Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes
使用潜在结果进行因果推断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。
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：摘要直接讨论潜在结果、处理分配机制、因果效应及实验与观察研究。
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
使用潜在结果进行因果推断
- 研究问题
- 如何用潜在结果与处理分配机制统一表达实验及非随机研究中的因果效应，并区分科学推断与决策，是本文讨论的问题。
- 方法与思路
- 作者以同一组单位在不同处理下的潜在结果比较定义效应，通过分配机制描述观测，并讨论贝叶斯模型补充。
- 材料陈述的贡献
- 摘要强调潜在结果框架可连接实验设计与参数建模，并据此批评 Fisher 关于调整处理后伴随变量的建议。
- 阅读关注点
- 应核对分配机制如何进入推断、贝叶斯模型补充的作用，以及处理前与处理后变量调整的具体论证和适用情境。
- 阅读边界
- 仅据所给 OpenAlex 摘要，不能确认非随机研究的具体识别条件或历史评价的完整依据，也不能将框架讨论视为通用调整规则。
原文摘要
Causal effects are defined as comparisons of potential outcomes under different treatments on a common set of units. Observed values of the potential outcomes are revealed by the assignment mechanism—a probabilistic model for the treatment each unit receives as a function of covariates and potential outcomes. Fisher made tremendous contributions to causal inference through his work on the design of randomized experiments, but the potential outcomes perspective applies to other complex experiments and nonrandomized studies as well. As noted by Kempthorne in his 1976 discussion of Savage's Fisher lecture, Fisher never bridged his work on experimental design and his work on parametric modeling, a bridge that appears nearly automatic with an appropriate view of the potential outcomes framework, where the potential outcomes and covariates are given a Bayesian distribution to complete the model specification. Also, this framework crisply separates scientific inference for causal effects and decisions based on such inference, a distinction evident in Fisher's discussion of tests of significance versus tests in an accept/reject framework. But Fisher never used the potential outcomes framework, originally proposed by Neyman in the context of randomized experiments, and as a result he provided generally flawed advice concerning the use of the analysis of covariance to adjust for posttreatment concomitants in randomized trials.