Introduction

This vignette demonstrates advanced usage of the causaldef package, focusing on diagnostics for unobserved confounding and sensitivity analysis. We utilize real data incorporated in the package to showcase these features.

library(causaldef)
library(ggplot2)

# DAG Helper
plot_dag <- function(coords, edges, title = NULL) {
  edges_df <- merge(edges, coords, by.x = "from", by.y = "name")
  colnames(edges_df)[c(3,4)] <- c("x_start", "y_start")
  edges_df <- merge(edges_df, coords, by.x = "to", by.y = "name")
  colnames(edges_df)[c(5,6)] <- c("x_end", "y_end")
  
  ggplot2::ggplot(coords, ggplot2::aes(x = x, y = y)) +
    ggplot2::geom_segment(data = edges_df, ggplot2::aes(x = x_start, y = y_start, xend = x_end, yend = y_end),
                 arrow = ggplot2::arrow(length = ggplot2::unit(0.3, "cm"), type = "closed"), 
                 color = "gray40", size = 1, alpha = 0.8) +
    ggplot2::geom_point(size = 14, color = "white", fill = "#E7B800", shape = 21, stroke = 1.5) + # different color
    ggplot2::geom_text(ggplot2::aes(label = name), fontface = "bold", size = 3, color = "black") +
    ggplot2::ggtitle(title) + 
    ggplot2::theme_void(base_size = 14) +
    ggplot2::theme(plot.title = ggplot2::element_text(hjust = 0.5, face = "bold", margin = ggplot2::margin(b = 10))) +
    ggplot2::coord_fixed()
}

Unobserved Confounding and Negative Controls

Unobserved confounding is a major threat to causal inference. The causaldef package implements “Negative Control Outcomes” to detect residual confounding. A negative control outcome is a variable that is affected by unobserved confounders but is known not to be causally affected by the treatment.

We will use the gene_perturbation dataset provided in the package. This dataset comes from a CRISPR knockout experiment.

Treatment (knockout_status): Whether a gene was knocked out (Treatment) or not (Control).
Outcome (target_expression): Expression level of the target gene.
Confounders: Technical factors like library_size and batch.
Negative Control (housekeeping_gene): A housekeeping gene that should not be affected by the specific knockout but shares technical confounders.

Loading the Data

data("gene_perturbation")
head(gene_perturbation)
#>   sample_id batch library_size knockout_status target_expression
#> 1        S1     3       948877        Knockout             8.643
#> 2        S2     4       984900         Control            11.545
#> 3        S3     4       868332         Control            12.325
#> 4        S4     2      1052105         Control            12.941
#> 5        S5     2       880271         Control             8.289
#> 6        S6     2      1001246        Knockout             9.400
#>   housekeeping_gene
#> 1             6.594
#> 2             9.424
#> 3             8.568
#> 4             9.224
#> 5             6.380
#> 6             6.706

Running the Negative Control Diagnostic

We first specify the causal model, explicitly identifying the negative control outcome.

spec_nc <- causal_spec(
  data = gene_perturbation,
  treatment = "knockout_status",
  outcome = "target_expression",
  covariates = c("library_size", "batch"),
  negative_control = "housekeeping_gene"
)
#> ✔ Created causal specification: n=500, 2 covariate(s)

# Visualize the Structural Assumption
coords <- data.frame(
  name = c("Unobserved", "Treatment", "Target", "Housekp"),
  x = c(0, -1.5, 1.5, 0),
  y = c(1, 0, 0, -1)
)
edges <- data.frame(
  from = c("Unobserved", "Unobserved", "Unobserved", "Treatment"),
  to =   c("Treatment", "Target", "Housekp", "Target")
)
plot_dag(coords, edges, title = "Why Negative Controls Work:\nShared Unobserved Confounding")

Now we run the diagnostic using nc_diagnostic(). We test if the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) method successfully removes confounding bias.

set.seed(123)
# Check if IPTW approach effectively removes confounding using the negative control
nc_res <- nc_diagnostic(spec_nc, method = "iptw", n_boot = 100)
#> ℹ Using kappa = 1 (conservative). Consider domain-specific estimation or sensitivity analysis via kappa_range.
#> ✔ No evidence against causal assumptions (p = 0.14851 )
print(nc_res)
#> 
#> -- Negative Control Diagnostic ----------------------------------------
#> 
#> * screening statistic (weighted corr): 0.0821 
#> * delta_NC (association proxy): 0.0821 
#> * delta bound (under kappa alignment): 0.0821 (kappa = 1 )
#> * screening p-value: 0.14851 
#> * screening method: weighted_permutation_correlation 
#> 
#> RESULT: NOT REJECTED. This is a screening result, not proof that confounding is absent.
#> NOTE: Your effect estimate must exceed the Noise Floor (delta_bound) to be meaningful.

Interpreting Negative Control Diagnostics:

This diagnostic tests a crucial assumption: “Did my adjustment remove ALL confounding?”

Key Results to Check:

p_value:
- 0.05: the screen does not find strong evidence that treatment still predicts the negative control after adjustment
- \(\leq\) 0.05: treatment still predicts the negative control -> residual confounding or misspecification is detected
falsified:
- FALSE: the negative-control screen is not rejecting, which is useful but not a proof that all confounding is gone
- TRUE: the screen rejects -> likely unobserved confounding or model misspecification
delta_nc:
- Magnitude of residual association with the negative control
- Smaller values indicate better performance, but even nonzero values under non-rejection still represent a residual uncertainty budget
delta_bound:
- Upper bound on your true deficiency: \(\delta \leq \kappa \times \delta_{NC}\)
- Provides a worst-case estimate even when you can’t directly measure \(\delta\)

Scientific Implications:

The negative control is powerful because:

It doesn’t rely on assumptions about what confounders exist
It provides empirical evidence (not just theoretical arguments)
Falsification is strong evidence: if it fails, your conclusions are suspect
Non-falsification is only a screen; you should still report delta_nc or delta_bound

If falsified:

Do NOT ignore this result
Investigate: batch effects, technical artifacts, unmeasured biology
Consider: additional covariates, different methods, or acknowledging the limitation

Addressing the Falsification

If the diagnostic fails, or if delta_nc remains materially nonzero despite non-falsification, your current adjustment set is still leaving you with a residual uncertainty budget that should be reported explicitly.

Recommended Actions:

Enrich the Confounder Set: If possible, measure and include additional potential confounders (e.g., more granular technical variables).
Sensitivity Analysis: Since you have evidence of unobserved confounding, use confounding_frontier() to determine how strong this confounding would need to be to invalidate your results.
Alternative Designs: Consider methods that rely on different assumptions, such as Instrumental Variables (if available) or Difference-in-Differences.
Transparent Reporting: If you cannot fix the issue, you must report the failure. “We detected residual confounding (\(\delta_{nc} = ...\)) using negative controls. Consequently, causal estimates interpretability is limited.”

Sensitivity Analysis: Confounding Frontiers

When we suspect unobserved confounding, we can quantify how sensitive our causal conclusions are to potential unmeasured confounders \(U\). The confounding_frontier() function maps the “deficiency” (information loss) as a function of the strength of confounding paths \(U \to A\) (\(\alpha\)) and \(U \to Y\) (\(\gamma\)).

We will demonstrate this using the hct_outcomes dataset (Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation).

data("hct_outcomes")

# Convert treatment to numeric for the Gaussian model approximation
hct_outcomes$conditioning_numeric <- as.numeric(hct_outcomes$conditioning_intensity) - 1

# Simplified specification focusing on conditioning intensity
spec_sens <- causal_spec(
  data = hct_outcomes,
  treatment = "conditioning_numeric",
  outcome = "time_to_event", # Simplified for this example
  covariates = c("age", "disease_status")
)
#> ✔ Created causal specification: n=800, 2 covariate(s)

We compute the confounding frontier. This does not require observing \(U\), but rather exploring the space of hypothetical confounding strengths.

frontier <- confounding_frontier(
  spec_sens,
  alpha_range = c(-1, 1),
  gamma_range = c(-1, 1),
  grid_size = 40
)
#> ℹ Computing benchmarks for observed covariates...
#> ✔ Computed confounding frontier: 40x40 grid

# The result contains a grid we can visualize
head(frontier$grid)
#>        alpha gamma      delta
#> 1 -1.0000000    -1 0.01464506
#> 2 -0.9487179    -1 0.01529749
#> 3 -0.8974359    -1 0.01600208
#> 4 -0.8461538    -1 0.01676353
#> 5 -0.7948718    -1 0.01758630
#> 6 -0.7435897    -1 0.01847429

Visualizing the Frontier

We can visualize the regions where deficiency is high (problematic) vs low.

ggplot(frontier$grid, aes(x = alpha, y = gamma, fill = delta)) +
  geom_tile() +
  scale_fill_viridis_c(option = "magma", direction = -1) +
  labs(
    title = "Confounding Frontier",
    x = "Confounding Strength U -> A (alpha)",
    y = "Confounding Strength U -> Y (gamma)",
    fill = "Deficiency\n(Delta)"
  ) +
  theme_minimal() +
  geom_contour(aes(z = delta), color = "white", breaks = c(0.01, 0.05, 0.1))

Interpreting the Confounding Frontier:

This visualization maps the “danger zones” of unobserved confounding:

The Axes:

x-axis (\(\alpha\)): Strength of confounding U -> A (unobserved confounder affects treatment)
y-axis (\(\gamma\)): Strength of confounding U -> Y (unobserved confounder affects outcome)
Color/fill (\(\delta\)): Resulting deficiency (information loss)

Reading the Plot:

Dark regions (low \(\delta\) \(\approx\) 0):
- “Safe zones” where causal identification is robust
- Small amounts of unobserved confounding don’t destroy identification
- You can proceed with confidence in these scenarios
Bright regions (larger \(\delta\)):
- Regions where unobserved confounding more severely compromises identification
- Larger distributional distance from the ideal experiment
- Causal conclusions become more sensitive to hidden bias
Contour lines (white lines at \(\delta\) = 0.01, 0.05, 0.1):
- Boundaries between different risk levels
- The “frontier” where identification breaks down

Scientific Decision-Making:

Use domain knowledge to assess plausibility:

If the region you consider plausible stays in low-\(\delta\) territory, your conclusions are less sensitive to hidden bias
If plausible scenarios enter moderate- or high-\(\delta\) regions, your conclusions are fragile and should be reported that way
If you are uncertain about confounding strength, report results across the frontier instead of selecting a single reassuring point

Example Interpretation:
“Our sensitivity analysis shows that weak unobserved confounding leaves the deficiency proxy small, while stronger joint confounding pushes the study into a materially larger observational-to-interventional gap. We therefore report the causal estimate together with this sensitivity map, rather than treating the analysis as fully validated.”

The confounding frontier shows the boundary: if we are outside the “safe” zone defined by the frontier, we cannot claim causal identification without further assumptions (see Akdemir 2026, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18367346 for theoretical details).

Conclusion

The causaldef package provides tools not just for estimation, but for falsification and sensitivity analysis.

Negative Controls allow us to empirically test our “no unobserved confounding” assumption using auxiliary data.
Confounding Frontiers allow us to theoretically explore how robust our study is to potential unobserved confounders.

Advanced Causal Analysis