Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Stochastic interventions, sensitivity analysis, and optimal transport

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that generalized treatment policies that couple the assigned treatment to the natural treatment value yield the narrowest possible sensitivity-analysis bounds, collapsing to a point as the target distribution…

desk verdict A strong theoretical paper that identifies a real non-collapsing problem with pure stochastic interventions and solves it with generalized policies built from optimal transport; send it to referees. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14285 v1 pith:VMNEN42U submitted 2024-11-21 stat.ME math.STstat.TH

Alexander W. Levis , Edward H. Kennedy , Alec McClean , Sivaraman Balakrishnan , Larry Wasserman This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEmath.STstat.TH MSC 62D2062G0549Q2262G20
keywords causalinferencestochasticinterventionsmodifiedtreatmentpoliciespartialidentificationsensitivityanalysisoptimaltransportmaximalcouplingnonparametricefficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Standard stochastic interventions draw treatment independently from a target distribution Q, and this paper shows those interventions have a blind spot: under unmeasured confounding, their sensitivity bounds do not shrink to zero even when Q equals the observed treatment distribution. The paper's remedy is to enlarge the class of allowed rules to generalized policies that may also depend on the natural value of treatment and auxiliary randomness, while still inducing Q. Among all such Q-policies, the policy built from a maximal coupling is optimal: it changes treatment with probability equal to the total-variation distance between the observed and target treatment distributions, so its worst-case bounds are exactly that distance wide and collapse when the target approaches the observed distribution. The paper also characterizes the optimal policy when the sensitivity model penalizes how far the assigned treatment moves, leading to Wasserstein distances, and it constructs efficient estimators for the resulting sharp bounds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the set D_Q of generalized policies d : X × A × [0,1] → A whose induced treatment distribution given X is Q. The workhorse identity, Proposition 1, writes E(Y(d) | X) = t_Q(X) + E(1{A ≠ d}(ν_d(X,A) − μ_d(X)) | X), so the worst-case deviation from the identified baseline t_Q(X) is controlled by the disagreement probability P[A ≠ d | X] and by the sensitivity-model bounds on ν_a − μ_a. Minimizing bound width is therefore a Monge-Kantorovich optimal-transport problem: the maximal coupling, which leaves A unchanged with probability ∫ min{π, q} dρ and has disagreement probability 1 − ∫ min{π, q} dρ = TV(Π, Q), is the minimizer for constant-type bounds, while the monotone rank-preserving coupling minimizes convex costs h(|a − a'|) and yields Wasserstein bound widths W_p(Π, Q).

What would settle it

Simulate a binary-treatment complete-data distribution in which the odds-ratio sensitivity model holds but the quantile bounds Γ^-_a and Γ^+_a are not tight (e.g., Y(a) given X and A has small variance so the worst-case mean differences are strictly inside the bounds); then compute the true identified set for E(Y(d*_q)) by optimizing over the restricted complete-data model M(P) and compare with the paper's Theorem 3 bounds. If the true identified set is strictly narrower, the sharpness condition fails exactly where the theorem needs it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that the causal effect of a treatment rule is not determined by its induced treatment distribution once unmeasured confounding is present: among all generalized policies d that induce the same target distribution Q, the effect of d depends on the joint coupling of the observed treatment A and the assigned treatment d(X,A,V). The maximal Q-policy d*_Q attains the minimal possible disagreement probability, P[A ≠ d*_Q | X] = TV(Π(·|X), Q(·|X)), so in sensitivity models that bound the difference ν_a(X,a') − μ_a(X) by constants or by convex functions of |a − a'|, d*_Q or the rank-preserving policy delivers the narrowest sharp bounds on E(Y(d)). In particular, when Q approaches the observed Π, the bounds on E(Y(d*_Q)) narrow to a point, whereas bounds for the pure stochastic policy d_Q do not. For binary treatments the maximal policy takes a simple threshold form, and the paper gives sharp bounds under constant, outcome-distance, and odds-ratio sensitivity models, plus nonparametric efficient estimators for exponential-tilt target distributions.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed narrowest bounds are only as good as the sensitivity model being sharp: the bounding functions (Γ in Model 2, h in Model 3, the odds-ratio quantile bounds in Model 4) must be attainable by some complete-data distribution compatible with the observed data, at each covariate value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the target distribution Q equals the observed Π, the optimal policy's bounds collapse exactly to the identified mean E(Y), giving sensitivity analysis a natural reference point that pure stochastic policies lack.
  • For any non-degenerate Q, maximal Q-policies give strictly narrower worst-case bounds than the independent pure stochastic policy, and they change treatment for fewer subjects, so the same causal question can be answered with a more parsimonious intervention.
  • Sharp bounds under outcome-based sensitivity models (Models 1–2), convex-distance models (Model 3), and, for binary treatment, odds-ratio sensitivity models (Model 4) are obtained as closed-form functionals of Π and Q, so sensitivity analysis reduces to estimating those functionals.
  • The efficient one-step estimators for exponential-tilt targets are doubly robust for the mean functional and achieve √n rates under margin conditions for the total-variation functional, so Wald-based confidence intervals can be built directly from the displayed influence functions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the same disagreement-based decomposition should extend from mean outcomes to quantile or distributional effects, since Proposition 1 only requires the contrast ν_a(X,a') − μ_a(X) to be replaced by another bounded complete-data contrast.
  • Beyond the paper: in applied work, the maximal policy's bound width TV(Π,Q) gives a simple graphical diagnostic — plotting how fast bounds shrink as Q approaches Π — which the authors do not report.
  • Beyond the paper: the sharpness precondition means that when the true confounding is weaker than the sensitivity model permits, using the maximal policy may overstate uncertainty; a researcher could check by comparing with bounds computed under a tighter, still identifiable sensitivity model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies generalized treatment policies that may depend on covariates, the natural value of treatment, and auxiliary randomness, and that induce a fixed target treatment distribution Q. The central observation is that, under unmeasured confounding, the causal effect of such a policy is not determined by its induced treatment distribution alone: it also depends on the coupling between the natural and assigned treatments. The paper derives a decomposition (Proposition 1), shows that pure stochastic policies have non-collapsing sensitivity bounds as Q approaches the observational distribution, and identifies optimal Q-policies under several sensitivity models: the maximal coupling for uniform outcome-based bounds (Theorem 1), the rank-preserving coupling for distance-based bounds and Wasserstein distances (Theorem 2), and the maximal coupling for binary treatments with outcome-dependent bounds (Theorem 3). It then constructs nonparametric efficient estimators for the resulting bound functionals under exponentially tilted target distributions, with rate and margin conditions stated in Theorems 4-7. Proofs are provided in appendices, and the sharpness assumptions on the sensitivity models are explicitly acknowledged.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial and novel contribution to causal inference under unmeasured confounding. The connection between sensitivity analysis and optimal transport is well motivated, and the observation that generalized policies can resolve the non-collapsing-bounds problem is genuinely useful. The main identification theorems are proved transparently with standard coupling arguments, and the paper is careful to scope the optimality claims to the specific sensitivity models and to flag where sharpness is assumed. The estimator sections go beyond the identification results and provide concrete, rate-conditioned inference procedures. The paper is written at a high technical level and should be of interest to researchers working on stochastic interventions, modified treatment policies, and partial identification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, displayed definition of ζ+δ,1 and Theorem 7] The algebraic parametrization of the sharp upper bound under Model 4 is incorrect. From the definition in Model 4, g+_a(X,Y)=Γ1(Y≥γ+_a)+Γ^{-1}1(Y<γ+_a) with γ+_a=F^{-1}(Γ/(1+Γ)). A direct calculation using P(Y<γ+_a|X,A=a)=Γ/(1+Γ) and κ+_a=E((Y−γ+_a)_+|X,A=a) gives E[Y(g+_a−1)|X,A=a]=(Γ−1)/Γ(γ+_a−µ_a)+(Γ−1/Γ)κ+_a. The coefficient of κ+_a should be Γ−1/Γ, i.e., (Γ^2−1)/Γ, not (Γ−1)/Γ as displayed. The same issue affects the formulas for φ+δ,1 and the analogous expressions for ζ−δ,0, ζ+δ,0, ζ−δ,1. As written, the displayed estimator and Theorem 7 target a different functional than the sharp bound claimed in Theorem 3 and Model 4. This needs correction and re-verification of the corresponding influence-function expansions.
  2. [Theorem 2 and Model 3] The assumption that Π and Q have finite first moments is not sufficient for the stated optimality result when h is superlinear, and in particular for the Model 3 bound τQ±Γ·W_p^p when p>1. Without finite p-th moments, W_p^p may be infinite, making the displayed sharp bound trivial and the equality in the theorem potentially ill-posed. The statement should add the relevant finite-moment or integrability condition on h(|Π^{-1}(a|X)−Q^{-1}(a|X)|), or explicitly allow infinite values in an extended sense. This is a local technical fix and does not affect Theorems 1 or 3.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Proposition 3] The statement says 'the influence functions ˙τδ(O;P) and ˙τδ(O;P) are'; the second symbol should be ˙χδ(O;P).
  2. [Theorem 5] The convergence statement '√n(bθδ−θδ) P→ N(0,Var{Ψθδ})' should read 'd→' rather than 'P→'.
  3. [Appendix D, proof of Theorem 4] In the bound for ∥ bΨξδ−Ψξδ ∥, the final term is written as ∥bγδ−γδ∥; it should be ∥bκδ−κδ∥, since γδ does not appear in bΨξδ.
  4. [Section 2, Example 3] There is a typo in the sentence about Díaz and van der Laan: 'andavarianttheoreof' should be 'and a variant thereof'.
  5. [Theorem 6] In the rate display, one norm bar is missing: '∥bπ−π∥ {bµ0−µ0∥ + ∥bµ1−µ1∥}' should be '∥bπ−π∥(∥bµ0−µ0∥ + ∥bµ1−µ1∥)'.
  6. [General] The paper contains no simulation or empirical illustration beyond the motivating example; a small simulation study would help assess finite-sample behavior of the proposed estimators, though the asymptotic claims are self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified; the central derivation is self-contained and the optimality claims are explicitly scoped.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is not circular. Proposition 1 expresses E(Y(d)|X) as t_Q(X) plus a discrepancy term weighted by P(A != d | X), and this follows from Assumptions 1-2 rather than being assumed as a target. The optimality of the maximal coupling d*_Q in Theorem 1 is a standard maximal-coupling result proven in Appendix B from the definition of total variation distance, so the minimal disagreement probability is not an input but a derived property. The collapse to point identification at Q = Pi follows because the maximal coupling at Q = Pi is the identity policy d*_Pi = A, and the paper explicitly labels this 'trivially achieved' rather than presenting it as an empirical prediction. The sharpness of the bounds is made conditional on the sensitivity models being tight/sharp, and the paper repeatedly states this qualification. Theorems 2 and 3 rely on classical one-dimensional optimal transport characterizations and on the algebra of Corollary 1, neither of which imports the conclusion. The estimators in Section 4 target the bound functionals (tau_delta, xi_delta, theta_delta, and the zeta functionals) after the bounds have been derived, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations (e.g., Kennedy et al. 2020 Lemma 2 and Levis et al. 2024 Lemma 4/6) are technical sample-splitting and empirical-process lemmas with stated assumptions; they are not load-bearing uniqueness claims nor do they smuggle in the paper's central ansatz. No step in the manuscript reduces, by its own equations or by an unverified self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All additional structure is defined mathematically, not posited as physical entities. Generalized policies, maximal couplings, and rank-preserving couplings are constructions from standard probability theory. The only user-chosen inputs are sensitivity parameters and the tilting parameter, which are explicit modeling choices rather than hidden free parameters fitted to data.

free parameters (3)
  • Gamma (sensitivity bound)
    User-specified bound on unmeasured confounding in Models 1 to 4; the width of all bounds scales with Gamma. It is not estimated from data.
  • p (Lipschitz exponent in Model 3)
    User-specified exponent in the continuous-outcome sensitivity model; combined with Gamma via cost h(t) = Gamma * t^p.
  • delta (exponential tilt parameter)
    User-specified policy parameter defining the tilted target distribution Q_delta; controls how far the intervention shifts the treatment distribution.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Consistency and no interference (Assumption 1)
    Links potential outcomes to observed outcomes; standard in causal inference.
  • domain assumption Auxiliary randomness V independent of (X, A, {Y(a)}) (Assumption 2)
    Ensures generalized policies are conditionally independent of potential outcomes given (X, A); required for the coupling decomposition in Proposition 1.
  • domain assumption Q absolutely continuous with respect to Pi (Assumption 3)
    Ensures the target treatment distribution does not assign mass where the observed treatment has none; needed for tilts and the total variation calculations.
  • domain assumption Q identified under P (Assumption 4)
    Treats Q as fixed and identifiable so that partial identification concerns only the outcome mechanism.
  • domain assumption Sensitivity model bounds hold (e.g., |nu_a - mu_a| <= Gamma)
    The bounds are valid restrictions on the complete-data distribution; if violated, the derived bounds may not cover the true effect.
  • standard math Maximal coupling existence and optimal transport duality
    Uses Strassen's theorem and Monge-Kantorovich duality to construct valid couplings and characterize the rank-preserving coupling.
  • standard math Technical empirical process lemmas from prior work (e.g., Kennedy et al. 2020; Levis et al. 2024)
    Used to bound empirical process terms and conditional bias in the estimator proofs; these are previously published results with stated conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic interventions, sensitivity analysis, and optimal transport." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VMNEN42U

@misc{pith2026241114285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic interventions, sensitivity analysis, and optimal transport},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VMNEN42U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14285}
}
read the original abstract

Recent methodological research in causal inference has focused on effects of stochastic interventions, which assign treatment randomly, often according to subject-specific covariates. In this work, we demonstrate that the usual notion of stochastic interventions have a surprising property: when there is unmeasured confounding, bounds on their effects do not collapse when the policy approaches the observational regime. As an alternative, we propose to study generalized policies, treatment rules that can depend on covariates, the natural value of treatment, and auxiliary randomness. We show that certain generalized policy formulations can resolve the "non-collapsing" bound issue: bounds narrow to a point when the target treatment distribution approaches that in the observed data. Moreover, drawing connections to the theory of optimal transport, we characterize generalized policies that minimize worst-case bound width in various sensitivity analysis models, as well as corresponding sharp bounds on their causal effects. These optimal policies are new, and can have a more parsimonious interpretation compared to their usual stochastic policy analogues. Finally, we develop flexible, efficient, and robust estimators for the sharp nonparametric bounds that emerge from the framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14285 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bounds on E(Y (d)) in motivating example, for incremental interventions. In black is the functional E((1−qδ)µ0+qδµ1), which equals E(Y (dqδ )) = E(Y (d ∗ qδ )) under no unmeasured confounding (i.e., Γ = 0). In blue and red are lower and upper bounds for the effect of the pure stochastic policy, E(Y (dqδ )), and the maximal qδ-policy, E(Y (d ∗ qδ )), respectively. (or Γ = 0) also satisfies E(Y (d ∗ qδ )) = τδ. Bounds… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Longitudinal weighted and trimmed treatment effects with flip interventions

    stat.ME 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Flip interventions re-express weighted and trimmed treatment effects as implementable policies, and extend them to longitudinal settings with identifiable effects and efficient estimators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    (2024), Sharp bounds for continuous-valued treatment effects with unobserved confounders, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02231

    Baitairian, J.-B., Sebastien, B., Jreich, R., Katsahian, S., and Guilloux, A. (2024), Sharp bounds for continuous-valued treatment effects with unobserved confounders, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02231

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Bickel, P. J. and Ritov, Y. (1988), Estimating integrated squared density derivatives: sharp best order of convergence estimates, Sankhy \=a : The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A , 381--393

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    (2022), Sensitivity analysis for marginal structural models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04681

    Bonvini, M., Kennedy, E., Ventura, V., and Wasserman, L. (2022), Sensitivity analysis for marginal structural models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04681

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    and Kennedy, E

    Bonvini, M. and Kennedy, E. H. (2022), Sensitivity analysis via the proportion of unmeasured confounding, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117, 1540--1550

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    (2018), Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters,

    Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., Demirer, M., Duflo, E., Hansen, C., Newey, W., and Robins, J. (2018), Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters,

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    D \' az, I. (2024), Non-agency interventions for causal mediation in the presence of intermediate confounding, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 86, 435--460

    work page 2024

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    and Hejazi, N

    D \' az, I. and Hejazi, N. S. (2020), Causal mediation analysis for stochastic interventions, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 82, 661--683

    2020

  2. [10]

    and van der Laan, M

    D \' az, I. and van der Laan, M. J. (2013 a ), Assessing the causal effect of policies: an example using stochastic interventions, The international journal of biostatistics, 9, 161--174

    2013

  3. [11]

    --- (2013 b ), Sensitivity analysis for causal inference under unmeasured confounding and measurement error problems, The international journal of biostatistics, 9, 149--160

    2013

  4. [12]

    L., and Schenck, E

    D \' az, I., Williams, N., Hoffman, K. L., and Schenck, E. J. (2023), Nonparametric causal effects based on longitudinal modified treatment policies, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 118, 846--857

    2023

  5. [13]

    and van der Laan, M

    D \' az Mu \ n oz, I. and van der Laan, M. (2012), Population intervention causal effects based on stochastic interventions, Biometrics, 68, 541--549

    2012

  6. [14]

    and Guo, K

    Dorn, J. and Guo, K. (2023), Sharp sensitivity analysis for inverse propensity weighting via quantile balancing, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 118, 2645--2657

    2023

  7. [15]

    (2024), Doubly-valid/doubly-sharp sensitivity analysis for causal inference with unmeasured confounding, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1--12

    Dorn, J., Guo, K., and Kallus, N. (2024), Doubly-valid/doubly-sharp sensitivity analysis for causal inference with unmeasured confounding, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1--12

    2024

  8. [16]

    (2014), Doubly Robust Policy Evaluation and Optimization, Statistical Science, 29, 485--511

    Dud k, M., Erhan, D., Langford, J., and Li, L. (2014), Doubly Robust Policy Evaluation and Optimization, Statistical Science, 29, 485--511

    2014

  9. [17]

    (1932), On the probability function in the collective theory of risk, Skand

    Esscher, F. (1932), On the probability function in the collective theory of risk, Skand. Aktuarie Tidskr., 15, 175--195

    1932

  10. [18]

    (2020), Flexible sensitivity analysis for observational studies without observable implications, Journal of the American Statistical Association

    Franks, A., D’Amour, A., and Feller, A. (2020), Flexible sensitivity analysis for observational studies without observable implications, Journal of the American Statistical Association

    2020

  11. [19]

    and Rotnitzky, A

    Haneuse, S. and Rotnitzky, A. (2013), Estimation of the effect of interventions that modify the received treatment, Statistics in medicine, 32, 5260--5277

    2013

  12. [20]

    Jesson, A., Douglas, A., Manshausen, P., Solal, M., Meinshausen, N., Stier, P., Gal, Y., and Shalit, U. (2022), Scalable sensitivity and uncertainty analyses for causal-effect estimates of continuous-valued interventions, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, ...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Kennedy, E. H. (2019), Nonparametric causal effects based on incremental propensity score interventions, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 114, 645--656

    2019

  14. [22]

    H., Balakrishnan, S., and G’Sell, M

    Kennedy, E. H., Balakrishnan, S., and G’Sell, M. (2020), Sharp instruments for classifying compliers and generalizing causal effects, The Annals of Statistics, 48, 2008--2030

    2020

  15. [23]

    H., Ma, Z., McHugh, M

    Kennedy, E. H., Ma, Z., McHugh, M. D., and Small, D. S. (2017), Non-parametric methods for doubly robust estimation of continuous treatment effects, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 79, 1229--1245

    2017

  16. [24]

    W., Ben-Michael, E., and Kennedy, E

    Levis, A. W., Ben-Michael, E., and Kennedy, E. H. (2024), Intervention effects based on potential benefit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08727

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    (2002), Lectures on the coupling method, Courier Corporation

    Lindvall, T. (2002), Lectures on the coupling method, Courier Corporation

    2002

  18. [26]

    R., Diaz, I., and van der Laan, M

    Luedtke, A. R., Diaz, I., and van der Laan, M. J. (2015), The statistics of sensitivity analyses, U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series

    2015

  19. [27]

    Luedtke, A. R. and van der Laan, M. J. (2016), Statistical inference for the mean outcome under a possibly non-unique optimal treatment strategy, Annals of S tatistics , 44, 713

    2016

  20. [28]

    Manski, C. F. (1990), Nonparametric bounds on treatment effects, The American E conomic R eview , 80, 319--323

    1990

  21. [29]

    A., Kennedy, E

    Mauro, J. A., Kennedy, E. H., and Nagin, D. (2020), Instrumental variable methods using dynamic interventions, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 183, 1523--1551

    2020

  22. [30]

    A., D \' az, I., and Wu, W

    McClean, A., Li, Y., Bae, S., McAdams-DeMarco, M. A., D \' az, I., and Wu, W. (2024), Fair comparisons of causal parameters with many treatments and positivity violations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13522

    2024

  23. [31]

    L., Neugebauer, R., van der Laan, M

    Moore, K. L., Neugebauer, R., van der Laan, M. J., and Tager, I. B. (2012), Causal inference in epidemiological studies with strong confounding, Statistics in medicine, 31, 1380--1404

    2012

  24. [32]

    Murphy, S. A. (2003), Optimal dynamic treatment regimes, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 65, 331--355

    2003

  25. [33]

    A., van der Laan, M

    Murphy, S. A., van der Laan, M. J., Robins, J. M., and Group, C. P. P. R. (2001), Marginal mean models for dynamic regimes, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 1410--1423

    2001

  26. [34]

    H., Huang, M.-Y., Smid, M., and Scharfstein, D

    Nabi, R., Bonvini, M., Kennedy, E. H., Huang, M.-Y., Smid, M., and Scharfstein, D. O. (2024), Semiparametric sensitivity analysis: unmeasured confounding in observational studies, Biometrics, 80, ujae106

    2024

  27. [35]

    (2024), Local Effects of Continuous Instruments without Positivity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07350

    Rakshit, P., Levis, A., and Keele, L. (2024), Local Effects of Continuous Instruments without Positivity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07350

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Richardson, T. S. and Robins, J. M. (2013), 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, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    (2008), Higher order influence functions and minimax estimation of nonlinear functionals, in Probability and statistics: essays in honor of David A

    Robins, J., Li, L., Tchetgen, E., van der Vaart, A., et al. (2008), Higher order influence functions and minimax estimation of nonlinear functionals, in Probability and statistics: essays in honor of David A. Freedman, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 2, pp. 335--422

    2008

  30. [38]

    Robins, J. M. (1989), The analysis of randomized and non-randomized AIDS treatment trials using a new approach to causal inference in longitudinal studies, Health S ervice R esearch M ethodology: a F ocus on AIDS , 113--159

    1989

  31. [39]

    189--326

    --- (2004), Optimal structural nested models for optimal sequential decisions, in Proceedings of the Second Seattle Symposium in Biostatistics: analysis of correlated data, Springer, pp. 189--326

    2004

  32. [40]

    M., Hern \'a n, M

    Robins, J. M., Hern \'a n, M. A., and Siebert, U. (2004), Effects of multiple interventions, Comparative quantification of health risks: global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major risk factors, 1, 2191--2230

    2004

  33. [41]

    M., Rotnitzky, A., and Scharfstein, D

    Robins, J. M., Rotnitzky, A., and Scharfstein, D. O. (2000), Sensitivity analysis for selection bias and unmeasured confounding in missing data and causal inference models, in Statistical models in epidemiology, the environment, and clinical trials, Springer, pp. 1--94

    2000

  34. [42]

    (2002), Observational Studies, Springer

    Rosenbaum, P. (2002), Observational Studies, Springer

    2002

  35. [43]

    (2015), Optimal transport for applied mathematicians, Birk \"a user, NY , 55, 94

    Santambrogio, F. (2015), Optimal transport for applied mathematicians, Birk \"a user, NY , 55, 94

    2015

  36. [44]

    Schindl, K., Shen, S., and Kennedy, E. H. (2024), Incremental effects for continuous exposures, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11967

    2024

  37. [45]

    J., Laurendeau, J., and Sarvet, A

    Stensrud, M. J., Laurendeau, J., and Sarvet, A. L. (2024), Optimal regimes for algorithm-assisted human decision-making, Biometrika, asae016

    2024

  38. [46]

    Stock, J. H. (1989), Nonparametric policy analysis, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84, 567--575

    1989

  39. [47]

    (1965), The existence of probability measures with given marginals, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36, 423--439

    Strassen, V. (1965), The existence of probability measures with given marginals, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36, 423--439

    1965

  40. [48]

    (2006), A distributional approach for causal inference using propensity scores, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 1619--1637

    Tan, Z. (2006), A distributional approach for causal inference using propensity scores, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 1619--1637

    2006

  41. [49]

    L., Robins, J

    Taubman, S. L., Robins, J. M., Mittleman, M. A., and Hern \'a n, M. A. (2009), Intervening on risk factors for coronary heart disease: an application of the parametric g-formula, International journal of epidemiology, 38, 1599--1611

    2009

  42. [50]

    Tian, J. (2008), Identifying dynamic sequential plans, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Arlington, Virginia, USA: AUAI Press, UAI'08, p. 554–561

    2008

  43. [51]

    J., Vansteelandt, S., and Robins, J

    VanderWeele, T. J., Vansteelandt, S., and Robins, J. M. (2014), Effect decomposition in the presence of an exposure-induced mediator-outcome confounder, Epidemiology, 25, 300--306

    2014

  44. [52]

    (2009), Optimal transport: old and new, vol

    Villani, C. (2009), Optimal transport: old and new, vol. 338, Springer

    2009

  45. [53]

    G., Hern \'a n, M

    Young, J. G., Hern \'a n, M. A., and Robins, J. M. (2014), Identification, estimation and approximation of risk under interventions that depend on the natural value of treatment using observational data, Epidemiologic M ethods , 3, 1--19

    2014

  46. [54]

    and Zhao, Q

    Zhang, Y. and Zhao, Q. (2024), L^ - and L^2 -sensitivity analysis for causal inference with unmeasured confounding, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.04697v4

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    S., and Bhattacharya, B

    Zhao, Q., Small, D. S., and Bhattacharya, B. B. (2019), Sensitivity analysis for inverse probability weighting estimators via the percentile bootstrap, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 81, 735--761

    2019

  48. [56]

    and van der Laan, M

    Zheng, W. and van der Laan, M. J. (2010), Asymptotic theory for cross-validated targeted maximum likelihood estimation, U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.