Causal Inference under Outcome-Based Sampling with Monotonicity Assumptions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.08318v5
• Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 15:03:43 GMT
• Title: Causal Inference under Outcome-Based Sampling with Monotonicity Assumptions
• Authors: Sung Jae Jun and Sokbae Lee
• Abstract summary: We study causal inference under case-control and case-population sampling. We show that strong ignorability is not always as powerful as it is under random sampling.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We study causal inference under case-control and case-population sampling. Specifically, we focus on the binary-outcome and binary-treatment case, where the parameters of interest are causal relative and attributable risks defined via the potential outcome framework. It is shown that strong ignorability is not always as powerful as it is under random sampling and that certain monotonicity assumptions yield comparable results in terms of sharp identified intervals. Specifically, the usual odds ratio is shown to be a sharp identified upper bound on causal relative risk under the monotone treatment response and monotone treatment selection assumptions. We offer algorithms for inference on the causal parameters that are aggregated over the true population distribution of the covariates. We show the usefulness of our approach by studying three empirical examples: the benefit of attending private school for entering a prestigious university in Pakistan; the relationship between staying in school and getting involved with drug-trafficking gangs in Brazil; and the link between physicians' hours and size of the group practice in the United States.

Related papers

• Counterfactual Realizability [52.85109506684737]
  We introduce a formal definition of realizability, the ability to draw samples from a distribution, and then develop a complete algorithm to determine whether an arbitrary counterfactual distribution is realizable. We illustrate the implications of this new framework for counterfactual data collection using motivating examples from causal fairness and causal reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T20:54:27Z)
• When Selection Meets Intervention: Additional Complexities in Causal Discovery [16.629408366459575]
  We address the common yet often-overlooked selection bias in interventional studies, where subjects are selectively enrolled into experiments. We introduce a graphical model that explicitly accounts for both the observed world (where interventions are applied) and the counterfactual world (where selection occurs while interventions have not been applied) We propose a provably sound algorithm to identify causal relations as well as selection mechanisms up to the equivalence class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T13:22:38Z)
• Accounting for Missing Covariates in Heterogeneous Treatment Estimation [17.09751619857397]
  We introduce a novel partial identification strategy based on ideas from ecological inference. We show that our framework can produce bounds that are much tighter than would otherwise be possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T05:47:07Z)
• Auditing Fairness under Unobserved Confounding [56.61738581796362]
  We show that, surprisingly, one can still compute meaningful bounds on treatment rates for high-risk individuals. We use the fact that in many real-world settings we have data from prior to any allocation to derive unbiased estimates of risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T21:09:06Z)
• Causal Inference from Text: Unveiling Interactions between Variables [20.677407402398405]
  Existing methods only account for confounding covariables that affect both treatment and outcome. This bias arises from insufficient consideration of non-confounding covariables. In this work, we aim to mitigate the bias by unveiling interactions between different variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T11:29:44Z)
• Nonparametric Identifiability of Causal Representations from Unknown Interventions [63.1354734978244]
  We study causal representation learning, the task of inferring latent causal variables and their causal relations from mixtures of the variables. Our goal is to identify both the ground truth latents and their causal graph up to a set of ambiguities which we show to be irresolvable from interventional data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T10:51:58Z)
• Learning from a Biased Sample [3.546358664345473]
  We propose a method for learning a decision rule that minimizes the worst-case risk incurred under a family of test distributions. We empirically validate our proposed method in a case study on prediction of mental health scores from health survey data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-05T04:19:16Z)
• The role of the geometric mean in case-control studies [4.38301148531795]
  We describe how to partially identify, estimate, and do inference on the geometric odds ratio under outcome-dependent sampling. Our proposed estimator is based on the efficient influence function and therefore has doubly robust-style properties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-19T01:42:52Z)
• Active Bayesian Causal Inference [72.70593653185078]
  We propose Active Bayesian Causal Inference (ABCI), a fully-Bayesian active learning framework for integrated causal discovery and reasoning. ABCI jointly infers a posterior over causal models and queries of interest. We show that our approach is more data-efficient than several baselines that only focus on learning the full causal graph.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-04T22:38:57Z)
• BaCaDI: Bayesian Causal Discovery with Unknown Interventions [118.93754590721173]
  BaCaDI operates in the continuous space of latent probabilistic representations of both causal structures and interventions. In experiments on synthetic causal discovery tasks and simulated gene-expression data, BaCaDI outperforms related methods in identifying causal structures and intervention targets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-03T16:25:48Z)
• Treatment Effect Risk: Bounds and Inference [58.442274475425144]
  Since the average treatment effect measures the change in social welfare, even if positive, there is a risk of negative effect on, say, some 10% of the population. In this paper we consider how to nonetheless assess this important risk measure, formalized as the conditional value at risk (CVaR) of the ITE distribution. Some bounds can also be interpreted as summarizing a complex CATE function into a single metric and are of interest independently of being a bound.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-15T17:21:26Z)
• Violations of locality and free choice are equivalent resources in Bell experiments [0.0]
  Bell inequalities rest on three fundamental assumptions: realism, locality, and free choice. We investigate the extent to which a given assumption needs to be relaxed for the other to hold at all costs. Despite their disparate character, we show that both assumptions are equally costly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-19T10:04:38Z)
• Tracking disease outbreaks from sparse data with Bayesian inference [55.82986443159948]
  The COVID-19 pandemic provides new motivation for estimating the empirical rate of transmission during an outbreak. Standard methods struggle to accommodate the partial observability and sparse data common at finer scales. We propose a Bayesian framework which accommodates partial observability in a principled manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-12T20:37:33Z)
• Survival Cluster Analysis [93.50540270973927]
  There is an unmet need in survival analysis for identifying subpopulations with distinct risk profiles. An approach that addresses this need is likely to improve characterization of individual outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-29T22:41:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.