Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userOptimal transport weights for causal inference
83
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Eric Dunipace
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Weighting methods are a common tool to de-bias estimates of causal effects. And though there are an increasing number of seemingly disparate methods, many of them can be folded into one unifying regime: causal optimal transport. This new method directly targets distributional balance by minimizing optimal transport distances between treatment and control groups or, more generally, between a source and target population. Our approach is model-free but can also incorporate moments or any other important functions of covariates that the researcher desires to balance. We find that the causal optimal transport outperforms competitor methods when both the propensity score and outcome models are misspecified, indicating it is a robust alternative to common weighting methods. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of our method in an external control study examining the effect of misoprostol versus oxytocin for treatment of post-partum hemorrhage.
rate research
Read More
Instrumental variable methods provide a powerful approach to estimating causal effects in the presence of unobserved confounding. But a key challenge when applying them is the reliance on untestable exclusion assumptions that rule out any relationship between the instrument variable and the response that is not mediated by the treatment. In this paper, we show how to perform consistent IV estimation despite violations of the exclusion assumption. In particular, we show that when one has multiple candidate instruments, only a majority of these candidates---or, more generally, the modal candidate-response relationship---needs to be valid to estimate the causal effect. Our approach uses an estimate of the modal prediction from an ensemble of instrumental variable estimators. The technique is simple to apply and is black-box in the sense that it may be used with any instrumental variable estimator as long as the treatment effect is identified for each valid instrument independently. As such, it is compatible with recent machine-learning based estimators that allow for the estimation of conditional average treatment effects (CATE) on complex, high dimensional data. Experimentally, we achieve accurate estimates of conditional average treatment effects using an ensemble of deep network-based estimators, including on a challenging simulated Mendelian Randomization problem.
Propensity score methods have been shown to be powerful in obtaining efficient estimators of average treatment effect (ATE) from observational data, especially under the existence of confounding factors. When estimating, deciding which type of covariates need to be included in the propensity score function is important, since incorporating some unnecessary covariates may amplify both bias and variance of estimators of ATE. In this paper, we show that including additional instrumental variables that satisfy the exclusion restriction for outcome will do harm to the statistical efficiency. Also, we prove that, controlling for covariates that appear as outcome predictors, i.e. predict the outcomes and are irrelevant to the exposures, can help reduce the asymptotic variance of ATE estimation. We also note that, efficiently estimating the ATE by non-parametric or semi-parametric methods require the estimated propensity score function, as described in Hirano et al. (2003)cite{Hirano2003}. Such estimation procedure usually asks for many regularity conditions, Rothe (2016)cite{Rothe2016} also illustrated this point and proposed a known propensity score (KPS) estimator that requires mild regularity conditions and is still fully efficient. In addition, we introduce a linearly modified (LM) estimator that is nearly efficient in most general settings and need not estimation of the propensity score function, hence convenient to calculate. The construction of this estimator borrows idea from the interaction estimator of Lin (2013)cite{Lin2013}, in which regression adjustment with interaction terms are applied to deal with data arising from a completely randomized experiment. As its name suggests, the LM estimator can be viewed as a linear modification on the IPW estimator using known propensity scores. We will also investigate its statistical properties both analytically and numerically.
In a comprehensive cohort study of two competing treatments (say, A and B), clinically eligible individuals are first asked to enroll in a randomized trial and, if they refuse, are then asked to enroll in a parallel observational study in which they can choose treatment according to their own preference. We consider estimation of two estimands: (1) comprehensive cohort causal effect -- the difference in mean potential outcomes had all patients in the comprehensive cohort received treatment A vs. treatment B and (2) randomized trial causal effect -- the difference in mean potential outcomes had all patients enrolled in the randomized trial received treatment A vs. treatment B. For each estimand, we consider inference under various sets of unconfoundedness assumptions and construct semiparametric efficient and robust estimators. These estimators depend on nuisance functions, which we estimate, for illustrative purposes, using generalized additive models. Using the theory of sample splitting, we establish the asymptotic properties of our proposed estimators. We also illustrate our methodology using data from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) randomized trial and observational registry to evaluate the effect of percutaneous transluminal coronary balloon angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting on 5-year mortality. To evaluate the finite sample performance of our estimators, we use the BARI dataset as the basis of a realistic simulation study.
The goal of causal inference is to understand the outcome of alternative courses of action. However, all causal inference requires assumptions. Such assumptions can be more influential than in typical tasks for probabilistic modeling, and testing those assumptions is important to assess the validity of causal inference. We develop model criticism for Bayesian causal inference, building on the idea of posterior predictive checks to assess model fit. Our approach involves decomposing the problem, separately criticizing the model of treatment assignments and the model of outcomes. Conditioned on the assumption of unconfoundedness---that the treatments are assigned independently of the potential outcomes---we show how to check any additional modeling assumption. Our approach provides a foundation for diagnosing model-based causal inferences.
Analyses of environmental phenomena often are concerned with understanding unlikely events such as floods, heatwaves, droughts or high concentrations of pollutants. Yet the majority of the causal inference literature has focused on modelling means, rather than (possibly high) quantiles. We define a general estimator of the population quantile treatment (or exposure) effects (QTE) -- the weighted QTE (WQTE) -- of which the population QTE is a special case, along with a general class of balancing weights incorporating the propensity score. Asymptotic properties of the proposed WQTE estimators are derived. We further propose and compare propensity score regression and two weighted methods based on these balancing weights to understand the causal effect of an exposure on quantiles, allowing for the exposure to be binary, discrete or continuous. Finite sample behavior of the three estimators is studied in simulation. The proposed methods are applied to data taken from the Bavarian Danube catchment area to estimate the 95% QTE of phosphorus on copper concentration in the river.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
