However, in the presence of unobserved confounding, typically the causal quantity of interest will not be point-identified by observational data, unless special mechanisms are present in the data generating process (e.g.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

We develop a data-driven information-theoretic framework for sharp partial identification of causal effects under unmeasured confounding. Existing approaches often rely on restrictive assumptions, such as bounded or discrete outcomes; require external inputs (for example, instrumental variables, proxies, or user-specified sensitivity parameters); necessitate full structural causal model specifications; or focus solely on population-level averages while neglecting covariate-conditional treatment effects. We overcome all four limitations simultaneously by establishing novel information-theoretic, data-driven divergence bounds. Our key theoretical contribution shows that the f-divergence between the observational distribution P(Y | A = a, X = x) and the interventional distribution P(Y | do(A = a), X = x) is upper bounded by a function of the propensity score alone. This result enables sharp partial identification of conditional causal effects directly from observational data, without requiring external sensitivity parameters, auxiliary variables, full structural specifications, or outcome boundedness assumptions. For practical implementation, we develop a semiparametric estimator satisfying Neyman orthogonality (Chernozhukov et al., 2018), which ensures square-root-n consistent inference even when nuisance functions are estimated using flexible machine learning methods. Simulation studies and real-world data applications, implemented in the GitHub repository (https://github.com/yonghanjung/Information-Theretic-Bounds), demonstrate that our framework provides tight and valid causal bounds across a wide range of data-generating processes.

Peer review assignment algorithms aim to match research papers to suitable expert reviewers, working to maximize the quality of the resulting reviews. A key challenge in designing effective assignment policies is evaluating how changes to the assignment algorithm map to changes in review quality. In this work, we leverage recently proposed policies that introduce randomness in peer-review assignment--in order to mitigate fraud--as a valuable opportunity to evaluate counterfactual assignment policies. Specifically, we exploit how such randomized assignments provide a positive probability of observing the reviews of many assignment policies of interest. To address challenges in applying standard off-policy evaluation methods, such as violations of positivity, we introduce novel methods for partial identification based on monotonicity and Lipschitz smoothness assumptions for the mapping between reviewer-paper covariates and outcomes. We apply our methods to peer-review data from two computer science venues: the TPDP'21 workshop (95 papers and 35 reviewers) and the AAAI'22 conference (8,450 papers and 3,145 reviewers). We consider estimates of (i) the effect on review quality when changing weights in the assignment algorithm, e.g., weighting reviewers' bids vs. textual similarity (between the review's past papers and the submission), and (ii) the cost of randomization, capturing the difference in expected quality between the perturbed and unperturbed optimal match. We find that placing higher weight on text similarity results in higher review quality and that introducing randomization in the reviewer-paper assignment only marginally reduces the review quality. Our methods for partial identification may be of independent interest, while our off-policy approach can likely find use in evaluating a broad class of algorithmic matching systems.

Recent progress in Neural Causal Models (NCMs) showcased how identification and partial identification of causal effects can be automatically carried out via training of neural generative models that respect the constraints encoded in a given causal graph [Xia et al. 2022, Balazadeh et al. 2022]. However, formal consistency of these methods has only been proven for the case of discrete variables or only for linear causal models. In this work, we prove the consistency of partial identification via NCMs in a general setting with both continuous and categorical variables. Further, our results highlight the impact of the design of the underlying neural network architecture in terms of depth and connectivity as well as the importance of applying Lipschitz regularization in the training phase. In particular, we provide a counterexample showing that without Lipschitz regularization this method may not be asymptotically consistent. Our results are enabled by new results on the approximability of Structural Causal Models (SCMs) via neural generative models, together with an analysis of the sample complexity of the resulting architectures and how that translates into an error in the constrained optimization problem that defines the partial identification bounds.

We consider the problem of detecting anomalies in a large dataset. We propose a framework called Partial Identification which captures the intuition that anomalies are easy to distinguish from the overwhelming majority of points by relatively few attribute values. Formalizing this intuition, we propose a geometric anomaly measure for a point that we call PIDScore, which measures the minimum density of data points over all subcubes containing the point. We present PIDForest: a random forest based algorithm that finds anomalies based on this definition. We show that it performs favorably in comparison to several popular anomaly detection methods, across a broad range of benchmarks. PIDForest also provides a succinct explanation for why a point is labelled anomalous, by providing a set of features and ranges for them which are relatively uncommon in the dataset.

We consider the problem of partial identification, the estimation of bounds on the treatment effects from observational data. Although studied using discrete treatment variables or in specific causal graphs (e.g., instrumental variables), partial identification has been recently explored using tools from deep generative modeling. We propose a new method for partial identification of average treatment effects (ATEs) in general causal graphs using implicit generative models comprising continuous and discrete random variables. Since ATE with continuous treatment is generally non-regular, we leverage the partial derivatives of response functions to define a regular approximation of ATE, a quantity we call uniform average treatment derivative (UATD). We prove that our algorithm converges to tight bounds on ATE in linear structural causal models (SCMs). For nonlinear SCMs, we empirically show that using UATD leads to tighter and more stable bounds than methods that directly optimize the ATE.

Dropout is common in clinical studies, with up to half of patients leaving early due to side effects or other reasons. When dropout is informative (i.e., dependent on survival time), it introduces censoring bias, because of which treatment effect estimates are also biased. In this paper, we propose an assumption-lean framework to assess the robustness of conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimates in survival analysis when facing censoring bias. Unlike existing works that rely on strong assumptions, such as non-informative censoring, to obtain point estimation, we use partial identification to derive informative bounds on the CATE. Thereby, our framework helps to identify patient subgroups where treatment is effective despite informative censoring. We further develop a novel meta-learner that estimates the bounds using arbitrary machine learning models and with favorable theoretical properties, including double robustness and quasi-oracle efficiency. We demonstrate the practical value of our meta-learner through numerical experiments and in an application to a cancer drug trial. Together, our framework offers a practical tool for assessing the robustness of estimated treatment effects in the presence of censoring and thus promotes the reliable use of survival data for evidence generation in medicine and epidemiology.