Quantifying Error in the Presence of Confounders for Causal Inference
  Estimating average causal effect (ACE) is useful whenever we want to know the
effect of an intervention on a given outcome. In the absence of a randomized
experiment, many methods such as stratification and inverse propensity
weighting have been proposed to estimate ACE. However, it is hard to know which
method is optimal for a given dataset or which hyperparameters to use for a
chosen method. To this end, we provide a framework to characterize the loss of
a causal inference method against the true ACE, by framing causal inference as
a representation learning problem. We show that many popular methods, including
back-door methods can be considered as weighting or representation learning
algorithms, and provide general error bounds for their causal estimates. In
addition, we consider the case when unobserved variables can confound the
causal estimate and extend proposed bounds using principles of robust
statistics, considering confounding as contamination under the Huber
contamination model. These bounds are also estimable; as an example, we provide
empirical bounds for the Inverse Propensity Weighting (IPW) estimator and show
how the bounds can be used to optimize the threshold of clipping extreme
propensity scores. Our work provides a new way to reason about competing
estimators, and opens up the potential of deriving new methods by minimizing
the proposed error bounds.
