A Neural Framework for Causal Sensitivity Analysis with Guaranteed Bounds under Various Sensitivity Models

Concepts de base

NEURALCSA, a neural framework for causal sensitivity analysis, can learn valid bounds on causal queries under a wide range of sensitivity models, treatment types, and causal queries, including multiple outcomes.

Résumé

The paper proposes NEURALCSA, a neural framework for causal sensitivity analysis that can handle a broad range of settings. Key highlights:

1. NEURALCSA defines a generalized treatment sensitivity model (GTSM) that subsumes common sensitivity models like the marginal sensitivity model (MSM), f-sensitivity models, and Rosenbaum's sensitivity model. GTSMs restrict the latent distribution shift in unobserved confounders due to treatment intervention.

2. NEURALCSA uses a two-stage procedure to learn the observational distribution in stage 1 and the shifted distribution under a GTSM in stage 2. This is shown to be sufficient for obtaining valid bounds on the causal query of interest.

3. NEURALCSA is compatible with binary and continuous treatments, and can handle various causal queries including (conditional) average treatment effects, distributional effects, interventional densities, and simultaneous effects on multiple outcomes.

4. Theoretical guarantees are provided showing that NEURALCSA learns valid bounds on the causal query. Experiments on synthetic, semi-synthetic, and real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach.

5. The generality of NEURALCSA allows practitioners to choose from a wide range of sensitivity models to best capture the data-generating process, which is crucial for effective causal sensitivity analysis.

Stats

The observational distribution Pobs(Y | X, A) can be written as the integral over the unobserved confounders U: Pobs(y | x, a) = ∫ P(y | x, u, a) P(u | x, a) du.
The potential outcome distribution P(Y(a) = y | X = x) can be written as the integral over the unobserved confounders U: P(Y(a) = y | x) = ∫ P(y | x, u, a) P(u | x) du.
The difference between the observational and potential outcome distributions is the shift in the distribution of the unobserved confounders U.

Citations

"Causal sensitivity analysis offers a remedy by moving from point identification to partial identification. To do so, approaches for causal sensitivity analysis first impose assumptions on the strength of unobserved confounding through so-called sensitivity models (Rosenbaum, 1987; Imbens, 2003) and then obtain bounds on the causal query of interest."
"Existing works typically focus on a specific sensitivity model, treatment type, and causal query (Table 1). However, none is applicable to all settings within (1)–(3)."

Idées clés tirées de

A Neural Framework for Generalized Causal Sensitivity Analysis

by Dennis Fraue... à arxiv.org 04-10-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.16026.pdf

Questions plus approfondies

How can NEURALCSA be extended to handle time-varying treatments and longitudinal data?

NEURALCSA can be extended to handle time-varying treatments and longitudinal data by incorporating time as an additional dimension in the analysis. This extension would involve modeling the treatment variable as a function of time, allowing for the assessment of how the treatment effect changes over time. Longitudinal data can be accommodated by considering repeated measurements on the same individuals over time, enabling the analysis of how causal effects evolve over multiple time points. By incorporating time-varying treatments and longitudinal data, NEURALCSA can provide insights into the dynamic nature of causal relationships and how they unfold over time.

What are the limitations of the GTSM framework, and how can it be further generalized to capture more complex data-generating processes?

The GTSM framework has limitations in terms of its ability to capture the full complexity of data-generating processes, as it relies on assumptions about the strength of unobserved confounding. One limitation is that GTSMs may not fully account for all sources of confounding or interactions between variables, leading to potential biases in the estimation of causal effects. To address these limitations and capture more complex data-generating processes, the GTSM framework can be further generalized by incorporating additional sensitivity models that account for different types of confounding, such as time-varying confounders or interactions between variables. By expanding the range of sensitivity models within the GTSM framework, researchers can better account for the nuances of real-world data and improve the accuracy of causal inference.

Can the insights from the distribution shifts learned by NEURALCSA be used to gain a better understanding of the underlying causal mechanisms?

The distribution shifts learned by NEURALCSA can provide valuable insights into the underlying causal mechanisms by revealing how interventions impact the distribution of latent confounders and outcomes. By analyzing these shifts, researchers can gain a better understanding of how treatments influence the relationships between variables and identify potential causal pathways. For example, observing a significant shift in the distribution of confounders after a treatment intervention may indicate a strong causal effect, while minimal shifts may suggest weaker causal relationships. Additionally, analyzing distribution shifts can help uncover hidden interactions between variables and provide clues about the mechanisms through which treatments exert their effects. Overall, the insights from distribution shifts learned by NEURALCSA can enhance our understanding of causal mechanisms and inform more effective decision-making in various applications.