TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that sharp analytical bounds in instrumental variable models inherently require exponential complexity, challenging previous claims of low-complexity heuristic methods, and provides optimal algorithms with accompanying code.
Contribution
It proves that sharp bounds must grow exponentially in complexity, establishing fundamental limits and offering optimal methods with code implementations.
Findings
Sharp bounds require exponential number of linear terms.
Number of instrumental variable inequalities also grows exponentially.
Provided code matches the proven lower bounds for efficiency.
Abstract
Bounding causal effects analytically, rather than numerically, is appealing for its interpretability and conceptual clarity. Existing sharp methods rely on optimization-based approaches such as the Balke-Pearl framework, whose computational complexity grows rapidly. An alternative line of work derives bounds heuristically using probability laws and generic inequalities, and some recent papers have claimed or conjectured that this approach can yield sharp analytical bounds with substantially lower complexity. In this paper, we show that this perceived advantage is illusory. In particular, in a discrete instrumental variable setting, we show that any sharp analytical bound for the average treatment effect must be expressible as a maximum (minimum) over a collection of linear terms whose cardinality grows exponentially in the number of values taken by the outcome. In parallel, we show that…
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.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
