Causal progress with imperfect placebo treatments and outcomes
Extracted source text · arXiv 2310.15266
\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[total={7.5in, 9.5in}]{geometry}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{
urlcolor = red,
linkcolor = brown,
citecolor = teal
}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{nicefrac}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{pdflscape}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{centernot}
\usepackage{comment}
\usepackage[round]{natbib}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\setenumerate{noitemsep,topsep=0pt,parsep=0pt,partopsep=0pt}
\setitemize{noitemsep,topsep=0pt,parsep=0pt,partopsep=0pt}
\usepackage{afterpage}
\usepackage{tablefootnote}
\usepackage{tabularx,booktabs}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\usepackage{thmtools}
\usepackage{thm-restate}
\usepackage{cleveref}
\declaretheorem[name=Definition]{definition}
\declaretheorem[name=Definition,numberwithin=section]{definition2}
\declaretheorem[name=Lemma,numberwithin=section]{lemma}
\declaretheorem[name=Theorem]{theorem}
\declaretheorem[name=Corollary,numberwithin=section]{corollary}
\declaretheorem[name=Remark,numberwithin=section]{remark}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usetikzlibrary{shapes,decorations,arrows,calc,arrows.meta,fit,positioning}
\tikzset{
-Latex,auto,node distance =1 cm and 1 cm,semithick,
state/.style ={ellipse, draw, minimum width = 0.7 cm},
point/.style = {circle, draw, inner sep=0.04cm,fill,node contents={}},
bidirected/.style={Latex-Latex,dashed},
el/.style = {inner sep=2pt, align=left, sloped}
}
\usepackage{helvet}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\newcommand\indep{\perp\!\!\!\perp}
\title{Causal progress with imperfect placebo treatments and outcomes \\
{\color{red}\textbf{[Draft]}} }
\author{Adam Rohde\thanks{PhD, Department of Statistics, UCLA. Senior Decision Scientist, ZipRecruiter. adamrohde@g.ucla.edu}, Chad Hazlett\footnote{Associate Professor, Departments of Statistics \& Political Science, UCLA. chazlett@ucla.edu}}
\date{October 2023}
\begin{document}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\fancyhead{}
%\fancyhead[RO,LE]{\color{red}\textbf{[DRAFT]}}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
In the quest to make defensible causal claims from observational data, it is sometimes possible to leverage information from “placebo treatments” and “placebo outcomes” (or “negative control outcomes”). Existing approaches employing such information focus largely on point identification and assume (i) ``perfect placebos'', meaning placebo treatments have precisely zero effect on the outcome and the real treatment has precisely zero effect on a placebo outcome; and (ii) ``equiconfounding'', meaning that the treatment-outcome relationship where one is a placebo suffers the same amount of confounding as does the real treatment-outcome relationship, on some scale. We instead consider an omitted variable bias framework, in which users can postulate non-zero effects of placebo treatment on real outcomes or of real treatments on placebo outcomes, and the relative strengths of confounding suffered by a placebo treatment/outcome compared to the true treatment-outcome relationship.
Once postulated, these assumptions identify or bound the linear estimates of treatment effects.
While applicable in many settings, one ubiquitious use-case for this approach is to employ pre-treatment outcomes as (perfect) placebo outcomes. In this setting, the parallel trends assumption of difference-in-difference is in fact a strict equiconfounding assumption on a particular scale, which can be relaxed in our framework. Finally, we demonstrate the use of our framework with two applications, employing an \texttt{R} package that implements these approaches.
\end{abstract}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction}
Unobserved confounding plagues attempts to draw causal inferences from observational data. When we cannot rule out unobserved confounding, we may look to additional sources of information and alternative strategies to help fully or partially identify the range of defensible causal effects. One set of approaches is to seek out observed variables that are ``similar to'' the treatment or outcome, in the form of placebo treatments or placebo outcomes (also known as ``negative control outcomes'' and ``negative control exposures,'' respectively). In broad terms, if these variables are also subject to the problematic confounding, they may offer investigators a way to measure the strength of confounding. If this strength of confounding is assumed to be ``similar'' (in some specified sense) to the confounding suffered by the main treatment-outcome relationship it can be used to guess at and remove the bias in the estimated treatment effect. Existing approaches that operationalize this idea have focused on point identification, and rely on two strict assumptions. First, the placebo treatments/outcomes involved must be ``perfect placebos'', meaning there must be precisely zero effect of the placebo treatment on the real outcome, or real treatment on placebo outcome. Second, these approaches must connect the amount of confounding suffered by the placebo relationship to that in the relationship of interest, typically by assuming they are equal on some scale. We call this the ``equiconfounding'' assumption. As discussed below, such approaches include ``proximal causal inference'' \citep{Miao2020, Tchetgen2020}, which in its original form, requires a perfect placebo treatment, perfect placebo outcome, and a ``bridge function'' assumption that invokes equiconfounding on some transformation. We discuss this and a related recent development with a single proxy variable \citep{Tchetgen2023_single} below. Less obvious but central to our presentation here, classical
difference-in-difference (DID) also employs a perfect placebo (outcome) and equiconfounding, which appears as the parallel trends assumption.
Unfortunately, when seeking to defend causal claims in real world circumstances, these assumptions are often not defensible. While some placebos may be arguably ``perfect'' (such as pre-treatment outcome measures acting as placebo outcomes), for many variables one might use as a placebo outcome or treatment, this is not the case. More problematic still is the equiconfounding assumption. On what basis can investigators hope to argue that unobserved confounders have precisely the same impact on the treatment-outcome relationship as in the relationship with the placebo treatment or outcome?
Is it nevertheless possible to make use of the information that a given variable is a possibly imperfect placebo, and is exposed to some fraction of the confounding that affect the true treatment-outcome relationship? In this paper we examine what progress can be made by sidestepping the two strong assumptions of placebo perfection and equiconfounding, determining how arguments about limited violations of these assumptions lead to defensible ranges of causal claims. Specifically, consider a set of assumptions about (i) the relative confounding felt by the treatment-outcome relationship compared to that in the placebo treatment to real outcome or real treatment to placebo outcome relationship; and (ii) the degree of ``imperfection'' in each placebo. For any range of assumptions on these that can(not) be ruled out by argumentation, there is a set of effect estimates that consequently can(not) be ruled out as possible.
This approach simply and mechanically shows the consequence of whatever assumption one would be willing to pose regarding these placebo relationships. One can expect relatively uninformative results when little is known about the extent to which these assumptions are violated, whereas the approach will be more informative to the degree that investigators are better able to defend narrower assumptions about the degree of placebo imperfection or the relative strength of confounding.
In what follows, we begin by discussing causal structures in general that involve placebo treatments and outcomes, including cases where these labels become ambiguous. Our treatment employs linear models in an omitted variable bias framework. We focus first on a single placebo outcome, then show the corresponding analysis for placebo treatments.\footnote{We reserve our analysis of ``double placebos''---cases with a placebo treatment and outcome---for the appendix, noting that this relates most closely to developments under the heading of proximal causal inference.}
We give special attention to the connection of this approach to DID, where (i) the pre-treatment outcome is a (perfect) placebo outcome, and (ii) the parallel trends assumption is a sharp equiconfounding assumption on the additive scale. This relationship is clarifying, but also demonstrates the applicability of our approach as a relaxation of DID that readily enables investigators to examine the credible causal interval obtained over a set of assumptions that would be strictly more defensible than those of conventional DID.
Finally, we provide two applications. First, we look to observational data designed to examine the impact of the National Supported Work Demonstration, a job training program in the 1970s. A pre-treatment measure of pariticpants' income serves as a (perfect) placebo outcome. Assumptions are then required on how strongly pre-treatment income is confounded with treatment status, compared to how strongly subsequent income is confounded with treatment status. Under arguably defensible assumptions, the resulting range of estimates is informative and includes the benchmark value obtained from a randomized trial with the same treatment group. Second, we show that for a likely range of relative levels of confounding, the Zika virus decreased birth rates in Brazil in 2016, using 2014 birth rates as a placebo outcome. We conduct these analyses using the \texttt{placeboLM} package for \texttt{R}. Vignettes for this package (will eventually!) include examples with imperfect placebos, placebo outcomes other than pre-treatment outcomes, and placebo treatments.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Leveraging placebos in linear models}
\label{proposal}
\subsection{Causal structures of interest}
Placebo treatments and outcomes, perfect or imperfect, are defined by the role they play in some causal model. We employ directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) \citep{Pearl1995} to commnunicate these roles. Figure \ref{f_simple_dags} shows simple structures with ``perfect'' placebo treatments ($P$) and placebo outcomes ($N$). It is notable that placebo treatments and outcomes can look very similar in their causal role; indeed Figure \ref{f_simple_dags}(a) and (b) are mirror images, replacing the role of $P$ with $N$.
We explore such ambiguities in the context of a broader set of cases provided in Section ~\ref{taxonomy}.
To call a placebo ``imperfect'' is to allow for an additional causal effect, and so always implies an additional edge in the causal structure. For example, Figure~\ref{f_simple_dags}(c) adds the $D \to N$ edge to Figure \ref{f_simple_dags}(a), while Figure~\ref{f_simple_dags}(d) adds the $P\to Y$ edge to Figure \ref{f_simple_dags}(b).
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{f_simple_dags} Simple DAGs with a placebo outcome, $N$, and with a placebo treatment, $P$. $D$ is treatment, $Y$ is outcome, $\mathbf{Z}$ contains unobserved confounders, and $\mathbf{X}$ contains observed covariates.}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (0) at (1.5,3) {(a)};
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (2,0) {$Y$};
\node (N) at (2,1) {$N$};
\node (Z) at (0,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\node[gray] (X) at (3,1) {$\mathbf{X}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (N);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=270,in=310] (D);
\path[gray] (X) edge (Y);
\path[gray] (X) edge (N);
\path[gray,bidirected] (X) edge[bend right=40] (Z);
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{1cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (0) at (1.5,3) {(b)};
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (2,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (0,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\node[gray] (X) at (-1,1) {$\mathbf{X}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=270,in=230] (Y);
\path[gray] (X) edge (D);
\path[gray] (X) edge (P);
\path[gray,bidirected] (X) edge[bend left=40] (Z);
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{1cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (0) at (1.5,3) {(c)};
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (2,0) {$Y$};
\node (N) at (2,1) {$N$};
\node (Z) at (0,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\node[gray] (X) at (3,1) {$\mathbf{X}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (N);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=270,in=310] (D);
\path[gray] (X) edge (Y);
\path[gray] (X) edge (N);
\path[gray,bidirected] (X) edge[bend right=40] (Z);
\path (D) edge (N);
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{1cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (0) at (1.5,3) {(d)};
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (2,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (0,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\node[gray] (X) at (-1,1) {$\mathbf{X}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=270,in=230] (Y);
\path[gray] (X) edge (D);
\path[gray] (X) edge (P);
\path[gray,bidirected] (X) edge[bend left=40] (Z);
\path (P) edge (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{An omitted variable bias approach to placebos: Placebo outcomes}
\label{proposal_po}
Our proposed framework is a product of the omitted variable bias analysis of linear models (e.g. \citealp{angrist_mostly_2008,CinelliHazlett2020,hansen2022}), extended to make use of assumptions involving placebo treatments or outcomes.\footnote{We also consider relaxations to this parametric approach in Appendix \ref{PLandNPAppendix}, in which we illustrate similar methods adapted to partially linear and non-parametric estimation of treatment effects.}
In this analysis we begin by discussing placebo outcomes, and build on this in the subsequent analysis of placebo treatments and of ``double placebos'' in the appendix.
Suppose that we want to estimate the ``long'' regression of $Y$ on $D,\mathbf{X}$, and $\mathbf{Z}$ in Equation \ref{e_long_reg_outcome_y}. In particular, we are interested in the coefficient $\beta_{Y\sim D | Z,X}$ as a linear approximation to the causal effect of $D$ on $Y$. $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Z}$ are vectors of covariates.\footnote{Note that in this section and others, we will refer to including $\mathbf{Z}$ in the long regression as ``de-confounding''. Readers should recognize that, in reality, we are only partialling out the linear relationships with $\mathbf{Z}$. This is, therefore, a linear approximation to full non-parametric elimination of confounding from $\mathbf{Z}$. On the other hand, $\mathbf{Z}$ can be assumed to contain arbitrary functions of the relevant variables, making this very flexible for de-confounding.}
\begin{equation} \label{e_long_reg_outcome_y}
\begin{aligned}
Y &= \beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X} D + \mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D,Z} + \mathbf{Z}\beta_{Y \sim Z|D,X} + \epsilon_l
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In reality, however, the variables $\mathbf{Z}$ are not observed, and henceforth are referred to as ``unobserved confounders''. We are restricted to estimating the ``short'' regression of $Y$ on $D$ and $\mathbf{X}$ in Equation \ref{e_short_reg_outcome_y}.
\begin{equation} \label{e_short_reg_outcome_y}
\begin{aligned}
Y &= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} D + \mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D} + \epsilon_s
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The difference between $\beta_{Y\sim D | X}$ and $\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}$ is referred to as omitted variable bias, which we label $\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}$,
\begin{equation} \label{e_bias_y_trad_ovb}
\begin{aligned}
%\widehat{\text{bias}_Y} &= \hat
\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}
\overset{\Delta}{=}
\beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
%{\color{cyan}= \beta_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}|D,X}\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}\sim D|X}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent Note that for any given sample and estimate, there would be a particular difference between the estimate obtained from the short regression and the long regression, $\widehat{\text{bias}}_{\text{(YD.X)}}$, representing the difference between what we get in reality and what we would have gotten if $\mathbf{Z}$ was available.
To incorporate placebo related information, suppose (momentarily) the investigator argues that the relationship between the treatment and a placebo outcome (the $D\to N$ relationship) suffers from a similar level of unobserved confounding as does the relationship between treatment and real outcome (the $D\to Y$ relationship). Now consider the ``long'' regression of $N$ on $D$, $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{Z}$ (Equation~\ref{e_long_reg_outcome_n}), and the short regression of $N$ on just $\mathbf{X}$ and $D$ (Equation~\ref{e_short_reg_outcome_n}). Note that we can consider $\mathbf{Z}$ to be a rich enough set of variables to de-confound both the $D\to Y$ and the $D\to N$ relationships.
As with $Y$, we are only able to consider estimating the short regression for $N$, as $\mathbf{Z}$ is unobserved. Here too the difference between $\beta_{N\sim D | X}$ and $\beta_{N\sim D| Z, X}$ is omitted variable bias, labelled $\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}$.
\begin{equation} \label{e_long_reg_outcome_n}
\begin{aligned}
N &= \beta_{N\sim D| Z, X} D + \mathbf{X}\beta_{N \sim X| D,Z} + \mathbf{Z}\beta_{N \sim Z|D,X} + \xi_l
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{e_short_reg_outcome_n}
\begin{aligned}
N &= \beta_{N\sim D | X} D + \mathbf{X}\beta_{N \sim X| D} + \xi_s
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{e_bias_n_trad_ovb}
\begin{aligned}
\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}
\overset{\Delta}{=}
\beta_{N\sim D | X} - \beta_{N\sim D| Z, X}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In the simple case where one assumes $N$ is a perfect placebo outcome, $\beta_{N \sim D|Z,X} = 0$, so $\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}$ is revealed by the observed $\beta_{N \sim D|X}$. The key maneuver is to then rewrite the bias we are worried about ($\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}$) as it relates to the bias in the placebo relationship we can, under these assumptions, observe ($\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}$). A first way to do so is simply to define $m \in \mathbb{R}$ such that:
\begin{align}
\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}} = m \times \text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}
\end{align}
\noindent Plugging this in allows us to solve for $\beta_{Y \sim D|X,Z}$ as simply the naive estimate ($\beta_{Y\sim D | X}$), minus $m$ times $\beta_{N\sim D | X}$. More generally, allowing an imperfect placebo and thus $\beta_{N \sim D|Z,X} \neq 0$, we have
\begin{align}
\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}
&= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X} \\
&= m \times \left(\beta_{N\sim D | X} - \beta_{N\sim D| Z, X} \right) \\
\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X} &= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - m \times \left(\beta_{N\sim D | X} - \beta_{N\sim D| Z, X} \right) \label{e_revised_estimate_y_trad_ovb_reexpress}
\end{align}
Equation \ref{e_revised_estimate_y_trad_ovb_reexpress} provides all we need for partial identification of $\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}$. Sample estimates of $\beta_{Y \sim D|X}$ and $\beta_{N \sim D |X}$ are provided by the data, while the remaining terms ($m$ and $\beta_{N\sim D|Z,X}$) parameterize assumptions from outside the data, and can be postulated for purposes of partial identification or sensitivity analysis. Specifically, the value of $\beta_{N\sim D|Z,X}$ relates to violations of placebo perfection; i.e. the $D \to N$ path in Figure \ref{f_simple_dags}(c). The value of $m$ parameterizes ``relative confounding'', comparing the strength of the $D\leftarrow Z \to Y$ relationship to the $D\leftarrow Z \to N$ relationship in Figure \ref{f_simple_dags}(a). This comparison thus comes down to $Z \to Y$ versus $Z \to N$.
Only one special case assumes that (i) the placebo outcome $N$ is ``perfect'' and so $\beta_{N\sim D|Z,X}$ is zero; and (ii) $m=1$, meaning ``equiconfounding'' on the coeficient scale is assumed. As examined below, this corresponds to classical DID (wherein $N$ would typically represent a pre-treatment measure of the outcome). Outside of this narrow case, some range of $m$ values may need to be tested based on what the researcher can plausibly defend.
%%%%
\paragraph{Re-expressing $m$.}
\label{section_rexpress_bias_y}
One important concern with the parameterization above is that $N$ and $Y$ may be dissimilar enough in conception or measurement that we do not understand them to be on the same scale. This complicates the interpretation of $m$, which is sensitive to any scale differences between $N$ and $Y$.
A similar problem arises in sensitivitiy analysis with omitted variables on the ``coefficient'' scale \citep{CinelliHazlett2020}, and we propose a similar solution: reparameterization in terms of ``(partial) variance explained'', i.e. partial-correlation parameters. Specifically,\footnote{In Equations \ref{e_po_sensemakr_reparam}, \ref{e_m_to_k}, and \ref{e_po_k_defn}, $Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}} = \mathbf{Z}\beta_{Y \sim Z|D,X}$ is the linear combination of $\mathbf{Z}$ that ``de-confounds'' the $D\to Y$ relationship in the same way that including $\mathbf{Z}$ in Equation \ref{e_long_reg_outcome_y} does. Similarly, $Z_{\text{(N.DX)}} = \mathbf{Z}\beta_{N \sim Z|D,X}$ is the linear combination of $\mathbf{Z}$ that ``de-confounds'' the $D\to N$ relationship in the same way that including $\mathbf{Z}$ in Equation \ref{e_long_reg_outcome_n} does.}
\begin{equation} \label{e_po_sensemakr_reparam}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
= R_{Y \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}|X}
(\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})/\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})) \\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}
= \beta_{N\sim D | X} - \beta_{N\sim D| Z , X}
= R_{N \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(N.DX)}} |X}
(\text{SD}(N^{\perp D,X})/\text{SD}(D^{\perp X}))
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{e_m_to_k}
\begin{aligned}
m
= \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}}}
= \frac{R_{Y \sim Z | D,X}f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}|X}}{R_{N \sim Z | D,X}f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(N.DX)}}|X}} \times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(N^{\perp D,X})}
= k \times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(N^{\perp D,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent In this arrangement, $k$ is defined as
\begin{equation} \label{e_po_k_defn}
k\overset{\Delta}{=} \frac{R_{Y \sim Z | D,X}f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}|X}}{R_{N \sim Z | D,X}f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(N.DX)}}|X}}
\end{equation}
\noindent The first ratio, $\frac{R_{Y \sim Z | D,X}}{R_{N \sim Z | D,X}}$, is naturally interpretable, as it is the ratio of partial correlations of $Z$ with $Y$ compared to $Z$ with $N$ (both after partialing out $D$ and $X$). This interpretation of $k$ is complicated by the ratio $\frac{f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}|X}}{f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(N.DX)}}|X}}$. In the case of a single $Z$, this is unproblematic as it equals 1. In the more general case, it poses a greater nuisance as the $Z$ variables may combine differently in a model predicting $N$ as compared to one predicting $Y$. In this case, a more practical interpretation is given by noting
\begin{equation} \label{e_po_k_defn2}
k = \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}}}\times \frac{1}{\text{SF}}= \frac{m}{SF} \text{, where $\text{SF} = \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(N^{\perp D,X})}$} \\
\end{equation}
Equation \ref{e_po_k_defn2} provides an expression for $k$ in terms of $m$
and a ``scale factor'', $SF$, that makes up for scale differences between $Y$ and $N$, after removing the influence of $D$ and $X$.
Using $k$ rather than $m$, the bias and adjusted coefficient can simply be rewritten as
\begin{equation} \label{e_bias_po}
\begin{aligned}
\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}
= k \times \left(\beta_{N\sim D | X} - \beta_{N\sim D| Z, X} \right) \times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(N^{\perp D,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{e_revised_estimate_po}
\begin{aligned}
\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X} &= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - k \times \left(\beta_{N\sim D | X} - \beta_{N\sim D| Z, X} \right) \times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(N^{\perp D,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Estimator and partial identification.} Equation \ref{e_revised_estimate_po} provides us with a moment estimator for $\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}$ in Equation \ref{e_po_estimator}.
\begin{equation} \label{e_po_estimator}
\begin{aligned}
\hat\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
&= \hat\beta_{Y\sim D | X} - k \times \left(\hat\beta_{N\sim D | X} - \beta_{N\sim D| Z, X} \right) \times \frac{\|Y^{\perp D,X}\|_2}{\|N^{\perp D,X}\|_2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Given $k$ and $\beta_{N\sim D| Z, X}$, the estimator $\hat\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}$ from Equation \ref{e_po_estimator} is consistent for $\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}$ and asymptotically normal. We will discuss estimating standard errors below. Using Equation \ref{e_po_estimator} in a partial identification framework, we can reason about plausible ranges of values for $\beta_{N\sim D| Z, X}$ and $k$ to arrive at a range for plausible estimates of $\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}$.
In this way, we can partially identify $\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}$ subject to any particular assumption about $k$ (or $m$) and $\beta_{N\sim D| Z, X}$. We imagine two main modes of inference or use-cases. The first approach is ``postulative partial identification'': one first reasons about the imperfection in the placebo, i.e. decide how far $\beta_{N\sim D| Z, X}$ may reasonably be from zero. Then, one considers $k$, the ratio of confounding strengths experienced by $D\to N$ versus $D\to Y$. For any plausible range that can be put on these values, adjusted coefficients for $\hat\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}$ can be computed. The alternative approach, more akin to sensitivity analysis, is to invert this process: Determine what must be assumed about these parameters in order to reach a particular conclusion or set of conclusions that are of substantive interest. Investigators can then question whether the required values of these parameters are defensible.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Placebo treatments}
\label{proposal_pt}
Similar machinery can leverage imperfect placebo treatments rather than imperfect placebo outcomes. Suppose that we want to run the long regression for $Y$ on $D$ (Equation \ref{e_long_reg_outcome_y}) but, again, $\mathbf{Z}$ is an unobserved vector of variables that we would have liked to include in the regression but cannot. Suppose also that we have a placebo treatment, $P$, for which we believe the confounding of $P$ and $Y$ from $\mathbf{Z}$ can be compared to the confounding of $D$ and $Y$ from $\mathbf{Z}$.
We might consider running two separate regressions as we did for placebo outcomes. However, that approach is not easily adapted to imperfect placebo treatments, where there may be a direct relationship between $P$ and $Y$.\footnote{Suppose we have a causal model like Figure \ref{f_simple_dags}(d). $\beta_{Y \sim Z|P,X}$ (or $R_{Y \sim Z|P,X}$) will capture the causal relationship $D\to Y$, since the path $Z\to D \to Y$ will remain open conditional on $P$ and $X$ alone. Expressing the bias in the regression coefficient on $D$ from the short regression using a two regression approach like we used for placebo outcomes would, therefore, require us to reason about the causal effect of interest itself, which is not useful.}
Instead, suppose that $P$ is not a descendant of $D$, $D$ is not a descendant of $P$, $P$ is a good or neutral control for the effect of $D$ on $Y$, and $P$ is a good or neutral control for $D$ on $Y$, conditional on $Z$ and $X$.\footnote{We require that $D$ and $P$ are good or neutral controls for each other in that they do not increase the bias in our estimate of the coefficient we are targeting ($\beta_{Y\sim D|X,Z}$).
This will simplify interpretation. If a user is concerned that there could be a path opened or closed by conditioning on $D$ or $P$, we suggest drawing the DAG to check. See Section \ref{taxonomy} for further discussion.}
Further, suppose that we want to run the ``long'' regression of $Y$ on $D,P,\mathbf{X}$, and $\mathbf{Z}$ in Equation \ref{e_long_reg_treatment_y_mt}. In particular, we are interested in the coefficient $\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}$. However, since $\mathbf{Z}$ is unobserved, we must run the ``short'' regression of $Y$ on $D,P$ and $\mathbf{X}$ in Equation \ref{e_short_reg_treatment_y_mt}, rather than the desired long regression.
\begin{equation} \label{e_long_reg_treatment_y_mt}
\begin{aligned}
Y &= \beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X} D + \beta_{Y\sim P| D, Z, X} P + \mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D,P,Z} + \mathbf{Z}\beta_{Y \sim Z|D,P,X} + \epsilon_l
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{e_short_reg_treatment_y_mt}
\begin{aligned}
Y &= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} D + \beta_{Y\sim P| D, X} P + \mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D,P} + \epsilon_s
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Following a similar approach as we took for placebo outcomes, we can arrive at similar partial identification expressions for the placebo treatment case,
\begin{equation} \label{e_bias_pt_mt}
\begin{aligned}
\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}} \overset{\Delta}{=} \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
= k \times \left(\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}\right) \times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{e_revised_estimate_pt_mt}
\begin{aligned}
\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - k \times \left(\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}\right) \times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
All components of these expressions except for $k \overset{\Delta}{=} \frac{R_{Y\sim Z|D,P,X}f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|P,X}}{R_{Y\sim Z|D,P,X}f_{P\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,X}} = \frac{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}}{\text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}}\times \text{SF}}$
and $\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}$ can be estimated from the data. $\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}$ captures any direct causal relationship between $P$ and $Y$.
Since both $P$ and $Y$ are observed variables, their relationship conditional on $D,Z,X$ should be able to be specified as the regression coefficient $\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}$ despite scale considerations.
As with placebo outcomes, $k$ captures the relative levels of confounding. Note that we can compare the level of confounding of the $P\to Y$ relationship from $\mathbf{Z}$ to the level of confounding of the $D\to Y$ relationship from $\mathbf{Z}$ by using the same linear combination, $Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}} = \mathbf{Z}\beta_{Y \sim Z|D,P,X}$. This is because in the placebo treatment approach we run a single regression with $Y$ as the outcome that includes both $D$ and $P$ on the right-hand side.
We assume that $\mathbf{Z}$ contains a rich enough set of unobserved variables to de-confound both $P\to Y$ and $D\to Y$.
$k$ is the ratio of the level of total confounding of $D\to Y$ from $D\leftarrow Z \to Y$ to the level of total confounding of $P\to Y$ from $P\leftarrow Z \to Y$, after re-scaling one of these biases to account for scale differences between $P$ and $D$.\footnote{Note that we do not cancel terms in $k = \frac{R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|P,X}}{R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{P\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,X}}$ since this would force us to reason about how $f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|P,X}$ differs from $f_{D\sim \mathbf{Z}|P,X}$ and how $f_{P\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,X}$ differs from $f_{P\sim \mathbf{Z}|D,X}$. It is more intuitive to reason about relative levels of bias, which does not require us to directly consider those differences.}
We can again use this for ``postulatory'' partial identification by considering plausible ranges of values for $k$ and $\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}$, or as sensitivity analysis by inverting the analysis to determine what values of $k$ and $\beta_{Y \sim P|D,Z,X}$ would have to be defended in order to defend a given substantive conclusion.
\paragraph{Estimator and partial identification} Equation \ref{e_revised_estimate_pt_mt} provides us with a moment estimator for $\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}$ in Equation \ref{e_pt_estimator_mt}.\footnote{It is also possible to show that
$\frac{\widehat{\text{SD}}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\widehat{\text{SD}}(D^{\perp P,X})}
= \frac{\widehat{\text{SD}}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\widehat{\text{SD}}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\widehat{\text{SD}}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\widehat{\text{SD}}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}
=\frac{\text{se}(\hat\beta_{Y\sim D|P,X})}{\text{se}(\hat\beta_{Y\sim P|D,X})} \times \sqrt{\frac{\text{df}_D }{\text{df}_P }}$, which is an expression containing only commonly reported regression summary statistics from the short regression that is estimable from the observed data.
$\text{se}(\hat\beta_{Y\sim D|P,X})$ and $\text{se}(\hat\beta_{Y\sim P|D,X})$ are the estimated standard errors from standard regression estimation of the short regression. $\text{df}_Y$ and $\text{df}_N$ are the degrees of freedom from the estimated short regression, these will be equal in this case.}
\begin{equation} \label{e_pt_estimator_mt}
\begin{aligned}
\hat\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
= \hat\beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - k \times \left(\hat\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}\right) \times
\frac{\|P^{\perp D,X}\|_2}{\|D^{\perp P,X}\|_2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Given $k$ and $\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}$, the estimator $\hat\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}$ from Equation \ref{e_pt_estimator_mt} is consistent for $\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}$ and asymptotically normal. We discuss computing standard errors below. Using Equation \ref{e_pt_estimator_mt} in a partial identification framework, we can reason about plausible ranges of values for $\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}$ and $k$ to arrive at a range of plausible estimates of $\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}$.
In the special case when there is only a single omitted variable, then $k$ can also be written as $k = \frac{f_{D\sim Z|P,X}}{f_{P\sim Z|D,X}}$. This can be thought of as comparing the strength of the $Z\to D$ ``arm'' of the confounding path $D\leftarrow Z \to Y$ to the relative strength of the $Z\to P$ ``arm'' of the confounding path $P\leftarrow Z \to Y$ in Figure \ref{f_simple_dags}(b).
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\paragraph{Statistical inference.}
\label{standard_errors}For fixed values for the partial identification parameters, the moment estimators in Equations \ref{e_po_estimator}, and \ref{e_pt_estimator_mt} are consistent for the target regression coefficient on the treatment from the ``long'' regression and are asymptotically normal. Non-parametric bootstrap can be used to estimate standard errors.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Varieties of (single) placebos}
\label{taxonomy}
The approaches presented above are properties of linear regression, and apply to any (pair of) regression(s). However, an assumed causal structure (embodied by a graph) is necessary to link the estimates to causal quantities of interest. While Figure~\ref{f_simple_dags} represents four graphs in which a placebo variable can be considered a placebo outcome or treatment, there are additional cases representing placebos as mediators, observed confounders, or post-outcome variables. Tables~\ref{taxonomy_table1} and ~\ref{taxonomy_table2} illustrate 8 different causal structure with a single placebo variable in different positions, inclusive of those in Figure~\ref{f_simple_dags}. We assume that all relevant unobserved common causes are bundled into the vector of unobserved variables $\mathbf{Z}$; and we refer to the placebo as $P$ in every case as the $P$ versus $N$ distinction is not always appropriate or clear.\footnote{Observed covariates $\mathbf{X}$ are omitted from the graphs for clarity.} These tables detail the specific regressions one would run and adjustment one would make for partial identification purposes in each case. In some causal structures, a given placebo variable can be understood to have different roles, allowing it to be handled in more than one way. In such a case, we can partially identify effects in more than one way by employing different types of assumptions. Different assumptions can lead to different conclusions. When ranges of assumed plausible values for parameters include the truth, different approaches will lead to similar conclusions.
Consider Table \ref{taxonomy_table1}[c]. The causal structure includes the edge $P\to Y$. There are two options for how we might approach this setting. First, we might consider $P$ to be an \textit{imperfect} placebo treatment. The machinery that we detailed above (and outlined in the entry for Table \ref{taxonomy_table1}[a] - Placebo Treatment) is all we need. Second, we might consider $P$ to be a placebo outcome. Suppose we simply applied the placebo outcome approach we've already seen. In this case, $\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}$, the numerator of $k$, will capture both $D\leftarrow Z \to Y$ and $D\leftarrow Z \to P \to Y$, while $\text{bias}_{\text{(PD.X)}}$, the denominator of $k$, will capture $D\leftarrow Z\to P$. $D\leftarrow Z\to P$ appears in both the numerator and denominator of $k$, making the parameter more difficult to interpret. The solution is simple: include $P$ in the regression where $Y$ is the outcome. We see that the ``Short Regressions'' column of the table shows this update. $P$ plays a role like an observed confounder: Controlling for it blocks a non-causal path between $D$ and $Y$. In Appendix \ref{SPDs}, we derive the expression for $\beta_{Y\sim D|P,Z,X}$ that we see in the ``Target Coefficient Expression'' column. This contains two coefficients from the short regressions and a scale factor that are all estimable from observed data (i.e., data on $Y,D,P,X$). It also contains a $k$ parameter that compares the level of unobserved confounding from $D\leftarrow Z \to Y$ (i.e., $\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}$) to that from $D\leftarrow Z\to P$ (i.e., $\text{bias}_{\text{(PD.X)}}$), after accounting for scale differences, and an imperfect placebo parameter capturing the direct causal relationship between $D$ and $P$, which in this graph is zero. These are listed in the ``Parameters'' column. The remaining entries in Tables \ref{taxonomy_table1} and \ref{taxonomy_table2} can be read similarly. When the causal structure is that of a mediator (i.e., there exists a path $D\to P\to Y$ in addition to $D\to Y$), the placebo approach becomes very complicated, and we do not recommend our approach.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Difference in difference as a special case}
\label{section_DID}
In this section, we illustrate how traditional DID can be seen as a special case of the placebo outcome approach laid out above. We start by considering difference in \textit{means} (DIM) decompositions for binary treatments. For an outcome $Y$ and binary treatment where the treated group is indicated by $G$,
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_att_decomp_y}
\begin{aligned}
\text{DIM}_Y
&= \mathbb{E}[Y|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[Y|G=0]
= \mathbb{E}[Y_1|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0] \\
&= \underbrace{\mathbb{E}[Y_1|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1]}_{\text{ATT}_Y} + \underbrace{\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0]}_{\text{Bias}_Y} %\\
%&= \text{ATT}_Y + \text{Bias}_Y \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent Similarly, for a placebo outcome $N$,
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_att_decomp_n}
\begin{aligned}
\text{DIM}_N
&= \mathbb{E}[N|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N|G=0]
= \mathbb{E}[Y_1|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0] \\
&= \underbrace{\mathbb{E}[N_1|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N_0|G=1]}_{\text{ATT}_N} + \underbrace{\mathbb{E}[N_0|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N_0|G=0]}_{\text{Bias}_N} %\\
%&= \text{ATT}_N + \text{Bias}_N \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent With these in hand, it is easy to see that there exists an $m\in \mathbb{R}$ such that we can obtain the expression for $\text{ATT}_Y$,
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_att_expression}
\begin{aligned}
\text{ATT}_Y
&= \text{DIM}_Y - \text{Bias}_Y \\
&= \text{DIM}_Y - m \times \text{Bias}_N \\
&= \text{DIM}_Y - m \times (\text{DIM}_N - \text{ATT}_N), \text{ where } m = \frac{\text{Bias}_Y}{\text{Bias}_N}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
But how does this expression for $\text{ATT}_Y$ relate to the traditional DID identification strategy? DID identifies $\text{ATT}_Y = \text{DIM}_Y - \text{DIM}_N$ by making two assumptions. First, we must assume that $\text{ATT}_N = 0$. That is, we have a perfect placebo outcome. In DID, the placebo outcome is typically a pre-treatment version of the outcome, meaning that the treatment cannot have a causal effect on the placebo outcome. Thus, this first assumption may be satisfied by design.
The second identifying assumption required by DID is ``parallel trends'', which requires that the expected overtime change in non-treatment outcome in the treated group and control group are identical. It is easy to show that the parallel trends assumption is equivalent to an assumption of equiconfounding ($m=1$) (Equation \ref{e_did_pt_is_ec_2}; \cite{Sofer2016}).
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_pt_is_ec_2}
\begin{aligned}
\text{Parallel Trends} \overset{\Delta}{=}
\underbrace{\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N_0|G=1]}_{\text{Trend}_{G=1}} &= \underbrace{\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0] - \mathbb{E}[N_0|G=0]}_{\text{Trend}_{G=0}} \\
\iff
\underbrace{\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0]}_{\text{Bias}_Y} &= \underbrace{\mathbb{E}[N_0|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N_0|G=0]}_{\text{Bias}_N}
\overset{\Delta}{=} \text{equiconfounding}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
To connect this with the approach above: Since $G$ is binary, a regression of $Y$ (or $N$) on $G$ will give the difference in means $\text{DIM}_Y$ (or $\text{DIM}_N$), respectively, as the coefficient on $G$. Under the standard DID assumptions, we would have $\text{ATT}_Y = \beta_{Y\sim G}- \beta_{N\sim G}$. To relax parallel trends/ equiconfounding, using omitted variable bias, we instead consider
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_NP_to_P_connection_y}
\begin{aligned}
\text{ATT}_Y + \text{Bias}_Y = \text{DIM}_Y = \beta_{Y\sim G} = \beta_{Y\sim G|Z} + \text{Bias}_{Y,\text{reg.}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_NP_to_P_connection_n}
\begin{aligned}
\text{ATT}_N + \text{Bias}_N = \text{DIM}_N = \beta_{N\sim G} = \beta_{N\sim G|Z} + \text{Bias}_{N,\text{reg.}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\mathbf{Z}$ contains all the remaining confounders of the $G,Y$ and $G,N$ relationships. Under assumptions of effect homogeneity, or using OLS regression as an approximation, we have that $\text{ATT}_Y = \beta_{Y\sim G|Z}$, which means that $\text{Bias}_Y = \text{Bias}_{Y,\text{reg.}}$. Similarly, $\text{ATT}_N = \beta_{N\sim G|Z}$, which means that $\text{Bias}_N = \text{Bias}_{N,\text{reg.}}$.
Plugging into the expression for $\text{ATT}_Y$, we get Equation \ref{e_did_reg_id}, where $m$ is the ratio of biases for the regression coefficients.
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_reg_id}
\begin{aligned}
\text{ATT}_Y
&= \beta_{Y\sim G} - m\times (\beta_{N\sim G} - \beta_{N\sim G|Z})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
As in previous sections, we could re-express $m$ to account for scale differences. For a discussion of how assumptions on $m$ correspond to assumptions on differential trends, see Appendix~\ref{app_m_to_w}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Examples}
[Note: As a draft, both of these examples are of placebo outcomes and look like the DID-relaxing situation; in the future we would like to swap one of these for a different sort of example.]
\subsection{National Supported Work Demonstration}
The National Supported Work Demonstration (NSW) was a job training program. From 1975 to 1979, it aimed to help disadvantaged workers build basic skills. The program randomly assigned participants to training positions. These consisted of a group that received the benefits of the program (the treatment group) and a group that did not receive any benefits (the control group) \citep{LaLonde1986}. The data also include a non-experimental dataset in which individuals not from the NSW program but from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) are added as additional control units. The data that we work with is ``a subset that consists of males with three (2 pre-training and 1 post-training) years of earnings data (the outcome of interest). This subset has been considered in (Dehejia and Wahba 1999; Smith and Todd 2005; Firpo 2007)'' \citep{Callaway2019}.\footnote{Data can be found in the \texttt{qte} package (in \texttt{R}) by running the command \texttt{data(lalonde,package = "qte")}} We use the non-experimental dataset (\texttt{lalonde.psid}) to illustrate the methods discussed in this paper and then compare these results with the estimates from the experimental data (called \texttt{lalonde.exp}).\footnote{Since this data includes a randomized experiment, we can also estimate the effect using the experimental data to get an unbiased estimate of the true treatment effect. This experimental estimate can be used to back out the true value for $k$, assuming that $\beta_{N\sim D| Z, X}=0$.} The difference in means estimate of the treatment effect from the experimental data is 1,795.55 USD higher 1978 earnings in dollars for the treated group relative to the control group. The estimate is 1,693.12 USD when we control for observed covariates.
We use 1974 earnings (\verb+re74+) as a placebo outcome for 1978 earnings (\verb+re78+). The treatment (\verb+treat+) is experiencing the job training program. We also use the set of covariates ($X$) in the data including age, education (years and degree or not), marital status, and demographic indicators. We recognize that there are unobserved covariates ($Z$) that we wish we could condition on but cannot. Ideally, we would like to estimate the regression \verb|lm(re78 ~ treat + X + Z)|.
Due to the unobserved confounders, we will not be able to point identify the coefficient on \verb+treat+ from this ``long'' regression. Instead, we partially identify $\beta_{Y\sim D| X,Z}$ with the approach proposed above, and leverage information on 1974 earnings as a placebo outcome.
Since the placebo outcome is pre-treatment earnings, it is reasonable to assume that the treatment has no causal effect on the the placebo outcome. Therefore, we consider the perfect placebo assumption, $\beta_{P\sim D| Z, X}=0$, plausible here.\footnote{We perform these analyses using the \texttt{placeboLM}
package the authors built for this purpose, currently under development. It can be installed via \texttt{devtools::install\_github("Adam-Rohde/placeboLM")}.}
This package can be used in a manner reminiscent of the \verb+lm()+ function in \verb+R+. Arguments to the \verb+placeboLM+ function include the dataset, the outcome variable, the treatment variable, the placebo variable (and whether we want to think of it as a placebo outcome or treatment), the direction or presence of the edge from the treatment ($D$) to the placebo ($P$), the direction or presence of the edge from the placebo ($P$) to the outcome ($Y$), the observed covariates, and finally the ranges of the partial identification parameters that we want to consider or potentially defend. The first partial identification parameter is $k$, which captures the ratio of the level of confounding of $D$ and $Y$, conditional on $P$, to the level of confounding of $D$ and $P$, after accounting for scale differences. We can think of this as the $D,Y$ confounding as a percentage of the $D,P$ confounding, where scale differences between $P$ and $Y$ have been accounted for. The second partial identification parameter is $\beta_{P\sim D| Z, X}$ (coded as \verb+coef_P_D_given_XZ+) which captures the direct causal relationship between $D$ and $P$ and we already noted should be zero in this case. For this example, we set the partial identification parameter ranges to be conservative and assume that the placebo (1974 earnings) can also directly cause the outcome (1978 earnings).
\begin{Verbatim}[frame=single]
placeblm.out = placeboLM(
data = "lalonde.psid",
outcome = "re78",
treatment = "treat",
placebo_outcome = "re74",
observed_covariates = c("age", "education", "black", "hispanic", "married", "nodegree"),
partialIDparam_minmax = list(k = c(-2,2), coef_P_D_given_XZ = c(-15000,15000)) )
\end{Verbatim}
One way to examine the results is to produce a table like Table~\ref{t_lalonde}, in which each row corresponds to an assumption, such as the selection on observatblaes (SOO) assumption (i.e. no unobserved confounding), standard DID, or DID on the $k$-scale, with $k=1$.
Another way to view the result is on a contour plot, showing how the adjusted estimate would vary across values of $k$ and $\beta_{P\sim D | X,Z}$, shown in Figure~\ref{f_NSW_contour}. Finally, a third useful way to examine the results is with a line plot of the estimates as we vary one of the two partial identification parameters. We can specify percentiles of the other partial identification parameter and have a line plot generated for each. Since we believe $\beta_{P \sim D |X,Z}=0$ with confidence in this case, we can focus on only this ``slice''. The line plot also includes 95\% confidence intervals. See Figure~\ref{f_NSW_line}.\footnote{The three figures above are produced by \texttt{placeboLM} with the helper functions \texttt{placeboLM\_table()}, \texttt{placeboLM\_contour\_plot()}, and \texttt{placeboLM\_line\_plot()} respectively.}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\centering
\caption{\label{t_lalonde} Partial identification table for National Supported Work example with 1974 earnings as placebo outcome.}
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrrr}
\\
\hline \hline
& \verb+k+ & \verb+coef_P_D_given_XZ+ & Estimate & Std. Error & CI Low & CI High \\
\hline
SOO &0 &0 &-5928.11 &822.57 &-7563.28 &-4337.09 \\
Standard DID &0.845 &0 &1718.01 &852.98 &27.35 &3393.96 \\
\verb+k=1+ DID
&1 &0 &3115.31 &882.42 &1337.4 &4783.3 \\
Grid &-1 &-7500 &-6100.92 &1375.32 &-8843.01 &-3539.27 \\
Grid &-1 &0 &-14971.53 &1379.99 &-17615.87 &-12160.46 \\
Grid &-1 &7500 &-23842.13 &1484.07 &-26566.69 &-20663 \\
Grid &0 &-7500 &-5928.11 &809.4 &-7473.88 &-4304.65 \\
Grid &0 &0 &-5928.11 &842.29 &-7549.07 &-4215.56 \\
Grid &0 &7500 &-5928.11 &832.39 &-7523.88 &-4262.12 \\
Grid &1 &-7500 &-5755.3 &871.06 &-7441.71 &-4051.86 \\
Grid &1 &0 &3115.31 &926.64 &1389.42 &4907.9 \\
Grid &1 &7500 &11985.91 &984.87 &10176.39 &13963.14 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{f_NSW_contour} Contour plot for National Supported Work example with 1974 earnings as placebo outcome.}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{PlaceboLM_LaLonde_Contour_Plot.png}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{f_NSW_line} Line plot for National Supported Work example with 1974 earnings as placebo outcome.}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{PlaceboLM_LaLonde_Line_Plot.png}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Beginning with Table~\ref{t_lalonde}, the SOO-based estimate is negative. While perhaps unexpected, there is little to be said about this estimate as the underlying assumption of no unobserved confounding is not defensible.
Under standard DID ($m=1$), the effect of job training estimated under this assumption is an increase of 1,718 USD---extremely close to the benchmark experimental estimate (1,693 USD). The $k=1$ DID estimate is also reasonable, at 3,115 USD. Note that the assumption that $\beta_{P\sim D| Z, X}=0$, the experimental estimate would imply that the ``true'' value for $k$ is about 0.84, i.e. the bias for the treatment and 1978 earnings is 84\% of the bias for the treatment and 1974 earnings, after accounting for scale differences.
Without knowledge of the experimental estimate, an analyst might focus principally on the line plot and make an argument that the bias for the treatment and 1978 earnings and the bias for the treatment and 1974 earnings have at least the same sign. This alone would put us on the right half of the line plot. We might further guess that the levels of confounding or bias are somewhat similar though perhaps not identical, since the two earnings measures are separated in time by a few years. Hence we might consider values for $k$ that are relatively close to 1, say 2/3 to 1.5. This would lead us to defense estimates of roughly $0$ to $8000$ USD as credible.
In this way, it would be possible to construct a reasonable and largely informative range of estimates under more defensible assumptions than the strict and usually undefended ones of equiconfounding (parallel trends) required for DID.
We also note that while the placebo outcome here was a pre-treatment version of the outcome variable, similar analyses can be conducted using any placebo outcome variable.
\subsection{Effects of Zika virus on birth rates}
In our second application, we investigate the effect Zika virus had on birth rates in Brazil. Zika virus can cause birth complications, thus potentially discouraging or delaying planned pregnancies and births. We use data previously analyzed by \cite{Taddeo2022} and \cite{Tchetgen2023_single}, also employing placebo-based techniques. In Brazil in 2015, the state of Pernambuco saw high rates of Zika, while zero cases were reported in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. As in previous works, we regard the former state as the treated group and the later as the control group. We use municipality level overall birth rates per 1000 people in 2016 as our primary outcome of interest, while the same measure in 2014 is our placebo outcome.
We make the reasonable assumption that the treatment has no direct causal effect on the pre-treatment outcome. Using data provided by \cite{Amorim2022}, we perform the analysis using \texttt{placeboLM}, indicating that the 2014 birth rate is the placebo outcome, letting $k$ range from 0 to 2, and letting $\beta_{P\sim D|X,Z}$ range from -10 to 10 to provide a very inclusive first look.
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{f_Zika_contour} Line plot for Zika virus example with 2014 birth rate as placebo outcome.}
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{PlaceboLM_Zika_Line_Plot.png}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The naive difference in means estimate finds that Zika is associated with 3.4 \textit{additional} births per 1000 people. By contrast, the two DID estimates ($m=1$ and $k=1$) are negative, indicating 1.2-1.3 fewer births per thousand people in Pernambuco (the Zika-treated state). Relaxing either of these parallel trend assumptions, we see that if the level of confounding of 2016 birth rate and treatment is approximately 70\% of the level of confounding of 2014 birth rate and treatment or more, then the effect estimates are negative. The estimate reaches a 2.0 births per thousand reduction when one assumes the relative level of confounding is roughly 120\% ($k=1.2$).
These findings are consistent with the results in \cite{Taddeo2022} and \cite{Tchetgen2023_single}, but we note a key difference in the required assumptions.
Specifically, we could conceive of the state indicator, which is used as a proxy for whether or not the population was exposed to Zika virus, as another direct cause of 2014 birth rates, in that the two states likely differ in important ways that lead to divergent birth rates in 2014. Such a structure is readily accommodated in our framework by considering values for \verb+coef_P_D_given_XZ+ other than zero, but as discussed further below, it would violate a key assumption employed in \cite{Tchetgen2023_single}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Discussion}
To begin with the connection to DID we draw out, prior work has also noted the connection between placebo outcomes and DID \citep{Sofer2016}.
There have also been several recent attempts to relax the parallel trends assumption within the context of DID or to improve on the current practice of testing for parallel trends in the pre-treatment period (see e.g. \citealp{Manski2018,Bilinski2018,Freyaldenhoven2019,Keele2019,Ryan2019,Ye2020,Gibson2021,Rambachan2021}. \cite{Gibson2021} points out that violations of parallel trends can be considered using an application of the omitted variable bias framework from \cite{CinelliHazlett2020} in a first difference regression; see also \cite{Rambachan2021}. Unlike our approach, this strategy would be limited to the DID setting in which the pre-treatment outcome is directly comparable to the post-treatment outcome, and it requires that researchers observe the pre-treatment outcome and the post-treatment outcome for the same set of units; that is, it requires panel data.
The principal differences between such an approach and applying ours to DID, however, is in the way unobserved confounding is reasoned about. If one constructs a first-difference regression and submits it to OVB-based sensitivity analysis, then one would go on to reason about how strongly unobserved confounders would explain residual variance in the treatment assignment process, and in the change in (non-treatment) outcomes over time. Using our approach, the investigator would instead consider the pre-treatment outcome as the placebo outcome, and reason about the relative confounding of this pre-treatment outcome with the treatment, compared to the real outcome and the treatment. Which of these approaches is most useful is a matter of specific application and domain expertise.
Returning to the broader setting of placebo treatments and outcomes, beyond the DID connection, efforts to employ placebos to gain causal leverage are not new.
\cite{Lipsitch2010} provide an early discussion of the potential of using placebo treatments and outcomes. \cite{Arnold2016a} and \cite{Arnold2016b} discuss the potential to use placebos to address sample selection and measurement bias as well as bias in randomized experiments. \cite{Shi2020} review many established procedures and recent developments in this growing literature.
An important recent area of research has been dubbed ``proximal'' causal inference (see \citealp{Tchetgen2020} for an introduction). This line of work leverages ``double-negative control designs'' \citep{Shi2020} in which both a placebo outcome and a placebo treatment are present. Under certain assumptions and conditions, papers such as \cite{Miao2018,Miao2020} and \cite{Mastouri2021} show non-parametric identification using both of these placebos. While this work is very promising, it requires two placebos, certain null effect assumptions (i.e., ``perfect'' placebos), and regularity conditions.\footnote{In Appendix \ref{dp_mult_z}, we show a similar point identification result for regression when both a ``perfect'' placebo treatment and a ``perfect'' placebo outcome are available. We also relax the ``double placebo'' setting to allow for imperfect placebos.} Most critically, it requires a ``bridge function'' assumption, which is tantamount to an equiconfounding assumption on a transformation of the placebo variable. Also notable in this direction is recent work \citep{Tchetgen2023_single} in the single-placebo case. While a potentially valuable approach, it applies under different causal structures than those studied here. Specifically, it applies where the outcome variable and placebo are associated only due to the effect of the treatment. This rules out cases where the placebo and true outcome share a common cause confounder, as well as all other DAGs in Tables~\ref{taxonomy_table1} and ~\ref{taxonomy_table2}. It would, however, be a good fit in contexts akin to classical measurement error, such as when the placebo is a descendant of the outcome and not of any confounding variables.
More broadly, the novelty of our approach lies in taking the OVB approach as a framework for relaxing assumption of perfect placebos and relaxing equiconfounding assumptions. The main limitations are, first, our dependency on linearity (though see Appendix \ref{PLandNPAppendix} for partially linear and non-parametric extensions). Second, like any sensitivity or partial identification approach, the key question to consider in choosing among methods is whether the quantities investigators must reason about can be understood and debated, so that it is an aid rather than hinderance to transparency. Finally, and also in common with other partial identifications, these tools may leave researchers unable to defend informative ranges of estimates in some cases. This, in our view, is a feature not a bug, as it reminds us that these tools simply reflect what can (or cannot) be concluded given the assumptions we are (or are not) prepared to defend.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{references.bib}
\begin{landscape}
{\tiny
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{\label{taxonomy_table1} {\bf Taxonomy of Single Placebo Graphs} }
%p{1.5in}
%\multirow{3}{1.5in}{Perfect Placebo}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|p{2in}|p{0.75in}|c|l|p{2in}|}
\hline
& Graph ($\mathbf{X}$ omitted for clarity) & Placebo Type & Short Regression(s) & Parameters & Target Coefficient Expression
\\ \hline
[a]
&
\multirow{2}{2in}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (4,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
%\draw[-,dashed,blue] (P) to (D);
%\draw[-,dashed,blue] (P) to (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
&
Placebo Outcome
&
$\begin{aligned}
Y =
&\beta_{Y\sim D | X} D + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D} + \epsilon_s \\
P =
&\beta_{P\sim D | X} D + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{P \sim X| D} + \xi_s
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&k = \frac{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}} }{\text{bias}_{\text{(PD.X)}} \times \text{SF}} \\
&\beta_{P\sim D | X,Z} (= 0 \text{ in this graph}) \\
&\text{SF} = \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X} = \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \\
&k \times \left(\beta_{P\sim D | X} - \beta_{P\sim D| Z, X} \right) \\
&\times \text{SF}
\end{aligned}$
\\ \cline{3-6}
&
&
Placebo Treatment
&
$\begin{aligned}
Y =
&\beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} D + \\
&\beta_{Y\sim P| D, X} P + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D,P} + \epsilon_s
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&k = \frac{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}}{\text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}}\times \text{SF}} \\
&\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X} (= 0 \text{ in this graph})\\
&\text{SF} = \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X} = \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - \\
&k \times \left(\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}\right) \\
&\times \text{SF}
\end{aligned}$
\\ \cline{1-6}
[b]
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (4,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path (D) edge (P);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Placebo Outcome (see above row); $\beta_{P\sim D | X,Z} \ne 0$} \vline
\\ \cline{1-6}
[c]
&
\multirow{2}{2in}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (4,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path (P) edge (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
&
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Placebo Treatment (see above row); $\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X} \ne 0$} \vline
\\ \cline{3-6}
&
&
Observed Confounder 1
%Placebo Outcome + Control for $P$
&
$\begin{aligned}
Y =
&\beta_{Y\sim D | P, X} D + \\
&\beta_{Y\sim P | D, X} P + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D, P} + \epsilon_s \\
P =
&\beta_{P\sim D | X} D + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{P \sim X| D} + \xi_s
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&k =
\frac
{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}} }
{\text{bias}_{\text{(PD.X)}}\times \text{SF}} \\
&\beta_{P\sim D| Z , X} (= 0 \text{ in this graph}) \\
&\text{SF} = \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X} = \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - \\
&k \times (\beta_{P\sim D | X} - \beta_{P\sim D| Z , X} ) \\
&\times \text{SF}
\end{aligned}$
\\ \cline{1-6}
[d]
&
\multirow{4}{2in}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (4,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path (D) edge (P);
\path (P) edge (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
&
\multicolumn{4}{l}{See \cite{Zhang2022} for partial identification of indirect and direct effects}
\vline
\\ \cline{3-6}
&
&
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Could use \cite{CinelliHazlett2020} for partial identification of total effects; $R^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X}$ includes $Z \to P \to Y$}
\vline
\\ \cline{3-6}
&
&
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Placebo Outcome (see above row); $\beta_{P\sim D | X,Z}$ is part of total effect; $\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}$ includes $Z \to P \to Y$}
\vline
\\ \cline{3-6}
&
&
Mediator
%Placebo Treatment + Control for $D$
&
$\begin{aligned}
Y =
&\beta_{Y\sim D | X} D + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D} + \epsilon_s \\
Y =
&\beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} D + \\
&\beta_{Y\sim P| D, X} P + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D,P} + \xi_s
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&k =
\frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}}}\times \text{SF} } \\
&(\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}} \text{ includes $Z \to P \to Y$}) \\
&\beta_{Y\sim P| D, Z, X} \text{ is part of total effect} \\
&\text{SF} = \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})} \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \\
&k \times ( \beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D, Z, X} ) \\
&\times \text{SF}
\end{aligned}$
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
\end{landscape}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{landscape}
{\tiny
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{\label{taxonomy_table2} {\bf Taxonomy of Single Placebo Graphs - Continued} }
%p{1.5in}
%\multirow{3}{1.5in}{Perfect Placebo}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|p{2in}|p{0.75in}|c|l|p{2in}|}
\hline
& Graph ($\mathbf{X}$ omitted for clarity) & Placebo Type & Short Regression(s) & Parameters & Target Coefficient Expression
\\ \hline
[e]
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (4,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path (P) edge (D);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
Observed Confounder 2
&
$\begin{aligned}
Y =
&\beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} D + \\
&\beta_{Y\sim P| D, X} P + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D,P} + \epsilon_s \\
D =
&\beta_{D\sim P| X} P + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{D \sim X| P} + \xi_s
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&k =
\frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(DP.X)}}}\times \text{SF}} \\
&\beta_{D\sim P| Z , X} \ne 0 \\
&\text{SF} = \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X} = \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - \\
&k \times (\beta_{D\sim P | X} - \beta_{D\sim P| Z , X}) \\
&\times \text{SF}
\end{aligned}$
\\ \cline{1-6}
[f]
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (4,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path (P) edge (D);
\path (P) edge (Y);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Observed Confounder 2 (see above row)} \vline
\\ \cline{1-6}
[g]
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (4,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path (Y) edge (P);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
Post-Outcome
&
$\begin{aligned}
Y =
&\beta_{Y\sim D | X} D + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D} + \epsilon_s \\
P =
&\beta_{P\sim D | Y, X} D + \\
&\beta_{P\sim Y | D, X} Y + \\
&\mathbf{X}\beta_{P \sim X| D,Y} + \xi_s
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&k = \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(PY.DX)}}}\times \text{SF}} \\
&\beta_{P\sim Y| D, Z , X} \ne 0 \\
&\text{SF} = \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp Y,D,X})}
\end{aligned}$
&
$\begin{aligned}
&\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X} = \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \\
&k \times (\beta_{P\sim Y | D,X} - \beta_{P\sim Y| D, Z , X}) \\
&\times \text{SF}
\end{aligned}$
\\ \cline{1-6}
[h]
&
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (4,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (Z) at (2,2) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path (D) edge (P);
\path (Y) edge (P);
\end{tikzpicture}
&
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Post-Outcome (see above row)} \vline
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
}
\end{landscape}
\newpage
\appendix
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Single Placebo Derivations}
\label{SPDs}
\paragraph{Placebo Treatment (Table \ref{taxonomy_table1}[a])}
\begin{equation} \label{e_mult_z_pt_m_est}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}} = \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
=
R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|P,X}
(\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})/\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X}))
\\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}} = \beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D, Z, X}
=
R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{P\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,X}
(\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})/\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})) \\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}} = m \times \text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}}
\implies
\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - m \times ( \beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D, Z, X} ) \\
&m
= \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}}}}
=
\frac{R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|P,X}}
{R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{P\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,X}}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
= k \times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})} \\
&\implies
k = \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}}}\times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}}
\\
&\therefore
\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - k \times \left(\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z, X}\right) \times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Observed Confounder 1 (Table \ref{taxonomy_table1}[c])}
\begin{equation} \label{e_p_to_y}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}} = \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
=
R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|P,X}
(\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X}) / \text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})) \\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(PD.X)}}
= \beta_{P\sim D | X} - \beta_{P\sim D| Z , X}
= R_{P \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(P.DX)}} |X}
(\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})/\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})) \\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}} = m \times \text{bias}_{\text{(PD.X)}}
\implies
\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - m \times (\beta_{P\sim D | X} - \beta_{P\sim D| Z , X} ) \\
&m
= \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(PD.X)}} }}
=
\frac
{R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|P,X}}
{R_{P \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(P.DX)}} |X}}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}
= k
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}\\
&\implies
k = \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(PD.X)}} } \times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}}
\\
&\therefore
\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - k \times (\beta_{P\sim D | X} - \beta_{P\sim D| Z , X} )
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Mediator (Table \ref{taxonomy_table1}[d])}
\begin{equation} \label{e_mult_z_med}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}} = \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
=
R_{Y \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}|X}
(\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})/\text{SD}(D^{\perp X}))
\\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}} = \beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D, Z, X}
=
R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{P\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,X}
(\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})/\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})) \\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}} = m \times \text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}}
\implies
\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - m \times ( \beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D, Z, X} ) \\
&m
= \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}}}}
=
\frac{R_{Y \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}|X}}
{R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{P\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,X}}
\frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}
\frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}
= k \times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})} \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})} \\
&\implies
k = \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YP.DX)}}}\frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})} \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})} }
\\
&\therefore
\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - k \times ( \beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D, Z, X} ) \times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})} \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Observed Confounder 2 (Table \ref{taxonomy_table2}[e])}
\begin{equation} \label{e_obs_conf}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}} = \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
=
R_{Y \sim Z| D,P,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|P,X}
(\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X}) / \text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})) \\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(DP.X)}}
= \beta_{D\sim P | X} - \beta_{D\sim P| Z , X}
= R_{D \sim Z | P,X} f_{P\sim Z_{\text{(D.PX)}} |X}
(\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})/\text{SD}(P^{\perp X})) \\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}} = m \times \text{bias}_{\text{(DP.X)}}
\implies
\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - m \times (\beta_{D\sim P | X} - \beta_{D\sim P| Z , X}) \\
&m
= \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(DP.X)}}}}
= \frac
{R_{Y \sim Z | D,P,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|P,X} }
{R_{D \sim Z | P,X} f_{P\sim Z_{\text{(D.PX)}} |X}}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
= k
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})} \\
&\implies
k =
\frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.PX)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(DP.X)}}}\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})} \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}}
\\
&\therefore
\beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - k \times (\beta_{D\sim P | X} - \beta_{D\sim P| Z , X})
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Post-outcome (Table \ref{taxonomy_table2}[g])}
\begin{equation} \label{e_post_outcome}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}} = \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
= R_{Y \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}|X}
(\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X}) / \text{SD}(D^{\perp X})) \\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(PY.DX)}}
= \beta_{P\sim Y | D,X} - \beta_{P\sim Y| D, Z , X}
= R_{P \sim Z | Y,D,X} f_{Y\sim Z_{\text{(P.YDX)}} |D,X}
(\text{SD}(P^{\perp Y,D,X})/\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})) \\
&\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}} = m \times \text{bias}_{\text{(PY.DX)}}
\implies
\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - m \times (\beta_{P\sim Y | D,X} - \beta_{P\sim Y| D, Z , X}) \\
&m
= \frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(PY.DX)}}}}
= \frac
{R_{Y \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z_{\text{(Y.DX)}}|X} }
{R_{P \sim Z | Y,D,X} f_{Y\sim Z_{\text{(P.YDX)}} |D,X} }
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,P,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(P^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp P,X})}
= k
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp Y,D,X})} \\
&\implies
k =
\frac{{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}}{{\text{bias}_{\text{(PY.DX)}}}\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp Y,D,X})}}
\\
&\therefore
\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
= \beta_{Y\sim D | X} - k \times (\beta_{P\sim Y | D,X} - \beta_{P\sim Y| D, Z , X})
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}
\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(P^{\perp Y,D,X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Double placebos}
\label{dp_mult_z}
Consider a setting like Figure \ref{f_double_placebos} - that is, we observe both a placebo outcome ($N$) and a placebo treatment ($P$). Suppose we are interested in $\beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}$ from the ``long'' regression in Equation \ref{e_long_reg_outcome_y}. However, $Z$ is unobserved and so we must only consider estimating ``short'' regression in Equation \ref{e_short_reg_outcome_y}.
We might consider the following two sets of short and long regressions. Again, $\mathbf{Z}$ is a set of unobserved confounders. We can only consider estimating the short regressions (i.e., Equations \ref{e_double_short_y} and \ref{e_double_short_n}).
$Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}} = \mathbf{Z}\beta_{Y \sim Z|D,P,X}$ is the linear combination that de-confounds the $Y,D$ and the $Y,P$ relationship.
$Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}} = \mathbf{Z}\beta_{N \sim Z|D,P,X}$ is the linear combination that de-confounds the $N,D$ and the $N,P$ relationship. We choose $\mathbf{Z}$ to be a rich enough set of variables to allow for this interpretation.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
Y &= \beta_{Y\sim D| P, Z, X} D + \beta_{Y\sim P| D, Z, X} P + \mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D,P,Z} + \mathbf{Z} \beta_{Y \sim Z|D,P,X} + \epsilon_{y,l}
\label{e_double_long_y}\\
Y &= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} D + \beta_{Y\sim P| D, X} P + \mathbf{X}\beta_{Y \sim X| D,P} + \epsilon_{y,s}
\label{e_double_short_y}\\
N &= \beta_{N\sim D| P, Z, X} D + \beta_{N\sim P| D, Z, X} P + \mathbf{X}\beta_{N \sim X| D,P,Z} + \mathbf{Z} \beta_{N\sim Z|D,P,X} + \epsilon_{n,l}
\label{e_double_long_n}\\
N &= \beta_{N\sim D | P,X} D + \beta_{N\sim P| D, X} P + \mathbf{X}\beta_{N \sim X| D,P} + \epsilon_{n,s}
\label{e_double_short_n}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{figure}[ht!]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{f_double_placebos} A single causal graph with both a placebo outcome, $N$, and with a placebo treatment, $P$. $D$ is treatment, $Y$ is outcome, and $\mathbf{Z}$ contains unobserved confounders. $\mathbf{X}$ contains observed covariates. }
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (0) at (3,5) {(a) Perfect Double Placebo};
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (6,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (N) at (4,1) {$N$};
\node (Z) at (3,3) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path (Z) edge (N);
\path (P) edge (D);
\path (N) edge (Y);
%\path (P) edge [bend right=7] (Y);
%\path (D) edge [bend right=7] (N);
%\path (P) edge (N);
\node[gray] (X) at (3,4) {$\mathbf{X}$};
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=240,in=90] (P);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=300,in=90] (N);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=320,in=90] (Y);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=220,in=90] (D);
\path[gray,bidirected] (X) edge (Z);
\end{tikzpicture}\hspace{1cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=(current bounding box.north)]
\node (0) at (3,5) {(a) Imperfect Double Placebo};
\node (D) at (0,0) {$D$};
\node (Y) at (6,0) {$Y$};
\node (P) at (2,1) {$P$};
\node (N) at (4,1) {$N$};
\node (Z) at (3,3) {$\mathbf{Z}$};
\path (D) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (D);
\path (Z) edge (Y);
\path (Z) edge (P);
\path (Z) edge (N);
\path (P) edge (D);
\path (N) edge (Y);
\path (P) edge [bend right=7] (Y);
\path (D) edge [bend right=7] (N);
\path (P) edge (N);
\node[gray] (X) at (3,4) {$\mathbf{X}$};
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=240,in=90] (P);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=300,in=90] (N);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=320,in=90] (Y);
\path[gray] (X) edge [out=220,in=90] (D);
\path[gray,bidirected] (X) edge (Z);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Consider the following OVB expressions, where we use the relevant linear combination for each relationship.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X}
= \beta_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X}\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
\\
\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X}
= \beta_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X}\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
\\
\beta_{N\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{N\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X}
= \beta_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}\beta_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
\\
\beta_{N\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{N\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X}
= \beta_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}\beta_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We can re-write the middle two of these as follows.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
\beta_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X} &= \frac{\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X}}{\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}} \\
\beta_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X} &= \frac{\beta_{N\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{N\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X}}{\beta_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Now we note that there are $m_A$ and $m_B$ that satisfy the following.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
%\beta_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X} &= m_1 \times \beta_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X} \\
\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X} &= m_{\text{A}} \times \beta_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X} \\
%\beta_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X} &= m_3 \times \beta_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X} \\
\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X} &= m_{\text{B}} \times \beta_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
We can derive the following expression for $\beta_{Y\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X}$.
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X}
&= \beta_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X}\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X} \\
&= m_{\text{A}} \times \beta_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X} \beta_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}\\
&=
m_{\text{A}} \times
\left[\frac{\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X}}{\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}}\right]
\left[\frac{\beta_{N\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{N\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X}}{\beta_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}} \right] \\
&= \frac{ m_{\text{A}}}{ m_{\text{B}}} \times
\frac{
(\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X})
(\beta_{N\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{N\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X})
}
{[\beta_{N\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{N\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X}]}
\\
\therefore
\beta_{Y\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X}
&= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} -
\frac{ m_{\text{A}}}{ m_{\text{B}}} \times
\frac{
(\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X})
(\beta_{N\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{N\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X})
}
{(\beta_{N\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{N\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\text{Now, }
\frac{ m_{\text{A}}}{ m_{\text{B}}}
&=
\frac{\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}}
{\beta_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}}
\frac{\beta_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}}
{\beta_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X} }
\\
&=
\frac{
%R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{YD}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
%R_{N \sim Z_{\text{NP}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
}{
%R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{YP}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
%R_{N \sim Z_{\text{ND}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
}
\times
% \frac{
% \text{SD}(Z_{\text{YP}}^{\perp D,P,X})}
% {\text{SD}(Z_{\text{YD}}^{\perp D,P,X})}
\frac{
\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}^{\perp P,X})}
{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}^{\perp P,X})}
% \frac{
% \text{SD}(Z_{\text{ND}}^{\perp D,P,X})}
% {\text{SD}(Z_{\text{NP}}^{\perp D,P,X})}
\frac{
\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}^{\perp D,X})}
{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}^{\perp D,X})} \\
&=
\frac{
%R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{YD}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
%R_{N \sim Z_{\text{NP}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
}{
%R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{YP}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
%R_{N \sim Z_{\text{ND}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
}
\times
\frac{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}^{\perp P,X})}
{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}^{\perp D,P,X})}
\frac{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}^{\perp D,P,X})}
{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}^{\perp P,X})}
\frac{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}^{\perp D,X})}
{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}^{\perp D,P,X})}
\frac{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}^{\perp D,P,X})}
{\text{SD}(Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}^{\perp D,X})} \\
&=
\frac{
%R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{YD}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
%R_{N \sim Z_{\text{NP}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
}{
%R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{YP}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
%R_{N \sim Z_{\text{ND}}|D,P,X}
R_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
}
\times
\frac{
\sqrt{1-R^2_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}} \sim D|P,X}}
\sqrt{1-R^2_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}} \sim P|D,X}}
}{
\sqrt{1-R^2_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}} \sim D|P,X}}
\sqrt{1-R^2_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}} \sim P|D,X}}
}\\
&=
\frac{
%R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{YD}}|D,P,X}
f_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
%R_{N \sim Z_{\text{NP}}|D,P,X}
f_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
}{
%R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{YP}}|D,P,X}
f_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
%R_{N \sim Z_{\text{ND}}|D,P,X}
f_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
} \\
% &=
% \frac{
% R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
% R_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
% }{
% R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}
% R_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}
% } \\
\therefore
\frac{ m_{\text{A}}}{ m_{\text{B}}} &=
\frac{R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}}
{R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}}
\times
\frac{R_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}}
{R_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}}
\overset{\Delta}{=}
k_{\text{(YD / YP)}} \times k_{\text{(NP / ND)}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Thus, we arrive at a final expression for $\beta_{Y\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X} $:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\beta_{Y\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X} \\
&= \beta_{Y\sim D | P,X} -
k_{\text{(YD / YP)}} \times k_{\text{(NP / ND)}}\times
\frac{
(\beta_{Y\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X})
(\beta_{N\sim D | P,X} - \beta_{N\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X})
}
{(\beta_{N\sim P | D,X} - \beta_{N\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X})}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This is a fairly complicated expression that involves five partial identification or sensitivity parameters. We suspect this may be unwieldy in many practical cases. However, it may be useful when certain assumptions are defensible. But first a few notes on what this expression contains.
\begin{itemize}
\item $k_{\text{(YD / YP)}}$ captures the scaled ratio of the level of confounding of the $Y,D$ relationship (conditional on $P$) to the level of confounding of the $Y,P$ relationship (conditional on $D$), after re-scaling one of these biases, or the ratio of bias factors.
\item $k_{\text{(NP / ND)}}$ captures the scaled ratio of the level of confounding of the $N,P$ relationship (conditional on $D$) to the level of confounding of the $N,D$ relationship (conditional on $P$), after re-scaling one of these biases, or the ratio of bias factors.
\item $\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X}$ measures the causal of $P$ on $Y$ (conditional on $D$). This could further be broken down into component edges with an additional application of OVB.
\item $\beta_{N\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X}$ measures the causal of $D$ on $N$ (conditional on $P$).
\item $\beta_{N\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X}$ measures the causal of $P$ on $N$ (conditional on $D$).
\item We could also use $k_{\text{(YD / ND)}} \times k_{\text{(NP / YP)}} =
\frac{R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}}
{R_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}}
\times
\frac{R_{N \sim Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}}
{R_{Y \sim Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}|D,P,X}f_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}} $ and have similar interpretation.
\end{itemize}
This should have a similar feel to what we saw in the main text. In certain settings, this expression simplifies and may be more practically useful.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}} = Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}$ or both $R_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X} = R_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim D|P,X}$ and $R_{Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X} = R_{Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}\sim P|D,X}$, then $k_{\text{(YD / YP)}} \times k_{\text{(NP / ND)}} = 1$. A simple case of this is when there is a single unobserved confounder $Z$. When we believe this may be the case, we actually do not need to reason about the level of relative confounding at all.
\item When we have perfect placebos (i.e., when some or all of $\beta_{Y\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(Y.DPX)}}, X}$, $\beta_{N\sim D| P,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X}$, $\beta_{N\sim P| D,Z_{\text{(N.DPX)}}, X}$ equal zero), the expression also simplifies.
\item When both of the above hold (e.g., we have a single unobserved $Z$ and perfect placebos), we can point identify $\beta_{Y\sim D| P,Z, X}$ without reasoning about the relative level of confounding.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Relative bias as difference in trends in DID}\label{app_m_to_w}
Any assumption for $m$ can be turned into an assumption about how the trends in control potential outcomes compare. An assumption about a difference in confounding might initially be stated as, for example,
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_trasform_1}
\begin{aligned}
\underbrace{\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0]}_{\text{Bias}_Y} &= m \times (\underbrace{\underbrace{\mathbb{E}[N|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N|G=0]}_{\text{DIM}_N} - \beta_{N\sim G|Z}}_{\text{Bias}_N} ) \\
\iff
\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1]
&= \mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0] + m \times (\mathbb{E}[N|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N|G=0] - \beta_{N\sim G|Z})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
An assumption about a difference in trend would be something like Equation \ref{e_did_trasform_2}.
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_trasform_2}
\begin{aligned}
\underbrace{\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N|G=1] }_{\text{Trend}_{G=1}} &= w \times (\underbrace{\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0]- \mathbb{E}[N|G=0]}_{\text{Trend}_{G=0}} ) \\
\iff
\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1]
&= \mathbb{E}[N|G=1] + w \times (\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0]- \mathbb{E}[N|G=0])
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For this exposition, we assume $\beta_{N\sim G|Z}=0$. Both Equations \ref{e_did_trasform_1} and \ref{e_did_trasform_2} provide an expression for $\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1]$, which, in the DID setting, is unobserved while all the other components of the expressions are estimable from the data. We can set these two expressions for $\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=1]$ equal to each other and then solve for $w$ to get the trend assumption that corresponds to our assumption on $m$.
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_trasform_3}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0] + m \times (\mathbb{E}[N|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N|G=0])
= \mathbb{E}[N|G=1] + w \times (\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0]- \mathbb{E}[N|G=0])
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{e_did_trasform_4}
\begin{aligned}
\iff
w
&=
\frac{
\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0] + m \times (\mathbb{E}[N|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N|G=0])
- \mathbb{E}[N|G=1]
}{
\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0]- \mathbb{E}[N|G=0]
} \\
\iff
m
&=
\frac{
\mathbb{E}[N|G=1] + w \times (\mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0]- \mathbb{E}[N|G=0]) - \mathbb{E}[Y_0|G=0]
}{
\mathbb{E}[N|G=1] - \mathbb{E}[N|G=0]
}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We could similarly write $m$ in terms of $w$, if we preferred to make an assumption on $w$, the difference in the trend, and wanted to know what this implies about the unequal confounding. Additionally, we know that $m = k\times \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp G})}{\text{SD}(N^{\perp G})}$ so that we can make an assumption on $k$ and see what this implies about $w$, the trend, or make a trend assumption on $w$ and see what this implies about $k$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Partially linear and non-parametric framework}
\label{PLandNPAppendix}
%{\color{red}[Work in progress.]}
If investigators are interested in partially linear of fully non-parametric approaches to estimating treatment effects, we can use the omitted variables frameworks from \cite{Chernozhukov2022} to arrive at partial identification frameworks similar to those presented in the main text for settings in which placebo outcomes are available. We do not demonstrate the partially linear or non-parametric case for placebo treatments, but in principle this is also possible.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Partially linear framework}
%%%%
%\subsubsection{Placebo outcomes}
An investigator may be interested in estimating a partially linear model. $Y$ is the outcome; $N$ is a placebo outcome; $D$ is the treatment; $\mathbf{X}$ is a vector of observed covariates; $\mathbf{Z}$ is a vector of unobserved covariates. We consider the following short and long partially linear models.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
Y &= \theta_{l,Y} D + f_l(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Z}) + \epsilon_l \label{e_part_lin_y_long} \\
Y &= \theta_{s,Y} D + f_s(\mathbf{X}) + \epsilon_s
\label{e_part_lin_y_short}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
N &= \theta_{l,N} D + g_l(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Z}) + \xi_l \label{e_part_lin_n_long} \\
N &= \theta_{s,N} D + g_s(\mathbf{X}) + \xi_s
\label{e_part_lin_n_short}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
There is some $m$ such that $\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}} = m\times \text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}$, where $\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}} \overset{\Delta}{=} \theta_{s,Y} - \theta_{l,Y}$ and $\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}} \overset{\Delta}{=} \theta_{s,N} - \theta_{l,N}$. This implies that Equation \ref{e_part_lin_m} holds.
Using Equation \ref{e_part_lin_m} for partial identification will run into the issue that $m \overset{\Delta}{=} \frac{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}{\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}}$ may be difficult to interpret when $Y$ and $N$ have differing scales. Can we do better?
\begin{equation} \label{e_part_lin_m}
\begin{aligned}
\theta_{l,Y}
&=
\theta_{s,Y} - m\times (\theta_{s,N} - \theta_{l,N})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\cite{Chernozhukov2022} show that omitted variable bias in partially linear setting can be written in the following way.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
|\theta_{s,Y} - \theta_{l,Y}|^2
= |{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}|^2
&= \rho_Y^2 \times S_Y^2 \times \eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}
\\
|\theta_{s,N} - \theta_{l,N}|^2
= |{\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}}|^2
&= \rho_N^2 \times S_N^2 \times \eta^2_{N\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
$\text{BF}_{\text{(YD.X)}} \overset{\Delta}{=} \eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X}\frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}$ and $\text{BF}_{\text{(ND.X)}} \overset{\Delta}{=} \eta^2_{N\sim Z|D,X}\frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}$ are ``bias factors'' that are scaled versions of the maximum level of unobserved confounding from $\mathbf{Z}$. $S_Y^2$ and $S_N^2$ are identified and therefore estimable from the observed data.
$\eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X}$ and $\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}$ are Pearson's correlation ratios (or the non-parametric $R^2$s).\footnote{$\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X} = \frac{\text{Var}(\mathbb{E}[D|Z,X]) - \text{Var}(\mathbb{E}[D|X])}{\text{Var}(D) - \text{Var}(\mathbb{E}[D|X])} = \frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z,X} - \eta^2_{D\sim X}}{ 1- \eta^2_{D\sim X}}$. $\eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X}$ can be similarly interpreted.} $\eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X}$ is the proportion of residual variation in $Y$ explained by $Z$. $\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}$ is the proportion of residual variation in $D$ explained by $Z$.
$\rho_Y^2$ and $\rho_N^2$ are referred to as ``degree of adversity'' in \cite{Chernozhukov2022} and reduce the actual level of bias from the maximum possible.
We can now see that we can re-express $m$ as in Equation \ref{sss_partlin_m_reex}.
\begin{equation} \label{sss_partlin_m_reex}
\begin{aligned}
|m|^2
= \frac{|\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}|^2}{|\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}|^2}
&= \frac{
\rho_Y^2 \times S_Y^2 \times \eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}
}{
\rho_N^2 \times S_N^2 \times \eta^2_{N\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}
} \\
&=
\frac{\rho_Y^2}{\rho_N^2} \times
\frac{\eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}}{
\eta^2_{N\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}} \times
\frac{S_Y^2}{S_N^2}
= \gamma \times k \times \frac{S_Y^2}{S_N^2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
$\gamma \overset{\Delta}{=} \frac{\rho_Y^2}{\rho_N^2}$ and $k \overset{\Delta}{=} \frac{\eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}}{
\eta^2_{N\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}{1-\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}}} = \frac{\eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X} }{
\eta^2_{N\sim Z|D,X} }$. Which means that we can write Equation \ref{sss_e_part_lin_k}. We could use Equation \ref{sss_e_part_lin_k} for partial identification by reasoning about plausible ranges of values for $k$, $\gamma$, and $\theta_{l,N}$, while estimating the remaining terms from observed data. $k$ represents the relative level of confounding where differences in scale have been accounted for. $\theta_{l,N}$ is the effect of $D$ on $N$. $\gamma$ is the relative level of adversity. $k$ and $\theta_{l,N}$ should be easy to reason about using external knowledge. It is possible that $\gamma$ would be more difficult to consider. We leave this discussion here for now, however. A reasonable simplifying assumption may be that $\gamma$ is close to 1. See \cite{Chernozhukov2022} for further discussion of $\eta^2$s, $S_Y^2$, $S_N^2$, $\rho_Y^2$, and $\rho_N^2$.
\begin{equation} \label{sss_e_part_lin_k}
\begin{aligned}
\theta_{l,Y}
&=
\theta_{s,Y} - \text{sign}(m)\times \sqrt{\gamma \times k} \times (\theta_{s,N} - \theta_{l,N}) \times \sqrt{\frac{S_Y^2}{S_N^2}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Non-parametric framework}
An investigator may also be interested in estimating a linear functional of the conditional expectation function of the outcome in a fully non-parametric setting, like $\theta_{l,Y} = \mathbb{E}[Y_1 - Y_0] = \mathbb{E}[f_Y(1,\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Z}) - f_Y(0,\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Z})]$ for a binary treatment $D$, where $Y_d = f_Y(d,\mathbf{X},\mathbf{Z},U_Y)$ is the equation for $Y$ in the structural causal model under intervention to set $D=d$. Again, the investigator is only able to estimate $\theta_{s,Y} = \mathbb{E}[f_Y^*(1,\mathbf{X}) - f_Y^*(0,\mathbf{X})]$, where $f_Y^*(D,X)\overset{\Delta}{=}\mathbb{E}[Y|D,\mathbf{X}] = \mathbb{E}[f_Y(D,X,\mathbf{Z})|D,\mathbf{X}]$. We define $\theta_{l,N}$ and $\theta_{s,N}$ similarly for a placebo outcome. We could again consider an approach like Equation \ref{e_nonparam_m}. But again $m \overset{\Delta}{=} \frac{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}{\text{bias}_{\text{(ND.X)}}}$ may be difficult to interpret when $Y$ and $N$ have differing scales.
\begin{equation} \label{e_nonparam_m}
\begin{aligned}
\theta_{l,Y}
&=
\theta_{s,Y} - m\times (\theta_{s,N} - \theta_{l,N})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\cite{Chernozhukov2022} also show that omitted variable bias in fully non-parametric setting can be written as an expression in terms of $\eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X}$ and a second term that, in the case of targeting $\theta_{l,Y} = \mathbb{E}[Y_1 - Y_0]$ with a binary treatment $D$, is the ``average gain in the conditional precision with which we predict $D$ by using $Z$ in addition to $X$,'' which is somewhat similar to $\eta^2_{D\sim Z|X}$. Specifically, we have the following.
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
|\theta_{s,Y} - \theta_{l,Y}|^2
= |{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}|^2
&= \rho_Y^2 \times S_Y^2 \times \eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{1- R^2_{\alpha\sim\alpha_s}}{R^2_{\alpha\sim\alpha_s}}
%= S_Y^2 \times \text{BF}_{\text{(YD.X)}}
\\
|\theta_{s,N} - \theta_{l,N}|^2
= |{\text{bias}_{\text{(YD.X)}}}|^2
&= \rho_N^2 \times S_N^2 \times \eta^2_{N\sim Z|D,X} \times \frac{1- R^2_{\alpha\sim\alpha_s}}{R^2_{\alpha\sim\alpha_s}}
%= S_N^2 \times \text{BF}_{\text{(ND.X)}}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
$\text{BF}_{\text{(YD.X)}} \overset{\Delta}{=} \eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X}\frac{1- R^2_{\alpha\sim\alpha_s}}{R^2_{\alpha\sim\alpha_s}} $ and $\text{BF}_{\text{(ND.X)}} \overset{\Delta}{=} \eta^2_{N\sim Z|D,X}\frac{1- R^2_{\alpha\sim\alpha_s}}{R^2_{\alpha\sim\alpha_s}} $ are ``bias factors'' that are scaled versions of the maximum level of unobserved confounding from $\mathbf{Z}$.
$S_Y^2$ and $S_N^2$ are identified and therefore estimable from the data. See \cite{Chernozhukov2022} for discussion of $S_Y^2$, $S_N^2$, and $R^2_{\alpha\sim\alpha_s}$.
Proceeding as in the last section, we can arrive at Equation \ref{sss_e_nonparam_k}. Here again $k = \frac{\eta^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X} }{\eta^2_{N\sim Z|D,X} }$.
\begin{equation} \label{sss_e_nonparam_k}
\begin{aligned}
\theta_{l,Y}
&=
\theta_{s,Y} - \text{sign}(m)\times \sqrt{\gamma \times k} \times (\theta_{s,N} - \theta_{l,N}) \times \sqrt{\frac{S_Y^2}{S_N^2}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Re-expression of bias factors}
\label{reexpress_BF}
$$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
&= R_{Y \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z|X}
\frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})} \\
\implies
R_{Y \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z|X}
&= (\beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \beta_{Y\sim D| Z, X} )
\frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})} \\
% &= (\beta_{Y\sim D | X} - \alpha \times \beta_{Y\sim D | X} )
% \times \frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})} \\
% &= (1 - \alpha )\beta_{Y\sim D | X}
% \times \frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})} \\
% &= (1 - \alpha )R_{Y\sim D | X}
% \frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}
% \frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})} \\
% &= (1 - \alpha )f_{Y\sim D | X} \\
% &= f_{Y\sim D | X} - \alpha \times f_{Y\sim D | X} \\
&=
R_{Y\sim D | X}
\frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}
\frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}
-
R_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
\frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp X,Z})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X,Z})}
\frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}
\frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X,Z})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X,Z})} \\
&=
f_{Y\sim D | X}
-
f_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
\frac{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X,Z})}{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X,Z})}
\frac{\text{SD}(D^{\perp X})}{\text{SD}(Y^{\perp D,X})}
=
f_{Y\sim D | X}
-
f_{Y\sim D| Z, X}
\sqrt{\frac{1-R^2_{Y\sim Z|D,X}}{1-R^2_{D\sim Z|X}}} \\
\implies
1
&=
\frac{f_{Y\sim D | X} }{R_{Y \sim Z | D,X} f_{D\sim Z|X}}
-
\frac{f_{Y\sim D| Z, X} }{f_{Y \sim Z | D,X} R_{D\sim Z|X}}
\end{aligned}$$
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{28}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax
\providecommand{\doi}[1]{doi: #1}\else
\providecommand{\doi}{doi: \begingroup \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi
\bibitem[Amorim(2022)]{Amorim2022}
Leila Amorim.
\newblock {Replication Data for: Zika Epidemic and Birth Rates in Brazil}, 2022.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ENG0IY}.
\bibitem[Angrist and Pischke(2008)]{angrist_mostly_2008}
Joshua~D. Angrist and Jörn-Steffen Pischke.
\newblock \emph{Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion}.
\newblock Princeton University Press, December 2008.
\newblock ISBN 0691120358.
\bibitem[Arnold and Ercumen(2016)]{Arnold2016b}
Benjamin~F. Arnold and Ayse Ercumen.
\newblock {Negative Control Outcomes: A Tool to Detect Bias in Randomized Trials}.
\newblock \emph{JAMA}, 316\penalty0 (24):\penalty0 2597--2598, 12 2016.
\newblock ISSN 0098-7484.
\newblock \doi{10.1001/jama.2016.17700}.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.17700}.
\bibitem[Arnold et~al.(2016)Arnold, Ercumen, Benjamin-Chung, and John M.~Colford]{Arnold2016a}
Benjamin~F. Arnold, Ayse Ercumen, Jade Benjamin-Chung, and Jr~John M.~Colford.
\newblock {Negative Controls to Detect Selection Bias and Measurement Bias in Epidemiologic Studies}.
\newblock \emph{Epidemiology}, 27\penalty0 (5):\penalty0 637--641, 2016.
\bibitem[Bilinski and Hatfield(2018)]{Bilinski2018}
Alyssa Bilinski and Laura~A. Hatfield.
\newblock Nothing to see here? non-inferiority approaches to parallel trends and other model assumptions, 2018.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.03273}.
\bibitem[Callaway(2019)]{Callaway2019}
Brantly Callaway.
\newblock \emph{qte: Quantile Treatment Effects}, 2019.
\newblock URL \url{https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=qte}.
\newblock R package version 1.3.0.
\bibitem[Chernozhukov et~al.(2022)Chernozhukov, Cinelli, Newey, Sharma, and Syrgkanis]{Chernozhukov2022}
Victor Chernozhukov, Carlos Cinelli, Whitney Newey, Amit Sharma, and Vasilis Syrgkanis.
\newblock Long story short: Omitted variable bias in causal machine learning.
\newblock Working Paper 30302, National Bureau of Economic Research, July 2022.
\newblock URL \url{http://www.nber.org/papers/w30302}.
\bibitem[Cinelli and Hazlett(2020)]{CinelliHazlett2020}
Carlos Cinelli and Chad Hazlett.
\newblock Making sense of sensitivity: extending omitted variable bias.
\newblock \emph{Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)}, 82\penalty0 (1):\penalty0 39--67, 2020.
\newblock \doi{https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12348}.
\newblock URL \url{https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rssb.12348}.
\bibitem[Freyaldenhoven et~al.(2019)Freyaldenhoven, Hansen, and Shapiro]{Freyaldenhoven2019}
Simon Freyaldenhoven, Christian Hansen, and Jesse~M. Shapiro.
\newblock Pre-event trends in the panel event-study design.
\newblock \emph{American Economic Review}, 109\penalty0 (9):\penalty0 3307--38, September 2019.
\newblock \doi{10.1257/aer.20180609}.
\newblock URL \url{https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180609}.
\bibitem[Gibson and Zimmerman(2021)]{Gibson2021}
Landon Gibson and Frederick Zimmerman.
\newblock Measuring the sensitivity of difference-in-difference estimates to the parallel trends assumption.
\newblock \emph{Research Methods in Medicine \& Health Sciences}, 2\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 148--156, 2021.
\newblock \doi{10.1177/26320843211061306}.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843211061306}.
\bibitem[Hansen(2022)]{hansen2022}
B.E. Hansen.
\newblock \emph{Econometrics}.
\newblock Princeton University Press, 2022.
\bibitem[Keele et~al.(2019)Keele, Small, Hsu, and Fogarty]{Keele2019}
Luke~J. Keele, Dylan~S. Small, Jesse~Y. Hsu, and Colin~B. Fogarty.
\newblock Patterns of effects and sensitivity analysis for differences-in-differences, 2019.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.01869}.
\bibitem[LaLonde(1986)]{LaLonde1986}
Robert~J. LaLonde.
\newblock Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data.
\newblock \emph{The American Economic Review}, 76\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 604--620, 1986.
\newblock ISSN 00028282.
\newblock URL \url{http://www.jstor.org/stable/1806062}.
\bibitem[Lipsitch et~al.(2010)Lipsitch, Tchetgen, and Cohen]{Lipsitch2010}
Marc Lipsitch, Eric~Tchetgen Tchetgen, and Ted Cohen.
\newblock {Negative Controls: A Tool for Detecting Confounding and Bias in Observational Studies}.
\newblock \emph{Epidemiology}, 21\penalty0 (3):\penalty0 383--388, 2010.
\newblock \doi{10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181d61eeb}.
\bibitem[Manski and Pepper(2018)]{Manski2018}
Charles~F. Manski and John~V. Pepper.
\newblock {How Do Right-to-Carry Laws Affect Crime Rates? Coping with Ambiguity Using Bounded-Variation Assumptions}.
\newblock \emph{The Review of Economics and Statistics}, 100\penalty0 (2):\penalty0 232--244, 05 2018.
\newblock ISSN 0034-6535.
\newblock \doi{10.1162/REST_a_00689}.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.1162/REST\_a\_00689}.
\bibitem[Mastouri et~al.(2021)Mastouri, Zhu, Gultchin, Korba, Silva, Kusner, Gretton, and Muandet]{Mastouri2021}
Afsaneh Mastouri, Yuchen Zhu, Limor Gultchin, Anna Korba, Ricardo Silva, Matt Kusner, Arthur Gretton, and Krikamol Muandet.
\newblock Proximal causal learning with kernels: Two-stage estimation and moment restriction.
\newblock In Marina Meila and Tong Zhang, editors, \emph{Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning}, volume 139 of \emph{Proceedings of Machine Learning Research}, pages 7512--7523. PMLR, 18--24 Jul 2021.
\newblock URL \url{https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/mastouri21a.html}.
\bibitem[Miao et~al.(2018)Miao, Geng, and Tchetgen~Tchetgen]{Miao2018}
Wang Miao, Zhi Geng, and Eric~J Tchetgen~Tchetgen.
\newblock {Identifying causal effects with proxy variables of an unmeasured confounder}.
\newblock \emph{Biometrika}, 105\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 987--993, 08 2018.
\newblock ISSN 0006-3444.
\newblock \doi{10.1093/biomet/asy038}.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/asy038}.
\bibitem[Miao et~al.(2020)Miao, Shi, and Tchetgen]{Miao2020}
Wang Miao, Xu~Shi, and Eric~Tchetgen Tchetgen.
\newblock A confounding bridge approach for double negative control inference on causal effects, 2020.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04945}.
\bibitem[Pearl(1995)]{Pearl1995}
Judea Pearl.
\newblock Causal diagrams for empirical research.
\newblock \emph{Biometrika}, 82\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 669--688, 1995.
\newblock \doi{10.2307/2337329}.
\bibitem[Rambachan and Roth(2021)]{Rambachan2021}
Ashesh Rambachan and Jonathan Roth.
\newblock An honest approach to parallel trends, 2021.
\bibitem[Ryan et~al.(2019)Ryan, Kontopantelis, Linden, and James F~Burgess]{Ryan2019}
Andrew~M Ryan, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Ariel Linden, and Jr~James F~Burgess.
\newblock Now trending: Coping with non-parallel trends in difference-in-differences analysis.
\newblock \emph{Statistical Methods in Medical Research}, 28\penalty0 (12):\penalty0 3697--3711, 2019.
\newblock \doi{10.1177/0962280218814570}.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280218814570}.
\newblock PMID: 30474484.
\bibitem[Shi et~al.(2020)Shi, Miao, and Tchetgen]{Shi2020}
X.~Shi, W.~Miao, and E.T. Tchetgen.
\newblock A selective review of negative control methods in epidemiology.
\newblock \emph{Current Epidemiology Reports}, 7:\penalty0 190–202, 2020.
\bibitem[Sofer et~al.(2016)Sofer, Richardson, Colicino, Schwartz, and Tchetgen]{Sofer2016}
Tamar Sofer, David~B. Richardson, Elena Colicino, Joel Schwartz, and Eric J.~Tchetgen Tchetgen.
\newblock {On Negative Outcome Control of Unobserved Confounding as a Generalization of Difference-in-Differences}.
\newblock \emph{Statistical Science}, 31\penalty0 (3):\penalty0 348 -- 361, 2016.
\newblock \doi{10.1214/16-STS558}.
\newblock URL \url{https://doi.org/10.1214/16-STS558}.
\bibitem[Taddeo et~al.(2022)Taddeo, Amorim, and Aquino]{Taddeo2022}
Marcelo~M. Taddeo, Leila~D. Amorim, and Rosana Aquino.
\newblock Causal measures using generalized difference-in-difference approach with nonlinear models.
\newblock \emph{Statistics and Its Interface}, 15\penalty0 (4):\penalty0 399 – 413, 2022.
\bibitem[Tchetgen et~al.(2020)Tchetgen, Ying, Cui, Shi, and Miao]{Tchetgen2020}
Eric J~Tchetgen Tchetgen, Andrew Ying, Yifan Cui, Xu~Shi, and Wang Miao.
\newblock An introduction to proximal causal learning, 2020.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10982}.
\bibitem[Tchetgen et~al.(2023)Tchetgen, Park, and Richardson]{Tchetgen2023_single}
Eric~Tchetgen Tchetgen, Chan Park, and David Richardson.
\newblock Single proxy control, 2023.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.06054}.
\bibitem[Ye et~al.(2020)Ye, Keele, Hasegawa, and Small]{Ye2020}
Ting Ye, Luke Keele, Raiden Hasegawa, and Dylan~S. Small.
\newblock A negative correlation strategy for bracketing in difference-in-differences, 2020.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.02423}.
\bibitem[Zhang and Ding(2022)]{Zhang2022}
Mingrui Zhang and Peng Ding.
\newblock Interpretable sensitivity analysis for the baron-kenny approach to mediation with unmeasured confounding, 2022.
\newblock URL \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.08030}.
\end{thebibliography}