It is a truth universally acknowledged that an observed association without known mechanism must be in want of a causal estimate. Causal estimates from observational data will be biased in the presence of'unobserved confounding'. However, we might hope that the influence of unobserved confounders is weak relative to a'large' estimated effect. The purpose of this paper is to develop Austen plots, a sensitivity analysis tool to aid such judgments by making it easier to reason about potential bias induced by unobserved confounding. We formalize confounding strength in terms of how strongly the unobserved confounding influences treatment assignment and outcome. For a target level of bias, an Austen plot shows the minimum values of treatment and outcome influence required to induce that level of bias. Austen plots generalize the classic sensitivity analysis approach of Imbens [Imb03]. Critically, Austen plots allow any approach for modeling the observed data. We illustrate the tool by assessing biases for several real causal inference problems, using a variety of machine learning approaches for the initial data analysis.

We propose a novel method for sensitivity analysis to unobserved confounding in causal inference. The method builds on a copula-based causal graphical normalizing flow that we term $ρ$-GNF, where $ρ\in [-1,+1]$ is the sensitivity parameter. The parameter represents the non-causal association between exposure and outcome due to unobserved confounding, which is modeled as a Gaussian copula. In other words, the $ρ$-GNF enables scholars to estimate the average causal effect (ACE) as a function of $ρ$, accounting for various confounding strengths. The output of the $ρ$-GNF is what we term the $ρ_{curve}$, which provides the bounds for the ACE given an interval of assumed $ρ$ values. The $ρ_{curve}$ also enables scholars to identify the confounding strength required to nullify the ACE. We also propose a Bayesian version of our sensitivity analysis method. Assuming a prior over the sensitivity parameter $ρ$ enables us to derive the posterior distribution over the ACE, which enables us to derive credible intervals. Finally, leveraging on experiments from simulated and real-world data, we show the benefits of our sensitivity analysis method.

As many practical fields transition to provide personalized decisions, data is increasingly relevant to support the evaluation of candidate plans and policies (e.g., guidelines for the treatment of disease, government directives, etc.). In the machine learning literature, significant efforts have been put into developing machinery to predict the effectiveness of policies efficiently. The challenge is that, in practice, the effectiveness of a candidate policy is not always identifiable, i.e., not uniquely estimable from the combination of the available data and assumptions about the domain at hand (e.g., encoded in a causal graph). In this paper, we develop graphical characterizations and estimation tools to bound the effect of policies given a causal graph and observational data collected in non-identifiable settings. Specifically, our contributions are two-fold: (1) we derive analytical bounds for general probabilistic and conditional policies that are tighter than existing results, (2) we develop an estimation framework to estimate bounds from finite samples, applicable in higher-dimensional spaces and continuously-valued data.

We develop a novel method for personalized off-policy learning in scenarios with unobserved confounding. Thereby, we address a key limitation of standard policy learning: standard policy learning assumes unconfoundedness, meaning that no unobserved factors influence both treatment assignment and outcomes. However, this assumption is often violated, because of which standard policy learning produces biased estimates and thus leads to policies that can be harmful. To address this limitation, we employ causal sensitivity analysis and derive a statistically efficient estimator for a sharp bound on the value function under unobserved confounding. Our estimator has three advantages: (1) Unlike existing works, our estimator avoids unstable minimax optimization based on inverse propensity weighted outcomes. (2) Our estimator is statistically efficient. (3) We prove that our estimator leads to the optimal confounding-robust policy. Finally, we extend our theory to the related task of policy improvement under unobserved confounding, i.e., when a baseline policy such as the standard of care is available. We show in experiments with synthetic and real-world data that our method outperforms simple plug-in approaches and existing baselines. Our method is highly relevant for decision-making where unobserved confounding can be problematic, such as in healthcare and public policy.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that an observed association without known mechanism must be in want of a causal estimate. Causal estimates from observational data will be biased in the presence of'unobserved confounding'. However, we might hope that the influence of unobserved confounders is weak relative to a'large' estimated effect. The purpose of this paper is to develop Austen plots, a sensitivity analysis tool to aid such judgments by making it easier to reason about potential bias induced by unobserved confounding. We formalize confounding strength in terms of how strongly the unobserved confounding influences treatment assignment and outcome.

We consider linear non-Gaussian structural equation models that involve latent confounding. In this setting, the causal structure is identifiable, but, in general, it is not possible to identify the specific causal effects. Instead, a finite number of different causal effects result in the same observational distribution. Most existing algorithms for identifying these causal effects use overcomplete independent component analysis (ICA), which often suffers from convergence to local optima. Furthermore, the number of latent variables must be known a priori. To address these issues, we propose an algorithm that operates recursively rather than using overcomplete ICA. The algorithm first infers a source, estimates the effect of the source and its latent parents on their descendants, and then eliminates their influence from the data. For both source identification and effect size estimation, we use rank conditions on matrices formed from higher-order cumulants. We prove asymptotic correctness under the mild assumption that locally, the number of latent variables never exceeds the number of observed variables. Simulation studies demonstrate that our method achieves comparable performance to overcomplete ICA even though it does not know the number of latents in advance.

A fundamental problem in decision-making systems is the presence of inequity across demographic lines. However, inequity can be difficult to quantify, particularly if our notion of equity relies on hard-to-measure notions like risk (e.g., equal access to treatment for those who would die without it). Auditing such inequity requires accurate measurements of individual risk, which is difficult to estimate in the realistic setting of unobserved confounding. In the case that these unobservables "explain" an apparent disparity, we may understate or overstate inequity. In this paper, we show that one can still give informative bounds on allocation rates among high-risk individuals, even while relaxing or (surprisingly) even when eliminating the assumption that all relevant risk factors are observed. We utilize the fact that in many real-world settings (e.g., the introduction of a novel treatment) we have data from a period prior to any allocation, to derive unbiased estimates of risk. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework on a real-world study of Paxlovid allocation to COVID-19 patients, finding that observed racial inequity cannot be explained by unobserved confounders of the same strength as important observed covariates.

Off-Policy Estimation (OPE) methods allow us to learn and evaluate decision-making policies from logged data. This makes them an attractive choice for the offline evaluation of recommender systems, and several recent works have reported successful adoption of OPE methods to this end. An important assumption that makes this work is the absence of unobserved confounders: random variables that influence both actions and rewards at data collection time. Because the data collection policy is typically under the practitioner's control, the unconfoundedness assumption is often left implicit, and its violations are rarely dealt with in the existing literature. This work aims to highlight the problems that arise when performing off-policy estimation in the presence of unobserved confounders, specifically focusing on a recommendation use-case. We focus on policy-based estimators, where the logging propensities are learned from logged data. We characterise the statistical bias that arises due to confounding, and show how existing diagnostics are unable to uncover such cases. Because the bias depends directly on the true and unobserved logging propensities, it is non-identifiable. As the unconfoundedness assumption is famously untestable, this becomes especially problematic. This paper emphasises this common, yet often overlooked issue. Through synthetic data, we empirically show how na\"ive propensity estimation under confounding can lead to severely biased metric estimates that are allowed to fly under the radar. We aim to cultivate an awareness among researchers and practitioners of this important problem, and touch upon potential research directions towards mitigating its effects.

When observed decisions depend only on observed features, off-policy policy evaluation (OPE) methods for sequential decision making problems can estimate the performance of evaluation policies before deploying them. This assumption is frequently violated due to unobserved confounders, unrecorded variables that impact both the decisions and their outcomes. We assess robustness of OPE methods under unobserved confounding by developing worst-case bounds on the performance of an evaluation policy. When unobserved confounders can affect every decision in an episode, we demonstrate that even small amounts of per-decision confounding can heavily bias OPE methods. Fortunately, in a number of important settings found in healthcare, policy-making, operations, and technology, unobserved confounders may primarily affect only one of the many decisions made. Under this less pessimistic model of one-decision confounding, we propose an efficient loss-minimization-based procedure for computing worst-case bounds, and prove its statistical consistency. On two simulated healthcare examples---management of sepsis patients and developmental interventions for autistic children---where this is a reasonable model of confounding, we demonstrate that our method invalidates non-robust results and provides meaningful certificates of robustness, allowing reliable selection of policies even under unobserved confounding.