Mendelian Randomization (MR) is a prominent observational epidemiological research method designed to address unobserved confounding when estimating causal effects. However, core assumptions -- particularly the independence between instruments and unobserved confounders -- are often violated due to population stratification or assortative mating. Leveraging the increasing availability of multi-environment data, we propose a representation learning framework that exploits cross-environment invariance to recover latent exogenous components of genetic instruments. We provide theoretical guarantees for identifying these latent instruments under various mixing mechanisms and demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through simulations and semi-synthetic experiments using data from the All of Us Research Hub.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Left: DAG with disentangled latent variables that generate Z , where U2 and U3 , if observed, are valid instruments for D with respect to Y . Right: ADMG without considering the disentangled latent variables, Z1 to Z3 are all invalid instruments due to Z1 ’s violation of exchangability. 2 2 2 DAG: directly acyclic graph. ADMG: acyclic directed mixed graph.
Figure 2: Illustration of our general setup where Z is a complex, entangled instrument containing some valid information (represented by W ) as IV for D with respect to Y , and some invalid information (represented by V ). V and W are not directly observed and are not necessarily subvectors of Z .
Figure 3: Bias of estimated ACE based on different estimators based on semi-synthetic experiments using genetic variants from AoU biobank.
Figure 4: Bias comparison under different mixing functions (Polynomials of degree 1 - 3 and invertible MLP). Our methods remain unbiased while all other methods exhibit large bias.
Figure 5: Estimation bias given misspecified latent dimensions ( p^ ) when the true dimension is p=2 . Our methods remain unbiased for under-specified and moderately over-specified dimensions of W .
Figure 6: Estimation bias with and without including an independence loss. Both 2SLS and PO-2SLS estimators are unbiased when independence loss is included, while PO-2SLS is not unbiased when independence loss is excluded.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: DAG induced by the SCM in Example C.5
Figure 8: Distributions of the latent variables. The first component ( C0 ) (obtained from real data) is used as the true V and the rest of the components (simulated) are used as true W .
Figure 9: Left: Estimation bias in a 3 -population experiment given different mixing functions. Right: Estimation bias when using different invariance losses given a polynomial mixing of degree 3 .
Department of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT 06520, USA · Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA