Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen

Ilya Shpitser, Zach Wood-Doughty, Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen

Unobserved confounding is a fundamental obstacle to establishing valid causal conclusions from observational data. Two complementary types of approaches have been developed to address this obstacle: obtaining identification using fortuitous external aids, such as instrumental variables or proxies, or by means of the ID algorithm, using Markov restrictions on the full data distribution encoded in graphical causal models. In this paper we aim to develop a synthesis of the former and latter approaches to identification in causal inference to yield the most general identification algorithm in multivariate systems currently known -- the proximal ID algorithm. In addition to being able to obtain nonparametric identification in all cases where the ID algorithm succeeds, our approach allows us to systematically exploit proxies to adjust for the presence of unobserved confounders that would have otherwise prevented identification. In addition, we outline a class of estimation strategies for causal parameters identified by our method in an important special case. We illustrate our approach by simulation studies and a data application.

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.