跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

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。

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。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接讨论因果图、潜在混杂和因果效应估计与检验的一致性边界。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
J. M. Robins

因果推断中的一致一致性

研究问题
为何允许潜在未观测混杂或未知时间顺序的因果图学习程序可以逐点一致,却仍无法保证统一的有限样本因果推断?
方法与思路
作者区分逐点一致与一致一致,并利用每个样本量下经验上难以区分、却对应不同因果效应的分布讨论不可能性。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,在所讨论模型范围内不存在一致一致检验和点估计量,也不存在有效且一致的因果效应置信区间。
阅读关注点
核对图与分布的允许集合、两类一致性的量词顺序、置信区间有效性的定义,以及不可区分分布的构造条件。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;不可能性结论的完整模型条件未给出,不能解释为所有观察研究或附加识别限制下均无法推断。

原文摘要

There is a long tradition of representing causal relationships by directed acyclic graphs (Wright, 1934). Spirtes (1994), Spirtes et al. (1993) and Pearl & Verma (1991) describe procedures for inferring the presence or absence of causal arrows in the graph even if there might be unobserved confounding variables, and/or an unknown time order, and that under weak conditions, for certain combinations of directed acyclic graphs and probability distributions, are asymptotically, in sample size, consistent. These results are surprising since they seem to contradict the standard statistical wisdom that consistent estimators of causal effects do not exist for nonrandomised studies if there are potentially unobserved confounding variables. We resolve the apparent incompatibility of these views by closely examining the asymptotic properties of these causal inference procedures. We show that the asymptotically consistent procedures are ‘pointwise consistent’, but ‘uniformly consistent’ tests do not exist. Thus, no finite sample size can ever be guaranteed to approximate the asymptotic results. We also show the nonexistence of valid, consistent confidence intervals for causal effects and the nonexistence of uniformly consistent point estimators. Our results make no assumption about the form of the tests or estimators. In particular, the tests could be classical independence tests, they could be Bayes tests or they could be tests based on scoring methods such as BIC or AIC. The implications of our results for observational studies are controversial and are discussed briefly in the last section of the paper. The results hinge on the following fact: it is possible to find, for each sample size n, distributions P and Q such that P and Q are empirically indistinguishable and yet P and Q correspond to different causal effects.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文