Equilibrium Causal Digital Twins: Validation, Transport, and Identification Limits

LLM-based digital twins promise to reduce repeated human data collection by generating person- specific responses, yet existing evaluations provide little evidence about whether they can reduce human measurement while preserving valid inference. To address this, we introduce statistical substitutability, an inferential criterion that evaluates the extent to which twin predictions can reduce human measurement for a particular estimand while preserving valid inference. We develop a framework, grounded in mixed-subject and prediction-powered inference, that evaluates statistical substitutability along four dimensions: aggregate fidelity, paired respondent-level signal, finite-sample human-label recovery, and stability across populations. Across two empirical evaluations spanning behavioral experiments, multiple models, and alternative respondent representations, we find that digital twins can reproduce average human effects while providing little information about which individuals differ from those averages. Newer models and richer respondent information improve some dimensions of performance but do not reliably translate into human-data savings. Human calibration can reduce aggregate prediction error, yet limited labeled samples often fail to produce stable precision gains. Importantly, these findings demonstrate that behavioral fidelity is neither necessary nor sufficient for statistical substitutability. More broadly, they suggest that AI-generated evidence should be evaluated based on its ability to support valid scientific inference rather than its ability to reproduce human outcomes alone. Digital twins should therefore be judged for confirmatory use by whether they reduce uncertainty about human quantities, not merely by whether they reproduce human means, distributions, or effects.

Here, we explore the problem of error propagation mitigation in modular digital twins as a sequential decision process. Building on a companion study that used a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) to infer latent error regimes from surrogate-physics residuals, we develop a Markov Decision Process (MDP) in which the inferred regimes serve as states, corrective interventions serve as actions, and a scalar reward that takes into consideration the cost-benefit tradeoff between system fidelity and maintenance expense. The baseline transition matrix is extracted from the HMM-learned parameters. We then extend the formulation to a Partially Observable MDP (POMDP) that accounts for the imperfect nature of regime classification by maintaining a belief distribution updated via Bayesian filtering, with the HMM confusion matrix serving as the observation model. Both formulations are solved via dynamic programming and validated through Gillespie stochastic simulation. We then benchmark two model-free reinforcement learning algorithms, Q-learning and REINFORCE, to assess whether effective policies can be learned without explicit model knowledge. A systematic comparison of different intervention policies demonstrates that the MDP policy achieves the highest cumulative reward and fraction of time in nominal operation, while the POMDP recovers approximately 95% of MDP performance under realistic observation noise. Sensitivity analyses across observation quality, repair probability, and discount factor confirm the robustness of these conclusions, and the major gaps in the policy hierarchy are statistically significant at $p < 0.001$. The gap between MDP and POMDP performance quantifies the value of information providing a principled criterion for investing in improved classification accuracy.

Generative models can reproduce an observational distribution while encoding an incorrect causal structure. We study a sequential game in which a structural causal generator proposes observational and interventional distributions, while an adversarial experimentalist selects interventions intended to maximally falsify the generator. The discriminator is therefore not merely a real-versus-synthetic classifier: it is indexed by an intervention and tests whether the generator reproduces the corresponding post-intervention law. We introduce Adversarial Causal Intervention Falsification (ACIF), formulate oracle and implementable versions of the game, and distinguish three objects that are often conflated: observational fit, interventional equivalence over an admissible query class, and point identification of a structural causal model. For finite model and intervention classes, we prove: (i) an exact reduction of the adversarial objective to a worst-intervention integral probability metric; (ii) identification up to interventional equivalence, with point identification under a separating intervention family; (iii) existence of mixed-strategy equilibria; (iv) finite-sample uniform convergence and margin-based model-selection guarantees; and (v) a logarithmic elimination guarantee for a disagreement-driven sequential design under a balanced-separation condition. We also give a complete linear-Gaussian example in which two observationally indistinguishable causal directions are separated by a single well-chosen intervention. The framework clarifies what an adversarial causal discriminator can and cannot certify, and provides a principled bridge between causal generative modeling, active causal discovery, and experimental design.