Epsilon-Identifiability of Causal Quantities

Identification conditions describe the computability of a target query or parameter of interest as a function of the type and amount of information available. In causal identification, this information is often expressed in the form of a causal graph, and data are observed or collected for some subset of variables in the graph. Target queries may be for a single effect alone or for a class of effects in a given model. The derivation of an identification algorithm then defines mathematically the process by which the desired causal effect(s) can be uniquely determined, theoretically, in expectation. Identifiability in expectation, or 'theoretical identifiability,' generally assumes asymptotic properties, infinite data, or other mathematically idealized conditions. In this paper, we explore a fundamental distinction between this theoretical, idealized notion of identifiability and a proposed alternative that is computation-bound. The framework we propose - 'computational identifiability' - is to instead define a finite computational search procedure for an empirical estimator. If this process finds an estimator empirically, within a desired error tolerance, then identifiability is satisfied, conditional on the specified assumptions of the search (i.e., a prior distribution over the parameters) and conditional on the search procedure itself. Through several experiments, we demonstrate how this framework allows us to answer fine-grained, practical identification questions, such as identification with small finite samples, with ambiguous graphical criteria, with mixed observational-interventional data, and across counterfactual data and estimands. Code is available at https://github.com/lbynum/metadentify.

Previous work establishing completeness results for counterfactual identification has been circumscribed to the setting where the input data belongs to observational or interventional distributions (Layers 1 and 2 of Pearl's Causal Hierarchy), since it was generally presumed impossible to obtain data from counterfactual distributions, which belong to Layer 3. However, recent work (Raghavan & Bareinboim, 2025) has formally characterized a family of counterfactual distributions which can be directly estimated via experimental methods - a notion they call counterfactual realizability. This leaves open the question of what additional counterfactual quantities now become identifiable, given this new access to (some) Layer 3 data. To answer this question, we develop the CTFIDU+ algorithm for identifying counterfactual queries from an arbitrary set of Layer 3 distributions, and prove that it is complete for this task. Building on this, we establish the theoretical limit of which counterfactuals can be identified from physically realizable distributions, thus implying the fundamental limit to exact causal inference in the non-parametric setting. Finally, given the impossibility of identifying certain critical types of counterfactuals, we derive novel analytic bounds for such quantities using realizable counterfactual data, and corroborate using simulations that counterfactual data helps tighten the bounds for non-identifiable quantities in practice.

Identifying causal effects from observational data typically requires a fully specified causal graph, an assumption that is often unrealistic in complex or high-dimensional settings. Causal abstractions address this limitation by retaining only partial causal information, thereby defining equivalence classes of compatible causal graphs. In this paper, we study causal effect identifiability directly at the level of these graph collections, rather than at the level of individual causal diagrams. We formalize several notions of identifiability in this setting and organize them into a hierarchy that clarifies their relationships and differences. In particular, we establish that a causal effect may be identified over a collection of graphs without admitting a single causal derivation that holds uniformly across all compatible graphs. These results help reveal gaps and clarify ambiguities in the existing literature.