Sense and Sensitivity Analysis: Simple Post-Hoc Analysis of Bias Due to Unobserved Confounding
Victor Veitch, Anisha Zaveri
Abstract
It is a truth universally acknowledged that an observed association without known mechanism must be in want of a causal estimate. However, causal estimation from observational data often relies on the (untestable) assumption of no unobserved confounding'. Violations of this assumption can induce bias in effect estimates. In principle, such bias could invalidate or reverse the conclusions of a study. However, in some cases, we might hope that the influence of unobserved confounders is weak relative to a large' estimated effect, so the qualitative conclusions are robust to bias from unobserved confounding. The purpose of this paper is to develop Austen plots, a sensitivity analysis tool to aid such judgments by making it easier to reason about potential bias induced by unobserved confounding. We formalize confounding strength in terms of how strongly the confounder influences treatment assignment and outcome. For a target level of bias, an Austen plot shows the minimum values of treatment and outcome influence required to induce that level of bias. Domain experts can then make subjective judgments about whether such strong confounders are plausible. To aid this judgment, the Austen plot additionally displays the estimated influence strength of (groups of) the observed covariates. Austen plots generalize the classic sensitivity analysis approach of Imbens [Imb03]. Critically, Austen plots allow any approach for modeling the observed data and producing the initial estimate. We illustrate the tool by assessing biases for several real causal inference problems, using a variety of machine learning approaches for the initial data analysis. Code is available at this https URL
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext a127c87f-47c1-46ff-9c5f-3cf2363063a5Cited by top-tier papers9
- Addressing Hidden Confounding with Heterogeneous Observational Datasets for RecommendationYanghao Xiao, Haoxuan Li, Yongqiang Tang, Wensheng ZhangNeurIPS 2024 · 15 citations
- Front-door Adjustment Beyond Markov Equivalence with Limited Graph KnowledgeAbhin Shah, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, Murat KocaogluNeurIPS 2023 · 9 citations
- A Two-Stage Pretraining-Finetuning Framework for Treatment Effect Estimation with Unmeasured ConfoundingChuan Zhou, Yaxuan Li, Chunyuan Zheng, Haiteng Zhang et al.KDD 2025 · 6 citations
- A Diachronic Analysis of Paradigm Shifts in NLP Research: When, How, and Why?Aniket Pramanick, Yufang Hou, Saif M. Mohammad, Iryna GurevychEMNLP 2023 · 3 citations
- PWSHAP: A Path-Wise Explanation Model for Targeted VariablesLucile Ter-Minassian, Oscar Clivio, Karla DiazOrdaz, Robin J. Evans et al.ICML 2023 · 3 citations
Related papers
- Uncovering Bias Mechanisms in Observational StudiesIlker Demirel, Zeshan Hussain, Piersilvio De Bartolomeis, David SontagICML 2026
- Efficient and Sharp Off-Policy Learning under Unobserved ConfoundingKonstantin Hess, Dennis Frauen, Valentyn Melnychuk, Stefan FeuerriegelICLR 2026 · 5 citations
- A Proxy Variable View of Shared ConfoundingYixin Wang, David M. BleiICML 2021 · 14 citations
- Automating the Selection of Proxy Variables of Unmeasured ConfoundersFeng Xie, Zhengming Chen, Shanshan Luo, Wang Miao et al.ICML 2024 · 5 citations
- Debiased Causal Tree: Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Estimation with Unmeasured ConfoundingCaizhi Tang, Huiyuan Wang, Xinyu Li, Qing Cui et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 12 citations
