# Minimum Specification Perturbation: Robustness as Distance-to-Falsification in Causal Inference

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.01579 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.01579/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6572/) (2014)
- [Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06083/) (2017)
- [Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.04644/) (2016)
- [Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00399/) (2017)
- [Actionable Recourse in Linear Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.06514/) (2018)
- [Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.06278/) (2020)
- [Tight Certificates of Adversarial Robustness for Randomly Smoothed Classifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.04948/) (2019)
- [Exploring Counterfactual Explanations Through the Lens of Adversarial Examples: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09992/) (2021)
- [An Automatic Finite-Sample Robustness Metric: When Can Dropping a Little Data Make a Big Difference?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.14999/) (2020)
- [Inference on Breakdown Frontiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.04765/) (2017)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Empirical causal claims depend on many analyst decisions, from selecting covariates to choosing estimators. Existing robustness tools summarize how results vary across these choices, but, to the best of our knowledge, do not answer: How many analyst decisions must change to reach a specification, which is a set of choices, whose confidence interval (CI) contains zero? We introduce Minimum Specification Perturbation (MSP), the smallest number of changes. MSP is small under the null, grows with effect strength and captures distance-to-falsification information that dispersion-based summaries cannot report; when making decisions under weak effects, an MSP-based rule yields lower false-positive rates than dispersion-based rules. We show that Fragility Index and MSP measure orthogonal vulnerabilities: fragility to influential observations need not imply fragility to specification choices. On the LaLonde benchmark, MSP = 1 implies that one decision change makes the CI contain zero. We further provide exact permutation calibration under randomization and characterize computation, showing tractable cases under additive structure and NP-hardness in general.