Sensitivity Analysis to Unobserved Confounding with Copula-based Normalizing Flows

We propose a novel method for sensitivity analysis to unobserved confounding in causal inference. The method builds on a copula-based causal graphical normalizing flow that we term $\rho$-GNF, where $\rho \in [-1,+1]$ is the sensitivity parameter. The parameter represents the non-causal association between exposure and outcome due to unobserved confounding, which is modeled as a Gaussian copula. In other words, the $\rho$-GNF enables scholars to estimate the average causal effect (ACE) as a function of $\rho$, accounting for various confounding strengths. The output of the $\rho$-GNF is what we term the $\rho_{curve}$, which provides the bounds for the ACE given an interval of assumed $\rho$ values. The $\rho_{curve}$ also enables scholars to identify the confounding strength required to nullify the ACE. We also propose a Bayesian version of our sensitivity analysis method. Assuming a prior over the sensitivity parameter $\rho$ enables us to derive the posterior distribution over the ACE, which enables us to derive credible intervals. Finally, leveraging on experiments from simulated and real-world data, we show the benefits of our sensitivity analysis method.

A Hypothesis-Driven Framework for the Analysis of Self-Rationalising Models

The self-rationalising capabilities of LLMs are appealing because the generated explanations can give insights into the plausibility of the predictions. However, how faithful the explanations are to the predictions is questionable, raising the need to explore the patterns behind them further. To this end, we propose a hypothesis-driven statistical framework. We use a Bayesian network to implement a hypothesis about how a task (in our example, natural language inference) is solved, and its internal states are translated into natural language with templates. Those explanations are then compared to LLM-generated free-text explanations using automatic and human evaluations. This allows us to judge how similar the LLM's and the Bayesian network's decision processes are. We demonstrate the usage of our framework with an example hypothesis and two realisations in Bayesian networks. The resulting models do not exhibit a strong similarity to GPT-3.5. We discuss the implications of this as well as the framework's potential to approximate LLM decisions better in future work.