×

Efficient adjustment sets for population average causal treatment effect estimation in graphical models. (English) Zbl 1527.62007

Summary: The method of covariate adjustment is often used for estimation of total treatment effects from observational studies. Restricting attention to causal linear models, a recent article [L. Henckel et al., “Graphical criteria for efficient total effect estimation via adjustment in causal linear models”, Preprint, arXiv:1907.02435] derived two novel graphical criteria: one to compare the asymptotic variance of linear regression treatment effect estimators that control for certain distinct adjustment sets and another to identify the optimal adjustment set that yields the least squares estimator with the smallest asymptotic variance. In this paper we show that the same graphical criteria can be used in non-parametric causal graphical models when treatment effects are estimated using non-parametrically adjusted estimators of the interventional means. We also provide a new graphical criterion for determining the optimal adjustment set among the minimal adjustment sets and another novel graphical criterion for comparing time dependent adjustment sets. We show that uniformly optimal time dependent adjustment sets do not always exist. For point interventions, we provide a sound and complete graphical criterion for determining when a non-parametric optimally adjusted estimator of an interventional mean, or of a contrast of interventional means, is semiparametric efficient under the non-parametric causal graphical model. In addition, when the criterion is not met, we provide a sound algorithm that checks for possible simplifications of the efficient influence function of the parameter. Finally, we find an interesting connection between identification and efficient covariate adjustment estimation. Specifically, we show that if there exists an identifying formula for an interventional mean that depends only on treatment, outcome and mediators, then the non-parametric optimally adjusted estimator can never be globally efficient under the causal graphical model.

MSC:

62D20 Causal inference from observational studies
62G05 Nonparametric estimation
62H22 Probabilistic graphical models

References:

[1] Alberto Abadie and Matias D Cattaneo. Econometric methods for program evaluation. Annual Review of Economics, 10:465-503, 2018.
[2] Steen A Andersson, David Madigan, Michael D Perlman, et al. A characterization of markov equivalence classes for acyclic digraphs.The Annals of Statistics, 25(2):505-541, 1997. · Zbl 0876.60095
[3] L´eon Bottou, Jonas Peters, Joaquin Qui˜nonero-Candela, Denis X Charles, D Max Chickering, Elon Portugaly, Dipankar Ray, Patrice Simard, and Ed Snelson. Counterfactual reasoning and learning systems: The example of computational advertising.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14(1):3207-3260, 2013. · Zbl 1318.62206
[4] Norman Breslow. Design and analysis of case-control studies.Annual review of public health, 3(1):29-54, 1982.
[5] Victor Chernozhukov, Denis Chetverikov, Mert Demirer, Esther Duflo, Christian Hansen, Whitney Newey, and James Robins. Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters.The Econometrics Journal, 21(1):C1-C68. · Zbl 07565928
[6] David Maxwell Chickering. Learning equivalence classes of bayesian-network structures. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2(Feb):445-498, 2002. · Zbl 1007.68179
[7] William G Cochran. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies.Biometrics, pages 295-313, 1968.
[8] BL De Stavola and DR Cox. On the consequences of overstratification.Biometrika, 95(4): 992-996, 2008. · Zbl 1437.62438
[9] Marco Eigenmann, Preetam Nandy, and Marloes H. Maathuis. Structure learning of linear gaussian structural equation models with weak edges. InUAI’17, 2017.
[10] Robin J Evans. Graphs for margins of Bayesian Networks.Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 43(3):625-648, 2016. · Zbl 1468.62300
[11] Robin J Evans and Thomas S Richardson. Markovian acyclic directed mixed graphs for discrete data.The Annals of Statistics, 42(4):1452-1482, 2014. · Zbl 1302.62148
[12] Mitchell H Gail. The effect of pooling across strata in perfectly balanced studies.Biometrics, pages 151-162, 1988. · Zbl 0707.62209
[13] Dan Geiger, Thomas Verma, and Judea Pearl. Identifying independence in Bayesian networks.Networks, 20(5):507-534, 1990. · Zbl 0724.05066
[14] Jinyong Hahn. On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects.Econometrica, pages 315-331, 1998. · Zbl 1055.62572
[15] Alain Hauser and Peter B¨uhlmann. Characterization and greedy learning of interventional markov equivalence classes of directed acyclic graphs.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13:2409-2464, 2012. · Zbl 1433.68346
[16] Takahiro Hayashi and Manabu Kuroki. On estimating causal effects based on supplemental variables. InAISTATS’14, pages 312-319, 2014.
[17] Leonard Henckel, Emilija Perkovi´c, and Marloes H Maathuis. Graphical criteria for efficient total effect estimation via adjustment in causal linear models.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02435, 2019.
[18] Miguel A Hernan and James M Robins.Causal inference. CRC Boca Raton, FL, 2019. 83
[19] Keisuke Hirano, Guido W Imbens, and Geert Ridder. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score.Econometrica, 71(4):1161-1189, 2003. · Zbl 1152.62328
[20] Patrik O. Hoyer, Aapo Hyv¨arinen, Richard Scheines, Peter Spirtes, Joseph Ramsey, Gustavo Lacerda, and Shohei Shimizu. Causal discovery of linear acyclic models with arbitrary distributions. InUAI’08, pages 282-289, 2008.
[21] Arthur B Kahn. Topological sorting of large networks.Communications of the ACM, 5 (11):558-562, 1962. · Zbl 0106.32602
[22] Manabu Kuroki and Zhihong Cai. Selection of identifiability criteria for total effects by using path diagrams. InUAI’04, pages 333-340, 2004.
[23] Manabu Kuroki and Masami Miyakawa. Covariate selection for estimating the causal effect of control plans by using causal diagrams.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 65(1):209-222, 2003. · Zbl 1063.62104
[24] Steffen L Lauritzen.Graphical Models. Clarendon Press, 1996. · Zbl 0907.62001
[25] Marloes H. Maathuis and Diego Colombo. A generalized back-door criterion.The Annals of Statistics, 43(3):1060-1088, 06 2015. · Zbl 1320.62157
[26] Nathan Mantel and William Haenszel. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease.Journal of the national cancer institute, 22(4):719-748, 1959.
[27] Christopher Meek. Causal inference and causal explanation with background knowledge. InUAI’95, pages 403-410, 1995.
[28] Markus Neuhaeuser and Heiko Becher. Improved odds ratio estimation by post hoc stratification of case-control data.Statistics in medicine, 16(9):993-1004, 1997.
[29] Whitney K Newey. Semiparametric efficiency bounds.Journal of Applied Econometrics, 5 (2):99-135, 1990. · Zbl 0705.62033
[30] Judea Pearl.Causality: models, reasoning and inference. Springer, 2000. · Zbl 0959.68116
[31] Judea Pearl and James M Robins. Probabilistic evaluation of sequential plans from causal models with hidden variables. InUAI’95, pages 444-453, 1995.
[32] Emilija Perkovi´c. Identifying causal effects in maximally oriented partially directed acyclic graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.02997, 2019.
[33] Thomas S Richardson and James M Robins. Single world intervention graphs (SWIGs): A unification of the counterfactual and graphical approaches to causality.Center for the Statistics and the Social Sciences, University of Washington Series. Working Paper, 128 (30):2013, 2013.
[34] James Robins. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure periodapplication to control of the healthy worker survivor effect.Mathematical modelling, 7(9-12):1393-1512, 1986. · Zbl 0614.62136
[35] James M Robins. Addendum to a new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure periodapplication to control of the healthy worker survivor effect.Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 14(9-12):923-945, 1987a. · Zbl 0643.62062
[36] James M Robins. Addendum to a new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure periodapplication to control of the healthy worker survivor effect.Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 14(9-12):923-945, 1987b. · Zbl 0643.62062
[37] James M Robins and Thomas S Richardson. Alternative graphical causal models and the identification of direct effects.Causality and Psychopathology: Finding the determinants of disorders and their cures, pages 103-158, 2010.
[38] James M Robins and Andrea Rotnitzky. Recovery of information and adjustment for dependent censoring using surrogate markers. InAIDS Epidemiology, pages 297-331. Springer, 1992.
[39] James M Robins and Andrea Rotnitzky. Semiparametric efficiency in multivariate regression models with missing data.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(429):122- 129, 1995. · Zbl 0818.62043
[40] James M Robins, Andrea Rotnitzky, and Lue Ping Zhao. Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(427):846-866, 1994. · Zbl 0815.62043
[41] Laurence D Robinson and Nicholas P Jewell. Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression models.International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique, pages 227-240, 1991. · Zbl 0742.62067
[42] Richard Scheines, Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, Christopher Meek, and Thomas Richardson. The TETRAD project: Constraint based aids to causal model specification.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(1):65-117, 1998.
[43] Ilya Shpitser and Judea Pearl. Complete identification methods for the causal hierarchy. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(Sep):1941-1979, 2008. · Zbl 1225.68216
[44] Ilya Shpitser, Tyler VanderWeele, and James M. Robins.On the validity of covariate adjustment for estimating causal effects. InUAI’10, pages 527-536, 2010.
[45] Ilya Shpitser, Robin J Evans, Thomas S Richardson, and James M Robins. Introduction to Nested Markov models.Behaviormetrika, 41(1):3-39, 2014.
[46] Ezequiel Smucler, Andrea Rotnitzky, and James M Robins. A unifying approach for doublyrobustl1regularized estimation of causal contrasts.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03737, 2019.
[47] Peter Spirtes, Clark N Glymour, Richard Scheines, David Heckerman, Christopher Meek, Gregory Cooper, and Thomas Richardson.Causation, prediction, and search. MIT press, 2000.
[48] Jin Tian and Judea Pearl. On the testable implications of causal models with hidden variables. InUAI’02, pages 519-527, 2002.
[49] Anastasios Tsiatis.Semiparametric theory and missing data. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007. · Zbl 1105.62002
[50] MJ Van der Laan and James M Robins.Unified methods for censored longitudinal data and causality. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003. · Zbl 1013.62034
[51] Aad van der Vaart. Higher order tangent spaces and influence functions.Statistical Science, pages 679-686, 2014. · Zbl 1331.62111
[52] Aad W Van der Vaart.Asymptotic statistics. Cambridge university press, 2000. · Zbl 1013.62031
[53] Benito van der Zander and Maciej Liskiewicz. Finding minimal d-separators in linear time and applications. InUAI’19, pages 637-647, 2019.
[54] Tyler J VanderWeele and Ilya Shpitser. A new criterion for confounder selection.Biometrics, 67(4):1406-1413, 2011. · Zbl 1274.62890
[55] Thomas Verma and Judea Pearl.Causal networks: Semantics and expressiveness.In Machine intelligence and pattern recognition, volume 9, pages 69-76. Elsevier, 1990.
[56] Yuhao Wang, Liam Solus, Karren Dai Yang, and Caroline Uhler. Permutation-based causal inference algorithms with interventions. InNIPS’17, pages 5824-5833, 2017.
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.