High-Dimensional Confounder Settings

• High-dimensional confounder settings refer to scenarios with numerous pre-exposure variables, common in genomics and omics, requiring precise adjustment to control bias.
• The framework emphasizes the use of minimally sufficient adjustment sets to ensure that only essential covariates are included, avoiding overadjustment and collider bias.
• Practical strategies combine subject-matter expertise, graphical models, and search algorithms to efficiently select confounders and maintain estimator efficiency in large observational studies.

High-dimensional confounder settings arise in contemporary observational studies where the number of potential confounding variables—pre-exposure covariates that may affect both exposure and outcome—is large relative to, or even exceeds, the number of observations. These settings are ubiquitous in genomics, medical registry analyses, electronic health records, and high-throughput omics, where hundreds or thousands of covariates can be measured. The presence of so many candidate covariates introduces substantial challenges for confounder definition, selection, statistical adjustment, bias quantification, and statistical inference. Proper control for confounding is essential for unbiased estimation of causal effects, but naively adjusting for all measured covariates may introduce inefficiency, bias (e.g., through collider stratification), and intractable variance. High-dimensional confounder settings thus motivate rigorous formal definitions and data-driven selection procedures tailored to the complex dependency structures characteristic of these data-rich environments.

1. Formal Definitions and Core Properties of Confounders

A rigorous definition of a confounder is essential for high-dimensional adjustment strategies. Across the literature, six candidate definitions are recognized, but only one—membership in at least one minimally sufficient adjustment set—simultaneously guarantees that (1) adjusting for the set of all such confounders suffices to control for confounding and (2) each confounder is necessary for bias elimination in some context (VanderWeele et al., 2013).

The preferred formalism states: a covariate $C$ is a confounder for $A$ on $Y$ if there exists some (possibly empty) set $X$ such that

$Y_a \perp\!\!\!\perp A \mid (X,C)$

but for no strict subset $T \subsetneq (X,C)$ does

$Y_a \perp\!\!\!\perp A \mid T$

hold. This "minimally sufficient adjustment set" approach avoids the pitfalls of more inclusive definitions based on mere statistical association or backdoor path-blocking (which may include variables that do not help reduce bias and may even induce bias in some scenarios). The conditional extension allows for baseline covariates $L$ that are always controlled for; $C$ is a confounder conditional on $L$ if it is contained in a minimally sufficient set given $L$ (VanderWeele et al., 2013).

Surrogate confounders ("proxy confounders") are covariates that, when included in adjustment, reduce (but do not eliminate) bias; these are defined operationally by numerical bias reduction rather than by membership in any minimally sufficient set.

2. Implications and Practical Advantages of the Minimally Sufficient Set Definition

This definition's central advantage in high-dimensional settings is its selectivity: it includes as confounders only those covariates necessary in at least one scenario for bias removal, thereby avoiding overadjustment and the inclusion of colliders or redundant controls—a major pitfall in large-scale spaces. It closely tracks the epidemiological notion of variables that "must be measured and adjusted for," and coincides with earlier definitions by Robins and Morgenstern (VanderWeele et al., 2013).

In high-dimensional applications—such as genomics, registries, and "omics"—the minimally sufficient set definition supports the identification of minimal adjustment sets, even when there is substantial redundancy or multiple equivalent adjustment sets due to the presence of proxies. In such settings, the preferred definition ensures that adjustment for the union of all such confounders removes confounding (Property 1), and each confounder is essential in some context (Property 2A).

Variables that only reduce bias (e.g., on some scales, or as proxies) but are not "essential" in any minimally sufficient set are best construed as surrogate confounders, and should not be targeted for adjustment if the goal is complete confounding control.

3. Operationalization in High-Dimensional Covariate Spaces

Practical confounder selection in high dimensions requires methods that can efficiently search over the vast covariate space for minimally sufficient adjustment sets. Purely association-based or backdoor path-blocking identification will, in the high-dimensional limit, yield excessively large adjustment sets, often introducing collider bias and loss of statistical efficiency.

Analytic strategies must integrate:

• Subject-matter knowledge (often graphically encoded in directed acyclic graphs), to partition which covariates are eligible as confounders;
• Search algorithms (often from graphical models or causal structure learning, see (Häggström, 2016, Watson et al., 2022)), which exploit tests of conditional independence, Markov blankets, or other structural features to identify candidates within the network of dependencies;
• Evaluation of inclusion necessity, via iterative checks for minimal sufficiency (i.e., variable $C$ is not in every sufficient adjustment set, but is essential in at least one for blocking all noncausal paths between $A$ and $Y$);
• Sensitivity analyses and bias assessments for surrogate confounders, if reduction rather than elimination of bias is acceptable or the exposure–outcome effect is modest.

In practice, many implementations pursue either a union (association-based) or intersection (supporting minimal sufficiency) principle. For example, support intersection approaches explicitly target candidate variables that influence both treatment and outcome—leveraging the sparsity of true confounders even when the total number of correlates is large (Lee et al., 2019). Alternative techniques utilize graphical and constraint-based search to identify active paths blocked only by minimal sets (Häggström, 2016).

4. Application Scenarios and Illustrative Examples

In epidemiological studies with tens to thousands of measured covariates, minimally sufficient set–based definitions are directly operationalized by identifying all sets of pre-exposure covariates that close all backdoor paths and then forming the union of variables essential in at least one such set (VanderWeele et al., 2013). This is critical, as inclusion of redundant variables or colliders (from backdoor path or association-based selection) risks opening biasing paths (M-bias) or degrading estimator efficiency.

For example, in smoking and lung cancer research, "age" is an intuitively associated variable, but may be redundant—if, after adjustment for genetic predisposition, age is not in any minimally sufficient set, further adjustment is unnecessary and could be counterproductive. Conversely, in omics with hundreds of measured exposures, high-dimensional search for minimal sufficient sets can isolate a manageable subset of confounders, reducing overadjustment and variance inflation.

If every variable entering a minimal sufficient set is measured, adjustment suffices for identification. If key predictors are unmeasured but proxies exist (strongly associated with treatment and weakly with outcome), these act as surrogate confounders, helping reduce bias but never fully resolving confounding (VanderWeele et al., 2013).

5. Extensions, Limitations, and Connections to Broader Causal Inference Concepts

While the minimally sufficient set definition is well-adapted to high-dimensional settings, practical implementation depends on the accurate specification—or reliable estimation—of the underlying causal structure. This typically requires either strong domain knowledge, external information, or robust causal discovery algorithms. In settings with unmeasured confounding or misspecified graphs, even the best minimal set approach cannot guarantee unbiasedness.

This framework also justifies the restriction in many high-dimensional adjustment procedures to pre-exposure covariates: inclusion of post-exposure variables, intermediates, or colliders is explicitly disfavored, in contrast to association- or outcome-driven selection criteria. The connection to the work of Robins and Morgenstern underscores the theoretical roots and supports conditional definitions where certain baseline variables (e.g., sex, ancestry principal components) are always adjusted for, and further minimal adjustment is identified conditionally.

There are also theoretical links to the concept of d-separation in graphical models, which formalizes the paths blocked by controlling for a set. Only those sets that block all backdoor paths—and are minimal—satisfy the robust definition of confounders applicable in high-dimensional frameworks.

A significant limitation is the computational cost in ultrahigh dimensions, which motivates the development of both domain-specific and efficient algorithmic implementations. When measurement error or missing data occurs, further complications may arise, and surrogate confounder approaches become more relevant, though at the cost of possible residual bias.

6. Summary Table of Candidate Confounder Definitions and Properties

The following table summarizes the key definitions and their satisfaction of the two core properties, as established in (VanderWeele et al., 2013):

Definition	If adjust all: removes confounding (Property 1)	Each confounder essential somewhere (Property 2A)
Association-based (Def 1)	Yes	No
Backdoor path (Def 2)	Yes	No
All minimally sufficient sets (Def 3)	No	Yes
Some minimally sufficient set (Def 4)	Yes	Yes
Bias reduction (Def 5)	No	No (only reduces)
Collapsibility (Def 6)	No	No (scale-specific)

Only Definition 4 (some minimally sufficient set) meets both desiderata and is advocated for high-dimensional confounder settings.

---

High-dimensional confounder settings require a rigorous, necessity-based definition for confounders—anchored in their role in minimally sufficient adjustment sets—to ensure validity and efficiency in causal inference. This principle enables both theoretical clarity and feasible, robust implementation as the number of available covariates grows, making it indispensable for modern observational research and computational causal discovery.