.
    19. Augustine Denteh & Helge Liebert, 2022. "Who Increases Emergency Department Use? New Insights from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment," Papers 2201.07072, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    20. Yu-Chang Chen & Haitian Xie, 2022. "Personalized Subsidy Rules," Papers 2202.13545, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2505.08908. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.