Band 7, Heft 2

The E-value is defined as the minimum strength of association on the risk ratio scale that an unmeasured confounder would have to have with both the exposure and the outcome, conditional on the measured covariates, to explain away the observed exposure-outcome association. We have elsewhere proposed that the reporting of E-values for estimates and for the limit of the confidence interval closest to the null become routine whenever causal effects are of interest. A number of questions have arisen about the use of E-value including questions concerning the interpretation of the relevant confounding association parameters, the nature of the transformation from the risk ratio scale to the E-value scale, inference for and using E-values, and the relation to Rosenbaum’s notion of design sensitivity. Here we bring these various questions together and provide responses that we hope will assist in the interpretation of E-values and will further encourage their use.

Standard estimators of the global average treatment effect can be biased in the presence of interference. This paper proposes regression adjustment estimators for removing bias due to interference in Bernoulli randomized experiments. We use a fitted model to predict the counterfactual outcomes of global control and global treatment. Our work differs from standard regression adjustments in that the adjustment variables are constructed from functions of the treatment assignment vector, and that we allow the researcher to use a collection of any functions correlated with the response, turning the problem of detecting interference into a feature engineering problem. We characterize the distribution of the proposed estimator in a linear model setting and connect the results to the standard theory of regression adjustments under SUTVA. We then propose an estimator that allows for flexible machine learning estimators to be used for fitting a nonlinear interference functional form. We propose conducting statistical inference via bootstrap and resampling methods, which allow us to sidestep the complicated dependences implied by interference and instead rely on empirical covariance structures. Such variance estimation relies on an exogeneity assumption akin to the standard unconfoundedness assumption invoked in observational studies. In simulation experiments, our methods are better at debiasing estimates than existing inverse propensity weighted estimators based on neighborhood exposure modeling. We use our method to reanalyze an experiment concerning weather insurance adoption conducted on a collection of villages in rural China.

The problem of causal inference is to determine if a given probability distribution on observed variables is compatible with some causal structure. The difficult case is when the causal structure includes latent variables. We here introduce the inflation technique for tackling this problem. An inflation of a causal structure is a new causal structure that can contain multiple copies of each of the original variables, but where the ancestry of each copy mirrors that of the original. To every distribution of the observed variables that is compatible with the original causal structure, we assign a family of marginal distributions on certain subsets of the copies that are compatible with the inflated causal structure. It follows that compatibility constraints for the inflation can be translated into compatibility constraints for the original causal structure. Even if the constraints at the level of inflation are weak, such as observable statistical independences implied by disjoint causal ancestry, the translated constraints can be strong. We apply this method to derive new inequalities whose violation by a distribution witnesses that distribution’s incompatibility with the causal structure (of which Bell inequalities and Pearl’s instrumental inequality are prominent examples). We describe an algorithm for deriving all such inequalities for the original causal structure that follow from ancestral independences in the inflation. For three observed binary variables with pairwise common causes, it yields inequalities that are stronger in at least some aspects than those obtainable by existing methods. We also describe an algorithm that derives a weaker set of inequalities but is more efficient. Finally, we discuss which inflations are such that the inequalities one obtains from them remain valid even for quantum (and post-quantum) generalizations of the notion of a causal model.

A powerful tool for the analysis of nonrandomized observational studies has been the potential outcomes model. Utilization of this framework allows analysts to estimate average treatment effects. This article considers the situation in which high-dimensional covariates are present and revisits the standard assumptions made in causal inference. We show that by employing a flexible Gaussian process framework, the assumption of strict overlap leads to very restrictive assumptions about the distribution of covariates, results for which can be characterized using classical results from Gaussian random measures as well as reproducing kernel Hilbert space theory. In addition, we propose a strategy for data-adaptive causal effect estimation that does not rely on the strict overlap assumption. These findings reveal under a focused framework the stringency that accompanies the use of the treatment positivity assumption in high-dimensional settings.

We demonstrate how counterfactuals can be used to compute the probability that one event was/is a sufficient cause of another, and how counterfactuals emerge organically from basic scientific knowledge, rather than manipulative experiments. We contrast this demonstration with the potential outcome framework and address the distinction between causes and enablers.