Tutorial: Introduction to computational causal inference using reproducible Stata, R and Python code

Unmeasured confounding is a threat to causal inference in observational studies. In recent years, use of negative controls to mitigate unmeasured confounding has gained increasing recognition and popularity. Negative controls have a longstanding tradition in laboratory sciences and epidemiology to rule out non-causal explanations, although they have been used primarily for bias detection. Recently, Miao et al. (2018) have described sufficient conditions under which a pair of negative control exposure and outcome variables can be used to nonparametrically identify the average treatment effect (ATE) from observational data subject to uncontrolled confounding. In this paper, we establish nonparametric identification of the ATE under weaker conditions in the case of categorical unmeasured confounding and negative control variables. We also provide a general semiparametric framework for obtaining inferences about the ATE while leveraging information about a possibly large number of measured …

Peer effects, in which an individual’s behavior is affected by peers’ behavior, are posited by multiple theories in the social sciences. Randomized field experiments that identify peer effects, however, are often expensive or infeasible, so many studies of peer effects use observational data, which is expected to suffer from confounding. Here we show, in the context of information and media diffusion, that high-dimensional adjustment of a nonexperimental control group (660 million observations) using propensity score models produces estimates of peer effects statistically indistinguishable from those using a large randomized experiment (215 million observations). Compared with the experiment, naive observational estimators overstate peer effects by over 300% and commonly available variables (e.g., demographics) offer little bias reduction. Adjusting for a measure of prior behaviors closely related to the focal behavior reduces this bias by 91%, while models adjusting for over 3700 past …

One of the most fundamental problems in causal inference is the estimation of a causal effect when variables are confounded. This is difficult in an observational study, because one has no direct evidence that all confounders have been adjusted for. We introduce a novel approach for estimating causal effects that exploits observational conditional independencies to suggest "weak" paths in a unknown causal graph. The widely used faithfulness condition of Spirtes et al. is relaxed to allow for varying degrees of "path cancellations" that imply conditional independencies but do not rule out the existence of confounding causal paths. The outcome is a posterior distribution over bounds on the average causal effect via a linear programming approach and Bayesian inference. We claim this approach should be used in regular practice along with other default tools in observational studies.

Abstract 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.