A Survey on Causal Inference <s> Positivity assumption <s> Abstract : The results of observational studies are often disputed because of nonrandom treatment assignment. For example, patients at greater risk may be overrepresented in some treatment group. This paper discusses the central role of propensity scores and balancing scores in the analysis of observational studies. The propensity score is the (estimated) conditional probability of assignment to a particular treatment given a vector of observed covariates. Both large and small sample theory show that adjustment for the scalar propensity score is sufficient to remove bias due to all observed covariates. Applications include: matched sampling on the univariate propensity score which is equal percent bias reducing under more general conditions than required for discriminant matching, multivariate adjustment by subclassification on balancing scores where the same subclasses are used to estimate treatment effects for all outcome variables and in all subpopulations, and visual representation of multivariate adjustment by a two-dimensional plot. (Author) <s> BIB001 </s> A Survey on Causal Inference <s> Positivity assumption <s> Estimation of average treatment effects under unconfounded or ignorable treatment assignment is often hampered by lack of overlap in the covariate distributions between treatment groups. This lack of overlap can lead to imprecise estimates, and can make commonly used estimators sensitive to the choice of specification. In such cases researchers have often used ad hoc methods for trimming the sample. We develop a systematic approach to addressing lack of overlap. We characterize optimal subsamples for which the average treatment effect can be estimated most precisely. Under some conditions, the optimal selection rules depend solely on the propensity score. For a wide range of distributions, a good approximation to the optimal rule is provided by the simple rule of thumb to discard all units with estimated propensity scores outside the range [0.1,0.9]. <s> BIB002 </s> A Survey on Causal Inference <s> Positivity assumption <s> Recent theoretical studies have shown that conditioning on an instrumental variable (IV), a variable that is associated with exposure but not associated with outcome except through exposure, can increase both bias and variance of exposure effect estimates. Although these findings have obvious implications in cases of known IVs, their meaning remains unclear in the more common scenario where investigators are uncertain whether a measured covariate meets the criteria for an IV or rather a confounder. The authors present results from two simulation studies designed to provide insight into the problem of conditioning on potential IVs in routine epidemiologic practice. The simulations explored the effects of conditioning on IVs, near-IVs (predictors of exposure that are weakly associated with outcome), and confounders on the bias and variance of a binary exposure effect estimate. The results indicate that effect estimates which are conditional on a perfect IV or near-IV may have larger bias and variance than the unconditional estimate. However, in most scenarios considered, the increases in error due to conditioning were small compared with the total estimation error. In these cases, minimizing unmeasured confounding should be the priority when selecting variables for adjustment, even at the risk of conditioning on IVs. <s> BIB003 </s> A Survey on Causal Inference <s> Positivity assumption <s> Causal inference in observational settings typically rests on a pair of identifying assumptions: (1) unconfoundedness and (2) covariate overlap, also known as positivity or common support. Investigators often argue that unconfoundedness is more plausible when many covariates are included in the analysis. Less discussed is the fact that covariate overlap is more difficult to satisfy in this setting. In this paper, we explore the implications of overlap in high-dimensional observational studies, arguing that this assumption is stronger than investigators likely realize. Our main innovation is to frame (strict) overlap in terms of bounds on a likelihood ratio, which allows us to leverage and expand on existing results from information theory. In particular, we show that strict overlap bounds discriminating information (e.g., Kullback-Leibler divergence) between the covariate distributions in the treated and control populations. We use these results to derive explicit bounds on the average imbalance in covariate means under strict overlap and a range of assumptions on the covariate distributions. Importantly, these bounds grow tighter as the dimension grows large, and converge to zero in some cases. We examine how restrictions on the treatment assignment and outcome processes can weaken the implications of certain overlap assumptions, but at the cost of stronger requirements for unconfoundedness. Taken together, our results suggest that adjusting for high-dimensional covariates does not necessarily make causal identification more plausible. <s> BIB004 </s> A Survey on Causal Inference <s> Positivity assumption <s> SummaryDrawing causal inference with observational studies is the central pillar of many disciplines. One sufficient condition for identifying the causal effect is that the treatment-outcome relationship is unconfounded conditional on the observed covariates. It is often believed that the more covariates we condition on, the more plausible this unconfoundedness assumption is. This belief has had a huge impact on practical causal inference, suggesting that we should adjust for all pretreatment covariates. However, when there is unmeasured confounding between the treatment and outcome, estimators adjusting for some pretreatment covariate might have greater bias than estimators that do not adjust for this covariate. This kind of covariate is called a bias amplifier, and includes instrumental variables that are independent of the confounder and affect the outcome only through the treatment. Previously, theoretical results for this phenomenon have been established only for linear models. We fill this gap in the literature by providing a general theory, showing that this phenomenon happens under a wide class of models satisfying certain monotonicity assumptions. <s> BIB005
The positivity assumption, also known as covariate overlap or common support, is a necessary assumption for the identification of treatment effect in the observational study. However, little literature discusses the satisfaction of this assumption in the high dimensional datasets. BIB004 argues that the positivity assumption is a strong assumption and is more difficult to be satisfied in the high-dimensional datasets. To support the claim, the implication of the strict overlap assumption is explored, and it shows that strict overlap restricts the general discrepancies between the control and treated covariates. Therefore, the positivity assumption is stronger than the investigator expected. Based on the above implication, methods that eliminate the information about the treatment assignment while still hold the unconfounderness assumption are recommended, such as trimming BIB002  BIB001 that drops the records in the region without overlap, and instrumental variable adjustment methods BIB005 BIB003  that eliminate the instrumental variables from covariates.