Elizabeth L. Ogburn

David Bruns-Smith, Oliver Dukes, Avi Feller et al.

We provide a novel characterization of augmented balancing weights, also known as automatic debiased machine learning (AutoDML). These popular doubly robust or de-biased machine learning estimators combine outcome modeling with balancing weights - weights that achieve covariate balance directly in lieu of estimating and inverting the propensity score. When the outcome and weighting models are both linear in some (possibly infinite) basis, we show that the augmented estimator is equivalent to a single linear model with coefficients that combine the coefficients from the original outcome model and coefficients from an unpenalized ordinary least squares (OLS) fit on the same data. We see that, under certain choices of regularization parameters, the augmented estimator often collapses to the OLS estimator alone; this occurs for example in a re-analysis of the Lalonde 1986 dataset. We then extend these results to specific choices of outcome and weighting models. We first show that the augmented estimator that uses (kernel) ridge regression for both outcome and weighting models is equivalent to a single, undersmoothed (kernel) ridge regression. This holds numerically in finite samples and lays the groundwork for a novel analysis of undersmoothing and asymptotic rates of convergence. When the weighting model is instead lasso-penalized regression, we give closed-form expressions for special cases and demonstrate a ``double selection'' property. Our framework opens the black box on this increasingly popular class of estimators, bridges the gap between existing results on the semiparametric efficiency of undersmoothed and doubly robust estimators, and provides new insights into the performance of augmented balancing weights.

Helen Guo, Elizabeth L. Ogburn, Ilya Shpitser

Identifying causal effects in the presence of unmeasured variables is a fundamental challenge in causal inference, for which proxy variable methods have emerged as a powerful solution. We contrast two major approaches in this framework: (1) bridge equation methods, which leverage solutions to integral equations to recover causal targets, and (2) array decomposition methods, which recover latent factors composing counterfactual quantities by exploiting unique determination of eigenspaces. We compare the model restrictions underlying these two approaches and provide insight into implications of the underlying assumptions, clarifying the scope of applicability for each method.

Ashwin De Silva, Rahul Ramesh, Lyle Ungar et al.

Learning is a process which can update decision rules, based on past experience, such that future performance improves. Traditionally, machine learning is often evaluated under the assumption that the future will be identical to the past in distribution or change adversarially. But these assumptions can be either too optimistic or pessimistic for many problems in the real world. Real world scenarios evolve over multiple spatiotemporal scales with partially predictable dynamics. Here we reformulate the learning problem to one that centers around this idea of dynamic futures that are partially learnable. We conjecture that certain sequences of tasks are not retrospectively learnable (in which the data distribution is fixed), but are prospectively learnable (in which distributions may be dynamic), suggesting that prospective learning is more difficult in kind than retrospective learning. We argue that prospective learning more accurately characterizes many real world problems that (1) currently stymie existing artificial intelligence solutions and/or (2) lack adequate explanations for how natural intelligences solve them. Thus, studying prospective learning will lead to deeper insights and solutions to currently vexing challenges in both natural and artificial intelligences.

Elizabeth L. Ogburn, Ilya Shpitser, Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen

This note has been updated (April, 2020) to respond to "Towards Clarifying the Theory of the Deconfounder" by Yixin Wang, David M. Blei (arXiv:2003.04948). This original note, posted in January, 2020, is meant to complement our previous comment on "The Blessings of Multiple Causes" by Wang and Blei (2019). We provide a more succinct and transparent explanation of the fact that the deconfounder does not control for multi-cause confounding. The argument given in Wang and Blei (2019) makes two mistakes: (1) attempting to infer independence conditional on one variable from independence conditional on a different, unrelated variable, and (2) attempting to infer joint independence from pairwise independence. We give two simple counterexamples to the deconfounder claim.

Elizabeth L. Ogburn, Ilya Shpitser, Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen

(This comment has been updated to respond to Wang and Blei's rejoinder [arXiv:1910.07320].) The premise of the deconfounder method proposed in "Blessings of Multiple Causes" by Wang and Blei [arXiv:1805.06826], namely that a variable that renders multiple causes conditionally independent also controls for unmeasured multi-cause confounding, is incorrect. This can be seen by noting that no fact about the observed data alone can be informative about ignorability, since ignorability is compatible with any observed data distribution. Methods to control for unmeasured confounding may be valid with additional assumptions in specific settings, but they cannot, in general, provide a checkable approach to causal inference, and they do not, in general, require weaker assumptions than the assumptions that are commonly used for causal inference. While this is outside the scope of this comment, we note that much recent work on applying ideas from latent variable modeling to causal inference problems suffers from similar issues.