On the (in)compatibility between potential outcomes and structural causal models and its signification in counterfactual inference - Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse Accéder directement au contenu
Pré-Publication, Document De Travail Année : 2024

On the (in)compatibility between potential outcomes and structural causal models and its signification in counterfactual inference

Résumé

Most of the scientific literature on causal modeling considers the structural framework of Pearl and the potential-outcome framework of Rubin to be formally equivalent, and therefore interchangeably uses the do-notation and the potential-outcome subscript notation to write counterfactual outcomes. In this paper, we agnostically superimpose the two causal models to specify under which mathematical conditions structural counterfactual outcomes and potential outcomes need to, do not need to, can, or cannot be equal (almost surely or law). Our comparison reminds that a structural causal model and a Rubin causal model compatible with the same observations do not have to coincide, and highlights real-world problems where they even cannot correspond. Then, we examine common claims and practices from the causal-inference literature in the light of these results. In doing so, we aim at clarifying the relationship between the two causal frameworks, and the interpretation of their respective counterfactuals.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
main.pdf (403.95 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Origine : Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)

Dates et versions

hal-04203003 , version 1 (11-09-2023)
hal-04203003 , version 2 (06-10-2023)
hal-04203003 , version 3 (17-03-2024)

Identifiants

Citer

Lucas de Lara. On the (in)compatibility between potential outcomes and structural causal models and its signification in counterfactual inference. 2024. ⟨hal-04203003v3⟩
81 Consultations
178 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More