When Can You Trust Offline Evaluation of Equal-Cost Top-k Allocation? A Controlled, Reproducible Benchmark and Practitioner's Guide

Organizations decide whom to treat under a budget and want to know what a targeting rule would have earned before deploying it. Off-policy evaluation promises this from logged data, but the deployable rule is a deterministic top-k policy: it removes all averaging over actions, so weak overlap hits the estimate directly. We benchmark six estimators across five datasets and two known-effect sweeps, and validate the mechanisms against a non-simulated paired reference. First, weak overlap is governed by logger-target action alignment, not by logging sharpness alone: what governs support is the logger's probability of the target's actions. Sharpening a logger built from the target's own score barely moves overlap over the tested range; action-level disagreement collapses it. Effective sample size ranks this risk across logging environments, but is weak at ranking candidates within the single log a practitioner holds, and its cut point does not transfer. Second, the optimizer's curse is not fixed by cross-fitting the outcome nuisance. When the rule is fit on the data used to evaluate it, cross-fitting the nuisance alone leaves the reuse bias in place and makes it worse. Honest policy-level splitting avoids the reuse by targeting the learning procedure's value -- a change of estimand, not a de-biasing of the full-sample policy. Third, propensity-estimation error is the largest degradation we measure: an out-of-fold estimate hurts IPS more than any other stress we apply, leaves doubly-robust estimation almost unchanged, and can invert the overlap diagnostic itself. Logging is synthesized and propensities floored at 0.02, so every failure occurs with bounded weights; the floor also reduces the two tuned hybrids to their untuned parents, leaving four practically distinct estimators, and all exact-value surfaces are synthetic or semi-synthetic. We release the benchmark; public data only.

The Confounder Trap: Treatment-Encoding Representations in Causal Inference with Text

Estimating causal effects of linguistic properties from observational text is difficult because the same document can contain both the treatment of interest and the non-treatment textual attributes needed for adjustment. Existing approaches often learn representations from the full text to capture latent confounding, but when treatment status is itself encoded by words in the text, these representations can directly encode treatment. This creates a confounder trap: richer representations can make treated and control documents separable, inducing overlap violations even when the underlying causal problem satisfies overlap. We study latent text treatments that are encoded through lexicons or other treatment-defining lexical information, and propose masking-based adjustment representations that remove this lexical treatment signal before representation learning. We formalize representation-induced overlap failure, prove that deletion masking preserves overlap for bag-of-words/topic-model representations, and characterize replacement masking as a natural relaxation for large language models that hides treatment-defining tokens while preserving word order and context. Across simulations, masking improves overlap diagnostics, stabilizes treatment effect estimates, and reduces bias relative to adjustment methods that learn from the unmasked text.