Abhinandan Dalal, Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen
arXiv 19 Aug 2025 · Statistics — Methodology
arXiv:2508.13946 · PDF · OpenAlex · Extracted main text
No unmeasured confounding is a common assumption when reasoning about counterfactual outcomes, but such an assumption may not be plausible in observational studies. Sensitivity analysis is often employed to assess the robustness of causal conclusions to unmeasured confounding, but existing methods are predominantly designed for binary treatments. In this paper, we provide natural extensions of two extensively used sensitivity frameworks -- the Rosenbaum and Marginal sensitivity models -- to the setting of continuous exposures. Our generalization replaces scalar sensitivity parameters with sensitivity functions that vary with exposure level, enabling richer modeling and sharper identification bounds. We develop a unified pseudo-outcome regression formulation for bounding the counterfactual dose-response curve under both models, and propose corresponding nonparametric estimators which have second order bias. These estimators accommodate modern machine learning methods for obtaining nuisance parameter estimators, which are shown to achieve $L^2$- consistency, minimax rates of convergence under suitable conditions. Our resulting estimators of bounds for the counterfactual dose-response curve are shown to be consistent and asymptotic normal allowing for a user-specified bound on the degree of uncontrolled exposure endogeneity. We also offer a geometric interpretation that relates the Rosenbaum and Marginal sensitivity model and guides their practical usage in global versus targeted sensitivity analysis. The methods are validated through simulations and a real-data application on the effect of second-hand smoke exposure on blood lead levels in children.
appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 43% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.
The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.
| Reference | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | Main text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yachong Yang, Arun Kumar Kuchibhotla, and Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen (2023) Forster-warmuth counterfactual regression: A unified learning approach self | 1.000 | 5 | 3 | 100% |
| 2 | Edward H Kennedy, Zongming Ma, Matthew D McHugh, and Dylan S Small (2017) Non-parametric methods for doubly robust estimation of continuous treatment effects | 0.928 | 4 | 3 | 100% |
| 3 | Qingyuan Zhao, Dylan S Small, and Bhaswar B Bhattacharya (2019) Sensitivity analysis for inverse probability weighting estimators via the percentile bootstrap | 0.928 | 4 | 3 | 100% |
| 4 | Matteo Bonvini, Edward Kennedy, Valerie Ventura, and Larry Wasserman (2022) Sensitivity analysis for marginal structural models | 0.843 | 4 | 3 | 75% |
| 5 | Andrew Jesson, Alyson Douglas, Peter Manshausen, Maëlys Solal, Nicol… (2022) Scalable sensitivity and uncertainty analyses for causal-effect estimates of continuous-valued interventions | 0.737 | 3 | 3 | 67% |
| 6 | Jacob Dorn and Kevin Guo (2023) Sharp sensitivity analysis for inverse propensity weighting via quantile balancing | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 7 | Steve Yadlowsky, Hongseok Namkoong, Sanjay Basu, John Duchi, and Lu… (2022) Bounds on the conditional and average treatment effect with unobserved confounding factors | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 8 | Kyle Colangelo and Ying-Ying Lee and (2025) Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 9 | Jacob Dorn, Kevin Guo, and Nathan Kallus (2024) Doubly-valid/doubly-sharp sensitivity analysis for causal inference with unmeasured confounding | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 10 | R Tyrrell Rockafellar, Stanislav Uryasev, et al (2000) Optimization of conditional value-at-risk | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
Showing the top 10 of 85 scored citations.
arXiv econ.EM papers that cite this one, ranked by how heavily they lean on it.
| Citing paper | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A sensitivity analysis for the average derivative effect | 0.928 | 5 | 3 |