Concordance Plausibility Check for Intervention-Conditioned Human Digital Twins

The fundamental problem of causal inference - that the counterfactual outcome for any individual is never observed - has shaped the entire methodology of the field. Every existing approach substitutes assumptions for missing data: ignorability, parallel trends, exclusion restrictions. None produces the counterfactual itself. This paper proposes the Digital Twin Counterfactual Framework (DTCF): rather than estimating the counterfactual statistically, we simulate it using a digital twin and subject the simulation to a hierarchical validation regime. We formalize the digital twin simulator as a stochastic mapping within the potential outcomes framework and introduce a hierarchy of twin fidelity assumptions - from marginal fidelity through joint fidelity to structural fidelity - each unlocking a progressively richer class of estimands. The central contribution is threefold. First, a five-level validation architecture converts the unfalsifiable claim that the simulator produces correct counterfactuals into falsifiable tests against observable data. Second, a formal decomposition separates causal quantities into those that are marginally validated (ATE, CATE, QTE - testable through observable-arm comparison) and those that are copula-dependent (the ITE distribution, probability of benefit/harm, variance of treatment effects - permanently reliant on the unobservable within-individual dependence structure). Third, bounding, sensitivity, and uncertainty quantification tools make the copula dependence explicit. The DTCF does not resolve the fundamental problem of causal inference. What it provides is a framework in which marginal causal claims become increasingly testable, joint causal claims become explicitly assumption-indexed, and the gap between the two is formally characterized.

Digital twins are often used to predict how a system would respond to an intervention. In systems with feedback, a twin must reproduce an equilibrium counterfactual, and a twin developed in one domain may fail after mechanisms change. We study when these predictions can be validated and transported. For equilibrium causal games, we give conditions on the mechanisms, equilibrium selection, and intervention design under which agreement with experimental distributions identifies the counterfactual of interest. We show why agreement of means and covariances is insufficient for distributional queries. We then introduce cyclic selection diagrams and derive criteria for direct reuse and for hybrid models that combine invariant source mechanisms with target information. An impossibility result constructs systems that agree under every experiment in a finite design but disagree on the target counterfactual, showing that validation requires structural assumptions. For linear models, we derive intervention requirements that depend on the mechanisms that changed, the observation model, and graph support. When point identification fails, we characterize the remaining range of query values. We also provide statistical tests for reconstructed means and covariances and illustrate the theory in synthetic feedback systems.

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.