Papers › Sharp Bounds for Continuous-Valued Treatment Effects with Unobserved Confounders

Sharp Bounds for Continuous-Valued Treatment Effects with Unobserved Confounders

4 Nov 2024arXiv:2411.02231links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Jean-Baptiste Baitairian, Bernard Sebastien, Rana Jreich, Sandrine Katsahian, Agathe Guilloux

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

In causal inference, treatment effects are typically estimated under the ignorability, or unconfoundedness, assumption, which is often unrealistic in observational data. By relaxing this assumption and conducting a sensitivity analysis, we introduce novel bounds and derive confidence intervals for the Average Potential Outcome (APO) - a standard metric for evaluating continuous-valued treatment or exposure effects. We demonstrate that these bounds are sharp under a continuous sensitivity model, in the sense that they give the smallest possible interval under this model, and propose a doubly robust version of our estimators. In a comparative analysis with the method of Jesson et al. (2022) (arXiv:2204.10022), using both simulated and real datasets, we show that our approach not only yields sharper bounds but also achieves good coverage of the true APO, with significantly reduced computation times.

PaperPDFCode

Code

sanofi-public/sharp-bounds-for-continuous-treatment-effects officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections