On the magnitude, sign and ranking of recanting-twin path-specific effects
Recanting-twin 路径特定效应的大小、符号与排序AI 解读 ↓
← 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。
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。
分类依据与纠错
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类：摘要围绕因果中介分析、路径特定效应及其可识别界展开，直接对应因果推断方向。
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…
Recanting-twin 路径特定效应的大小、符号与排序
- 研究问题
- 在存在中间混杂的因果中介分析中，可识别的 recanting-twin 路径效应能否反映自然路径效应的大小、方向和相对排序？
- 方法与思路
- 作者针对二元结局推导两类路径效应绝对差异的非参数可识别上下界，并以非线性、非单调模拟考察符号和排序分歧。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要称，所给界可评估近似误差；模拟中的排序与符号分歧随设定变化，且受到中间混杂变量反事实间不可观测相关性的影响。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对两类效应的定义、界的识别条件及紧致性，并检查模拟如何设定反事实相关性，以及符号一致性需要哪些额外条件。
- 阅读边界
- 这是预印本，同行评审及期刊接收未核实。差异界针对二元结局，模拟分歧比例不能解释为实际研究中的发生概率。
原文摘要
The framework of recanting twin path-specific effects has recently been propose to address the issue of intermediate confounding in causal mediation analysis, enabling the decomposition of the average treatment effect into identifiable fine-grained path-specific effects (PSEs). An open question, however, is the extent to which recanting-twin PSEs reflect the direction and relative magnitude of their corresponding natural PSEs. In this paper, we systematically characterize the behaviors of the recanting-twin PSEs in terms of magnitude, sign and ranking, benchmarking against natural PSEs. To achieve this, we first derive non-parametric, identifiable upper and lower bounds for the absolute difference between recanting-twin and natural PSEs in binary outcome settings. These bounds provide a practical way to assess whether discrepancies in magnitude between the two types of effects are substantial, thereby facilitating the use of recanting-twin PSEs as informative approximations of their natural counterparts. A simulation study is then conducted to evaluate frequency of disagreements in sign and ranking between recanting-twin and natural effects in non-linear, non-monotonic scenarios. Across four scenarios and 320 numerical settings, we find that disagreement ranges from 15% to 56% for ranking and from 5% to 43% for sign. Disagreement is strongly influenced by the non-observable correlation between counterfactual values of the intermediate confounder, suggesting that caution is needed when interpreting the magnitude and ranking of recanting-twin PSEs, and motivating future work to identify conditions under which the two types of PSEs yield consistent conclusions when non-monotonicity presents.