Author: Deniz Akdemir
Date: 2026-03-26

# Sensitivity Analysis: Deficiency vs. E-values

#### Deniz Akdemir

#### 2026-03-26

## Introduction

Sensitivity analysis answers: “How strong would unmeasured confounding need to be to change our conclusions?”

Several frameworks exist:

Framework | Key Metric | Interpretation
--- | --- | ---
E-value | Risk ratio needed | “Unmeasured confounder must have RR = X”
Partial R² | Variance explained | “Confounder must explain X% of variance”
Le Cam Deficiency (δ) | Information loss | “Transfer penalty bounded by \(M\delta\)”

This vignette shows how deficiency-based sensitivity analysis relates to and extends traditional approaches.

## Conceptual Translation

### The E-value Perspective

The E-value (VanderWeele & Ding, 2017) asks:

> “To explain away the observed effect, an unmeasured confounder would need to have a risk ratio of at least E with both treatment and outcome.”

For an observed risk ratio RR, the E-value is:

\[E = RR + \sqrt{RR \times (RR - 1)}\]

### The Deficiency Perspective

Deficiency (δ) takes a decision-theoretic view:

> “Given the information gap between observational and interventional data, the worst-case regret inflation term is bounded by \(M\delta\) (and there is a minimax floor \((M/2)\delta\)).”

Key insight: δ directly quantifies policy consequences, not just statistical associations.

### Conceptual Mapping

E-value Concept | Deficiency Equivalent
--- | ---
“Effect explained away” | δ → 1 (maximal deficiency)
“Effect robust” | δ → 0 (zero deficiency)
E-value = 2 | Moderate unmeasured confounding
E-value = 5 | Strong unmeasured confounding

## Practical Example

### Setup

    library(causaldef)
    set.seed(42)

    n <- 500
    U <- rnorm(n) # Unmeasured confounder
    W <- 0.7 * U + rnorm(n, sd = 0.5) # Observed covariate
    A <- rbinom(n, 1, plogis(0.5 * U)) # Treatment
    Y <- 2 * A + 1.5 * U + rnorm(n) # Outcome (true effect = 2)

    df <- data.frame(W = W, A = A, Y = Y)

    spec <- causal_spec(df, "A", "Y", "W")
    #> ✔ Created causal specification: n=500, 1 covariate(s)

### Deficiency Estimation

    def_results <- estimate_deficiency(
        spec,
        methods = c("unadjusted", "iptw"),
        n_boot = 100
    )
    #> ℹ Estimating deficiency: unadjusted
    #> ℹ Estimating deficiency: iptw

    print(def_results)
    #>
    #> -- Deficiency Proxy Estimates (PS-TV) ------
    #>
    #>      Method  Delta     SE               CI            Quality
    #>  unadjusted 0.1115 0.0283 [0.0585, 0.1772] Insufficient (Red)
    #>        iptw 0.0162 0.0091 [0.0055, 0.0364]  Excellent (Green)
    #> Note: delta is a propensity-score TV proxy (overlap/balance diagnostic).
    #>
    #> Best method: iptw (delta = 0.0162 )

### Confounding Frontier

The confounding frontier maps deficiency as a function of confounding strength:

    frontier <- confounding_frontier(
        spec,
        alpha_range = c(-3, 3),
        gamma_range = c(-3, 3),
        grid_size = 40
    )
    #> ℹ Computing benchmarks for observed covariates...
    #> ✔ Computed confounding frontier: 40x40 grid

    plot(frontier)

Reading the Plot:

- X-axis (α): Strength of U → A path (treatment selection)
- Y-axis (γ): Strength of U → Y path (outcome confounding)
- Color: Deficiency δ (darker = larger information loss)
- Zero frontier: The boundary where δ = 0 (perfect identification)

### Policy Regret Bound

    bounds <- policy_regret_bound(def_results, utility_range = c(0, 10), method = "iptw")
    #> ℹ Transfer penalty: 0.1619 (delta = 0.0162)
    print(bounds)
    #>
    #> -- Policy Regret Bounds -------------------------------------------------
    #>
    #> * Deficiency delta: 0.0162
    #> * Delta mode: point
    #> * Delta method: iptw
    #> * Delta selection: pre-specified method
    #> * Utility range: [0, 10]
    #> * Transfer penalty: 0.1619 (additive regret upper bound)
    #> * Minimax floor: 0.0809 (worst-case lower bound)
    #>
    #> Note: this is a plug-in bound using a deficiency proxy rather than an identified exact deficiency.
    #>
    #> Interpretation: Transfer penalty is 1.6 % of utility range given delta

## Comparison with E-values

### Computing an Approximate E-value

For comparison, we can compute the E-value for our effect estimate:

    # Effect estimate
    effect <- estimate_effect(def_results, target_method = "iptw")
    print(effect)
    #>
    #> -- Causal Effect Estimate ----------------------
    #> Method:    iptw
    #> Type:      ATE
    #> Contrast:  1 vs 0
    #> Estimate:  2.1256

    # For E-value calculation, we need to convert to risk ratio scale
    # This is an approximation; exact E-values require binary outcomes
    # Here we use the standardized effect size

    # Assuming effect is on continuous scale, we can compute
    # a pseudo-risk ratio via effect size transformation
    effect_se <- 1 # Approximate SE (would be from bootstrap in practice)
    effect_est <- effect$estimate
    t_stat <- effect_est / effect_se

    # Approximate conversion to OR (for conceptual illustration)
    # Using Chinn's (2000) formula for approximate OR from mean difference
    approx_or <- exp(effect_est / 1.81)

    # E-value formula
    if (approx_or > 1) {
        e_value <- approx_or + sqrt(approx_or * (approx_or - 1))
    } else {
        e_value <- 1 / approx_or + sqrt(1 / approx_or * (1 / approx_or - 1))
    }

    cat(sprintf("
    Approximate E-value: %.2f

    Interpretation: To explain away the observed effect, an unmeasured
    confounder would need a risk ratio of at least %.2f with both
    treatment and outcome.
    ", e_value, e_value))
    #>
    #> Approximate E-value: 5.93
    #>
    #> Interpretation: To explain away the observed effect, an unmeasured
    #> confounder would need a risk ratio of at least 5.93 with both
    #> treatment and outcome.

### Deficiency vs. E-value: Key Differences

Aspect | E-value | Deficiency (δ)
--- | --- | ---
Scale | Risk ratio | Total variation distance
Interpretation | Strength needed to “explain away” | Information loss for decisions
Decision utility | Abstract | Direct (via \(M\delta\) transfer penalty)
Multi-method | Single estimate | Compares strategies
Negative controls | Not integrated | Built-in diagnostics

### When to Use Each

Use E-values when: - Communicating to epidemiologists/clinicians familiar with RR - Binary outcomes with clear risk ratio interpretation - Want a single summary number

Use Deficiency (δ) when: - Need decision-theoretic bounds (policy regret) - Comparing multiple adjustment strategies - Have negative control outcomes available - Working with non-binary outcomes (continuous, survival) - Need to combine with sensitivity frontiers

## Extended Sensitivity Analysis

### Benchmarking Observed Covariates

A key advantage of the frontier approach is benchmarking: we can see where observed covariates fall on the confounding map.

    # Add more covariates for benchmarking
    df$W2 <- 0.3 * U + rnorm(n, sd = 0.8)
    df$W3 <- 0.9 * U + rnorm(n, sd = 0.3)

    spec_multi <- causal_spec(df, "A", "Y", c("W", "W2", "W3"))
    #> ✔ Created causal specification: n=500, 3 covariate(s)

    frontier_bench <- confounding_frontier(
        spec_multi,
        grid_size = 40
    )
    #> ℹ Computing benchmarks for observed covariates...
    #> ✔ Computed confounding frontier: 40x40 grid

    # Access benchmarks
    if (!is.null(frontier_bench$benchmarks)) {
        print(frontier_bench$benchmarks)
    }
    #>        covariate       alpha     gamma      delta
    #> W_std          W 0.082061386 1.2208028 0.03119422
    #> W_std1        W2 0.001412356 0.5199305 0.00000000
    #> W_std2        W3 0.109257973 1.4261294 0.04564695

Using Benchmarks:

The benchmarks show the inferred confounding strength of each observed covariate. If an unmeasured confounder would need to be “stronger than W3” (which we know explains 81% of U’s variance), conclusions are robust.

### Combining with Negative Controls

    # Add negative control
    df$Y_nc <- U + rnorm(n, sd = 0.5) # Affected by U, not by A

    spec_full <- causal_spec(
        df, "A", "Y", c("W", "W2", "W3"),
        negative_control = "Y_nc"
    )
    #> ✔ Created causal specification: n=500, 3 covariate(s)

    # Complete analysis
    def_full <- estimate_deficiency(
        spec_full,
        methods = c("unadjusted", "iptw"),
        n_boot = 100
    )
    #> ℹ Estimating deficiency: unadjusted
    #> ℹ Estimating deficiency: iptw

    nc_full <- nc_diagnostic(spec_full, 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 = 0.74257 )

    print(def_full)
    #>
    #> -- Deficiency Proxy Estimates (PS-TV) ------
    #>
    #>      Method  Delta     SE               CI            Quality
    #>  unadjusted 0.1033 0.0233 [0.1016, 0.1825] Insufficient (Red)
    #>        iptw 0.0204 0.0089  [0.016, 0.0482]  Excellent (Green)
    #> Note: delta is a propensity-score TV proxy (overlap/balance diagnostic).
    #>
    #> Best method: iptw (delta = 0.0204 )
    print(nc_full)
    #>
    #> -- Negative Control Diagnostic ----------------------------------------
    #>
    #> * screening statistic (weighted corr): 0.0173
    #> * delta_NC (association proxy): 0.0173
    #> * delta bound (under kappa alignment): 0.0173 (kappa = 1 )
    #> * screening p-value: 0.74257
    #> * 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.

## Summary: Unified Sensitivity Analysis

The `causaldef` approach provides a unified framework:

    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
    │                     SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS                         │
    ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │  confounding_frontier()                                          │
    │    → Maps δ as function of confounding strength (α, γ)          │
    │    → Benchmarks observed covariates as reference points         │
    ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │  nc_diagnostic()                                                 │
    │    → Empirical falsification test                               │
    │    → Bounds δ using observable negative control                 │
    ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
    │  policy_regret_bound()                                           │
    │    → Translates δ into decision-theoretic consequences          │
    │    → Transfer penalty = Mδ; minimax floor = (M/2)δ              │
    └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Key Advantages:

1. Decision-theoretic meaning: δ bounds actual regret, not just association strength
2. Multi-method comparison: See which adjustment does best
3. Empirical validation: Negative controls test assumptions
4. Visual sensitivity: Frontiers show robustness at a glance

## References

1. Akdemir, D. (2026). Constraints on Causal Inference as Experiment Comparison. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18367347

2. VanderWeele, T. J., & Ding, P. (2017). Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-value. Annals of Internal Medicine.

3. Cinelli, C., & Hazlett, C. (2020). Making Sense of Sensitivity: Extending Omitted Variable Bias. JRSS-B.

4. Torgersen, E. (1991). Comparison of Statistical Experiments. Cambridge University Press.