Comment: Reflections on the Deconfounder
Alexander D'Amour

TL;DR
This comment critically examines the deconfounder method, highlighting issues with causal identification, the risks of parametric assumptions, and the significance of nonparametric identification results for certain causal estimands.
Contribution
It provides a critical analysis of the deconfounder method, emphasizing the limitations of causal identification and the importance of nonparametric results under weak assumptions.
Findings
Lack of causal identification in many settings.
Parametric assumptions can be risky without strong prior info.
Nonparametric identification is possible for specific estimands.
Abstract
The aim of this comment (set to appear in a formal discussion in JASA) is to draw out some conclusions from an extended back-and-forth I have had with Wang and Blei regarding the deconfounder method proposed in "The Blessings of Multiple Causes" [arXiv:1805.06826]. I will make three points here. First, in my role as the critic in this conversation, I will summarize some arguments about the lack of causal identification in the bulk of settings where the "informal" message of the paper suggests that the deconfounder could be used. This is a point that is discussed at length in D'Amour 2019 [arXiv:1902.10286], which motivated the results concerning causal identification in Theorems 6--8 of "Blessings". Second, I will argue that adding parametric assumptions to the working model in order to obtain identification of causal parameters (a strategy followed in Theorem 6 and in the experimental…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques · Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials · Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
