Two Layers of Instability in Causal Estimation

Prediction error is widely used to evaluate nuisance-function estimators in causal inference, but its relationship with causal estimator performance may differ across performance measures. We studied this question in a partially linear model using Monte Carlo simulations. We compared ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized additive models (GAMs), XGBoost, and Double Machine Learning with XGBoost (DML-XGBoost), evaluating nuisance-function prediction error, bias, RMSE, and 95% confidence interval coverage. We also examined a simple joint-error measure based on the absolute cross-product of estimation errors from the exposure and outcome nuisance functions. Across the simulated settings, XGBoost had the lowest RMSE among the non-oracle methods, while DML-XGBoost generally provided better confidence interval coverage. Prediction error did not consistently track causal bias across methods and settings, and the method with the best point-estimation performance did not necessarily have the best confidence interval coverage. The joint-error measure was only weakly associated with causal bias and did not provide a useful standalone measure of causal performance. These results suggest that prediction error is useful for assessing nuisance-function estimation, but it should not be treated as a direct measure of the quality of the resulting causal estimator.

A fundamental challenge in causal inference with observational data is correct specification of a causal model. When there is model uncertainty, analysts may seek to use estimates from multiple candidate models that rely on distinct, and possibly partially overlapping, sets of identifying assumptions to infer the causal effect, a process known as triangulation. Principled methods for triangulation, however, remain underdeveloped. Here, we develop a framework for causal effect triangulation that combines model testability methods from causal discovery with statistical inference methods from semiparametric theory, while avoiding explicit model selection and post-selection inference problems. We propose a triangulation functional that combines identified functionals from each model with data-driven measures of model validity. We provide a bound on the distance of the functional from the true causal effect along with conditions under which this distance can be taken to zero. Finally, we derive valid statistical inference for this functional. Our framework formalizes robustness under causal pluralism without requiring agreement across models or commitment to a single specification. We demonstrate its performance through simulations and an empirical application.

We introduce causal density functions: Radon-Nikodym derivatives that compare interventional laws to observational laws and therefore act as local density ratios for causal effects. Whereas many causal-strength measures compare whole distributions after graph surgery, causal density functions provide a pointwise change-of-measure object that can be estimated, calibrated, and used to score directed influence. The basic identity $$\mathbb{E}_{\mathrm{do}}[f(Y)] = \mathbb{E}_{\mathrm{obs}}\!\left[f(Y)ρ(X,Y)\right]$$ makes causal density directly testable: if the estimated density ratio is correct, observational expectations reweighted by $ρ$ reproduce interventional expectations. We derive practical estimators for do-curves and directed edge scores, relate the construction to Radon-Nikodym/Kan semantics for conditioning and intervention, and evaluate the resulting estimators on synthetic and real perturbation benchmarks.