To Impute or not to Impute? Missing Data in Treatment Effect Estimation
  Missing data is a systemic problem in practical scenarios that causes noise
and bias when estimating treatment effects. This makes treatment effect
estimation from data with missingness a particularly tricky endeavour. A key
reason for this is that standard assumptions on missingness are rendered
insufficient due to the presence of an additional variable, treatment, besides
the individual and the outcome. Having a treatment variable introduces
additional complexity with respect to why some variables are missing that is
not fully explored by previous work. In our work we identify a new missingness
mechanism, which we term mixed confounded missingness (MCM), where some
missingness determines treatment selection and other missingness is determined
by treatment selection. Given MCM, we show that naively imputing all data leads
to poor performing treatment effects models, as the act of imputation
effectively removes information necessary to provide unbiased estimates.
However, no imputation at all also leads to biased estimates, as missingness
determined by treatment divides the population in distinct subpopulations,
where estimates across these populations will be biased. Our solution is
selective imputation, where we use insights from MCM to inform precisely which
variables should be imputed and which should not. We empirically demonstrate
how various learners benefit from selective imputation compared to other
solutions for missing data.
