Elisabeth Ailer

Elisabeth Ailer, Jason Hartford, Niki Kilbertus

Instrumental variable (IV) methods are used to estimate causal effects in settings with unobserved confounding, where we cannot directly experiment on the treatment variable. Instruments are variables which only affect the outcome indirectly via the treatment variable(s). Most IV applications focus on low-dimensional treatments and crucially require at least as many instruments as treatments. This assumption is restrictive: in the natural sciences we often seek to infer causal effects of high-dimensional treatments (e.g., the effect of gene expressions or microbiota on health and disease), but can only run few experiments with a limited number of instruments (e.g., drugs or antibiotics). In such underspecified problems, the full treatment effect is not identifiable in a single experiment even in the linear case. We show that one can still reliably recover the projection of the treatment effect onto the instrumented subspace and develop techniques to consistently combine such partial estimates from different sets of instruments. We then leverage our combined estimators in an algorithm that iteratively proposes the most informative instruments at each round of experimentation to maximize the overall information about the full causal effect.

Shimeng Huang, Elisabeth Ailer, Niki Kilbertus et al.

The compositionality and sparsity of high-throughput sequencing data poses a challenge for regression and classification. However, in microbiome research in particular, conditional modeling is an essential tool to investigate relationships between phenotypes and the microbiome. Existing techniques are often inadequate: they either rely on extensions of the linear log-contrast model (which adjusts for compositionality, but is often unable to capture useful signals), or they are based on black-box machine learning methods (which may capture useful signals, but ignore compositionality in downstream analyses). We propose KernelBiome, a kernel-based nonparametric regression and classification framework for compositional data. It is tailored to sparse compositional data and is able to incorporate prior knowledge, such as phylogenetic structure. KernelBiome captures complex signals, including in the zero-structure, while automatically adapting model complexity. We demonstrate on par or improved predictive performance compared with state-of-the-art machine learning methods. Additionally, our framework provides two key advantages: (i) We propose two novel quantities to interpret contributions of individual components and prove that they consistently estimate average perturbation effects of the conditional mean, extending the interpretability of linear log-contrast models to nonparametric models. (ii) We show that the connection between kernels and distances aids interpretability and provides a data-driven embedding that can augment further analysis. Finally, we apply the KernelBiome framework to two public microbiome studies and illustrate the proposed model analysis. KernelBiome is available as an open-source Python package at https://github.com/shimenghuang/KernelBiome.

Elisabeth Ailer, Christian L. Müller, Niki Kilbertus

Many scientific datasets are compositional in nature. Important biological examples include species abundances in ecology, cell-type compositions derived from single-cell sequencing data, and amplicon abundance data in microbiome research. Here, we provide a causal view on compositional data in an instrumental variable setting where the composition acts as the cause. First, we crisply articulate potential pitfalls for practitioners regarding the interpretation of compositional causes from the viewpoint of interventions and warn against attributing causal meaning to common summary statistics such as diversity indices in microbiome data analysis. We then advocate for and develop multivariate methods using statistical data transformations and regression techniques that take the special structure of the compositional sample space into account while still yielding scientifically interpretable results. In a comparative analysis on synthetic and real microbiome data we show the advantages and limitations of our proposal. We posit that our analysis provides a useful framework and guidance for valid and informative cause-effect estimation in the context of compositional data.