Causal inference is not just a statistics problem
因果推断不只是统计问题AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要通过混杂、碰撞点、中介和 M 偏误说明因果效应识别对机制知识的依赖,因此归入因果推断。
因果推断不只是统计问题AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
This paper introduces a collection of four data sets, similar to Anscombe's Quartet, that aim to highlight the challenges involved when estimating causal effects. Each of the four data sets is generated based on a distinct causal mechanism: the first involves a collider, the second involves a confounder, the third involves a mediator, and the fourth involves the induction of M-Bias by an included factor. The paper includes a mathematical summary of each data set, as well as directed acyclic graphs that depict the relationships between the variables. Despite the fact that the statistical summaries and visualizations for each data set are identical, the true causal effect differs, and estimating it correctly requires knowledge of the data-generating mechanism. These example data sets can help practitioners gain a better understanding of the assumptions underlying causal inference methods and emphasize the importance of gathering more information beyond what can be obtained from statistical tools alone. The paper also includes R code for reproducing all figures and provides access to the data sets themselves through an R package named quartets.