Search for: All records

The goal of causal mediation analysis, often described within the potential outcomes framework, is to decompose the effect of an exposure on an outcome of interest along different causal pathways. Using the assumption of sequential ignorability to attain non-parametric identification, Imai et al. (2010) proposed a flexible approach to measuring mediation effects, focusing on parametric and semiparametric normal/Bernoulli models for the outcome and mediator. Less attention has been paid to the case where the outcome and/or mediator model are mixed-scale, ordinal, or otherwise fall outside the normal/Bernoulli setting. We develop a simple, but flexible, parametric modeling framework to accommodate the common situation where the responses are mixed continuous and binary, and, apply it to a zero-one inflated beta model for the outcome and mediator. Applying our proposed methods to the publicly-available JOBS II dataset, we (i) argue for the need for non-normal models, (ii) show how to estimate both average and quantile mediation effects for boundary-censored data, and (iii) show how to conduct a meaningful sensitivity analysis by introducing unidentified, scientifically meaningful, sensitivity parameters. 

Abstract Causal inference practitioners have increasingly adopted machine learning techniques with the aim of producing principled uncertainty quantification for causal effects while minimizing the risk of model misspecification. Bayesian nonparametric approaches have attracted attention as well, both for their flexibility and their promise of providing natural uncertainty quantification. Priors on high‐dimensional or nonparametric spaces, however, can often unintentionally encode prior information that is at odds with substantive knowledge in causal inference—specifically, the regularization required for high‐dimensional Bayesian models to work can indirectly imply that the magnitude of the confounding is negligible. In this paper, we explain this problem and provide tools for (i) verifying that the prior distribution does not encode an inductive bias away from confounded models and (ii) verifying that the posterior distribution contains sufficient information to overcome this issue if it exists. We provide a proof‐of‐concept on simulated data from a high‐dimensional probit‐ridge regression model, and illustrate on a Bayesian nonparametric decision tree ensemble applied to a large medical expenditure survey.