Causal inference on human behaviour.
Journal
Nature human behaviour
ISSN: 2397-3374
Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2024
Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
17
03
2023
accepted:
27
06
2024
medline:
24
8
2024
pubmed:
24
8
2024
entrez:
23
8
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Making causal inferences regarding human behaviour is difficult given the complex interplay between countless contributors to behaviour, including factors in the external world and our internal states. We provide a non-technical conceptual overview of challenges and opportunities for causal inference on human behaviour. The challenges include our ambiguous causal language and thinking, statistical under- or over-control, effect heterogeneity, interference, timescales of effects and complex treatments. We explain how methods optimized for addressing one of these challenges frequently exacerbate other problems. We thus argue that clearly specified research questions are key to improving causal inference from data. We suggest a triangulation approach that compares causal estimates from (quasi-)experimental research with causal estimates generated from observational data and theoretical assumptions. This approach allows a systematic investigation of theoretical and methodological factors that might lead estimates to converge or diverge across studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39179747
doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01939-z
pii: 10.1038/s41562-024-01939-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1448-1459Informations de copyright
© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J.-S. The credibility revolution in empirical economics: how better research design is taking the con out of econometrics. J. Econ. Perspect. 24, 3–30 (2010).
doi: 10.1257/jep.24.2.3
Hernán, M. A. & Robins, J. M. Causal Inference: What If (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2020).
Aronow, P. M. & Miller, B. T. Foundations of Agnostic Statistics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Keele, L. The statistics of causal inference: a view from political methodology. Polit. Anal. 23, 313–335 (2015).
doi: 10.1093/pan/mpv007
Foster, E. M. Causal inference and developmental psychology. Dev. Psychol. 46, 1454–1480 (2010).
pubmed: 20677855
doi: 10.1037/a0020204
Marinescu, I. E., Lawlor, P. N. & Kording, K. P. Quasi-experimental causality in neuroscience and behavioural research. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 891–898 (2018).
pubmed: 30988445
doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0466-5
Rohrer, J. M. Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: graphical causal models for observational data. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 27–42 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/2515245917745629
Rigoux, L. & Daunizeau, J. Dynamic causal modelling of brain–behaviour relationships. NeuroImage 117, 202–221 (2015).
pubmed: 26008885
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.041
Gangl, M. Causal inference in sociological research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 36, 21–47 (2010).
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102702
Winship, C. & Morgan, S. L. The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25, 659–706 (1999).
doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.659
Imbens, G. W. & Rubin, D. B. Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).
Pearl, J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference 2nd edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).
Hamaker, E. L. & Wichers, M. No time like the present. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26, 10–15 (2017).
doi: 10.1177/0963721416666518
Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J.-S. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).
Gelman, A. & Imbens, G. Why Ask Why? Forward Causal Inference and Reverse Causal Questions Working Paper No. 19614 (NBER, 2013).
Alvarez-Vargas, D. et al. Hedges, mottes, and baileys: causally ambiguous statistical language can increase perceived study quality and policy relevance. PLoS ONE 18, e0286403 (2023).
pubmed: 37883517
pmcid: 10602341
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286403
Haber, N. A. et al. Causal and associational language in observational health research: a systematic evaluation. Am. J. Epidemiol. 191, 2084–2097 (2022).
pubmed: 35925053
pmcid: 11043784
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwac137
Hernán, M. A. The C-word: scientific euphemisms do not improve causal inference from observational data. Am. J. Public Health 108, 616–619 (2018).
pubmed: 29565659
pmcid: 5888052
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304337
Rohrer, J. M. & Lucas, R. E. Causal effects of well-being on health: it’s complicated. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wgbe4 (2020).
Hoemann, K., Devlin, M. & Barrett, L. F. Comment: emotions are abstract, conceptual categories that are learned by a predicting brain. Emot. Rev. 12, 253–255 (2020).
doi: 10.1177/1754073919897296
Young, C. & Holsteen, K. Model uncertainty and robustness: a computational framework for multimodel analysis. Sociol. Methods Res. 46, 3–40 (2017).
doi: 10.1177/0049124115610347
Cinelli, C. & Hazlett, C. Making sense of sensitivity: extending omitted variable bias. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 82, 39–67 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/rssb.12348
Branwen, G. How often does correlation = causality? Gwern.net https://www.gwern.net/Correlation (2022).
Runge, J. Causal network reconstruction from time series: from theoretical assumptions to practical estimation. Chaos 28, 075310 (2018).
pubmed: 30070533
doi: 10.1063/1.5025050
Oster, E. Health recommendations and selection in health behaviors. Am. Econ. Rev. Insights 2, 143–160 (2020).
doi: 10.1257/aeri.20190355
VanderWeele, T. J. Constructed measures and causal inference: towards a new model of measurement for psychosocial constructs. Epidemiology 33, 141–151 (2022).
pubmed: 34669630
doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001434
Greenland, S., Judea, P. & Robins, J. M. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 10, 37–48 (1999).
pubmed: 9888278
doi: 10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008
Rosenbaum, P. R. From association to causation in observational studies: the role of tests of strongly ignorable treatment assignment. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79, 41–48 (1984).
doi: 10.1080/01621459.1984.10477060
Hoyle, R. H., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D. & Pek, J. The questionable practice of partialing to refine scores on and inferences about measures of psychological constructs. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 19, 155–176 (2023).
pubmed: 36750263
pmcid: 11331532
doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071720-015436
Cinelli, C., Forney, A. & Pearl, J. A crash course in good and bad controls. Sociol. Methods Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241221099552 (2022).
Wysocki, A. C., Lawson, K. M. & Rhemtulla, M. Statistical control requires causal justification. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 5, 251524592210958 (2022).
doi: 10.1177/25152459221095823
Elwert, F. & Winship, C. Endogenous selection bias: the problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 40, 31–53 (2014).
pubmed: 30111904
pmcid: 6089543
doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043455
Knox, D., Lowe, W. & Mummolo, J. Administrative records mask racially biased policing. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 114, 619–637 (2020).
doi: 10.1017/S0003055420000039
Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E. & Yeager, D. S. Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 980–989 (2021).
pubmed: 34294901
pmcid: 8928154
doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01143-3
Haslbeck, J. M. B. & Ryan, O. Recovering within-person dynamics from psychological time series. Multivar. Behav. Res. 57, 735–766 (2022).
doi: 10.1080/00273171.2021.1896353
Goldsmith-Pinkham, P., Hull, P. & Kolesár, M. Contamination Bias in Linear Regressions Working Paper No. 30108 (NBER, 2022).
Goodman-Bacon, A. Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. J. Econ. 225, 254–277 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.03.014
Wu, W., Carroll, I. A. & Chen, P.-Y. A single-level random-effects cross-lagged panel model for longitudinal mediation analysis. Behav. Res Methods 50, 2111–2124 (2018).
pubmed: 29214426
doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0979-2
Rubin, D. B. Causal inference using potential outcomes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100, 322–331 (2005).
doi: 10.1198/016214504000001880
Altmejd, A. et al. O brother, where start thou? Sibling spillovers on college and major choice in four countries. Q. J. Econ. 136, 1831–1886 (2021).
doi: 10.1093/qje/qjab006
Heckman, J. & Karapakula, G. Intergenerational and Intragenerational Externalities of the Perry Preschool Project Working Paper No. 25889 (NBER, 2019).
Karbownik, K. & Özek, U. Setting a Good Example? Examining Sibling Spillovers in Educational Achievement Using a Regression Discontinuity Design Working Paper No. 26411 (NBER, 2019).
Bringmann, L. F. et al. Psychopathological networks: theory, methods and practice. Behav. Res Ther. 149, 104011 (2022).
pubmed: 34998034
doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2021.104011
Dietrich, J., Schmiedek, F. & Moeller, J. Academic motivation and emotions are experienced in learning situations, so let’s study them: introduction to the special issue. Learn. Instr. 81, 101623 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101623
Robins, J. M., Scheines, R., Spirtes, P. & Wasserman, L. Uniform consistency in causal inference. Biometrika 90, 491–515 (2003).
doi: 10.1093/biomet/90.3.491
VanderWeele, T. J. & Hernán, M. A. Causal inference under multiple versions of treatment. J. Causal Inference 1, 1–20 (2013).
pubmed: 25379365
pmcid: 4219328
doi: 10.1515/jci-2012-0002
Pearl, J. Does obesity shorten life? Or is it the soda? On non-manipulable causes. J. Causal Inference 6, 20182001 (2018).
doi: 10.1515/jci-2018-2001
Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J.-S. Mastering ’Metrics: The Path from Cause to Effect (Princeton Univ. Press, 2014).
Eronen, M. I. Causal discovery and the problem of psychological interventions. N. Ideas Psychol. 59, 100785 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100785
Scheines, R. The similarity of causal inference in experimental and non-experimental studies. Phil. Sci. 72, 927–940 (2005).
doi: 10.1086/508950
Bringmann, L. F., Elmer, T. & Eronen, M. I. Back to basics: the importance of conceptual clarification in psychological science. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 31, 340–346 (2022).
doi: 10.1177/09637214221096485
Spirtes, P. & Scheines, R. Causal inference of ambiguous manipulations. Phil. Sci. 71, 833–845 (2004).
doi: 10.1086/425058
Bollen, K. A. & Brand, J. E. A general panel model with random and fixed effects: a structural equations approach. Soc. Forces 89, 1–34 (2010).
pubmed: 21769157
pmcid: 3137523
doi: 10.1353/sof.2010.0072
Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M. & Grasman, R. P. P. P. A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychol. Methods 20, 102–116 (2015).
pubmed: 25822208
doi: 10.1037/a0038889
Zyphur, M. J. et al. From data to causes I: building a general cross-lagged panel model (GCLM). Organ. Res. Methods 23, 651–687 (2020).
doi: 10.1177/1094428119847278
Voelkle, M. C., Oud, J. H. L., Davidov, E. & Schmidt, P. An SEM approach to continuous time modeling of panel data: relating authoritarianism and anomia. Psychol. Methods 17, 176–192 (2012).
pubmed: 22486576
doi: 10.1037/a0027543
Frangakis, C. E. & Rubin, D. B. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 58, 21–29 (2002).
pubmed: 11890317
pmcid: 4137767
doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00021.x
Beltz, A. M. & Gates, K. M. Network mapping with GIMME. Multivar. Behav. Res. 52, 789–804 (2017).
doi: 10.1080/00273171.2017.1373014
Montoya, L. M. et al. The optimal dynamic treatment rule superlearner: considerations, performance, and application to criminal justice interventions. International J. Biostat. 19, 217–238 (2023).
doi: 10.1515/ijb-2020-0127
Gische, C. & Voelkle, M. C. Beyond the mean: a flexible framework for studying causal effects using linear models. Psychometrika 87, 868–901 (2022).
pubmed: 34894340
doi: 10.1007/s11336-021-09811-z
Imai, K. & Kim, I. S. When should we use unit fixed effects regression models for causal inference with longitudinal data? Am. J. Polit. Sci. 63, 467–490 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/ajps.12417
Sobel, M. E. & Lindquist, M. A. Causal inference for fMRI time series data with systematic errors of measurement in a balanced on/off study of social evaluative threat. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 109, 967–976 (2014).
pubmed: 25506108
pmcid: 4261196
doi: 10.1080/01621459.2014.922886
Usami, S. Within-person variability score-based causal inference: a two-step estimation for joint effects of time-varying treatments. Psychometrika 88, 1466–1494 (2022).
pubmed: 35982380
pmcid: 10656338
doi: 10.1007/s11336-022-09879-1
Hamaker, E. L., Mulder, J. D. & van IJzendoorn, M. H. Description, prediction and causation: methodological challenges of studying child and adolescent development. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 46, 100867 (2020).
pubmed: 33186867
pmcid: 7670214
doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100867
Lundberg, I., Johnson, R. & Stewart, B. M. What is your estimand? Defining the target quantity connects statistical evidence to theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 86, 532–565 (2021).
doi: 10.1177/00031224211004187
Rohrer, J. M. & Murayama, K. These are not the effects you are looking for: causality and the within-/between-persons distinction in longitudinal data analysis. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 6, 251524592211408 (2023).
doi: 10.1177/25152459221140842
Silberzahn, R. et al. Many analysts, one data set: making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 337–356 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/2515245917747646
Auspurg, K. & Brüderl, J. Has the credibility of the social sciences been credibly destroyed? Reanalyzing the ‘many analysts, one data set’ project. Socius 7, 237802312110244 (2021).
doi: 10.1177/23780231211024421
Shadish, W. R, Cook, T. D & Campbell, D. T. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (Houghton, Mifflin, 2002).
Rhemtulla, M., van Bork, R. & Borsboom, D. Worse than measurement error: consequences of inappropriate latent variable measurement models. Psychol. Methods 25, 30–45 (2020).
pubmed: 31169371
doi: 10.1037/met0000220
Westfall, J. & Yarkoni, T. Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLoS ONE 11, e0152719 (2016).
pubmed: 27031707
pmcid: 4816570
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152719
Grosz, M. P., Rohrer, J. M. & Thoemmes, F. The taboo against explicit causal inference in nonexperimental psychology. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 1243–1255 (2020).
pubmed: 32727292
pmcid: 7472833
doi: 10.1177/1745691620921521
Deming, D. Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill development: evidence from Head Start. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 1, 111–134 (2009).
doi: 10.1257/app.1.3.111
Pion, G. M. & Lipsey, M. W. Impact of the Tennessee Voluntary Prekindergarten Program on children’s literacy, language, and mathematics skills: results from a regression-discontinuity design. AERA Open 7, 233285842110413 (2021).
doi: 10.1177/23328584211041353
Ritchie, S. J. & Tucker-Drob, E. M. How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychol. Sci. 29, 1358–1369 (2018).
pubmed: 29911926
pmcid: 6088505
doi: 10.1177/0956797618774253
Steiner, P. M., Wong, V. C. & Anglin, K. A causal replication framework for designing and assessing replication efforts. Z. Psychol. 227, 280–292 (2019).
Munafò, M. R. & Davey Smith, G. Robust research needs many lines of evidence. Nature 553, 399–401 (2018).
pubmed: 29368721
doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-01023-3
Colnet, B. et al. Causal inference methods for combining randomized trials and observational studies: a review. Stat. Sci. 39, 165–191 (2024).
doi: 10.1214/23-STS889
Wan, S., Brick, T. R., Alvarez-Vargas, D. & Bailey, D. H. Triangulating on developmental models with a combination of experimental and nonexperimental estimates. Dev. Psychol. 59, 216–228 (2022).
pubmed: 36395046
pmcid: 9905262
doi: 10.1037/dev0001490
Gische, C., West, S. G. & Voelkle, M. C. Forecasting causal effects of interventions versus predicting future outcomes. Struct. Equ. Modeling 28, 475–492 (2021).
pubmed: 35464622
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2020.1780598
Imai, K., Kim, I. S. & Wang, E. H. Matching methods for causal inference with time‐series cross‐sectional data. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 67, 587–605 (2021).
doi: 10.1111/ajps.12685
Zyphur, M. J. et al. From data to causes II: comparing approaches to panel data analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 23, 688–716 (2020).
doi: 10.1177/1094428119847280
Lüdtke, O. & Robitzsch, A. A comparison of different approaches for estimating cross-lagged effects from a causal inference perspective. Struct. Equ. Modeling 29, 888–907 (2022).
doi: 10.1080/10705511.2022.2065278
Usami, S., Murayama, K. & Hamaker, E. L. A unified framework of longitudinal models to examine reciprocal relations. Psychol. Methods 24, 637–657 (2019).
pubmed: 30998041
doi: 10.1037/met0000210
Bond, T. N. & Lang, K. The evolution of the black–white test score gap in grades K–3: the fragility of results. Rev. Econ. Stat. 95, 1468–1479 (2013).
doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00370
Larzelere, R. E., Cox, R. B. & Smith, G. L. Do nonphysical punishments reduce antisocial behavior more than spanking? A comparison using the strongest previous causal evidence against spanking. BMC Pediatr. 10, 10 (2010).
pubmed: 20175902
pmcid: 2841151
doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-10-10
Oster, E. Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: theory and evidence. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 37, 187–204 (2019).
doi: 10.1080/07350015.2016.1227711
Athey, S., Chetty, R., Imbens, G. W. & Kang, H. The Surrogate Index: Combining Short-Term Proxies to Estimate Long-Term Treatment Effects More Rapidly and Precisely Working Paper No. 26463 (NBER, 2019).
Weidmann, B. & Miratrix, L. Lurking inferential monsters? Quantifying selection bias in evaluations of school programs. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 40, 964–986 (2021).
doi: 10.1002/pam.22236
Dehejia, R. H. & Wahba, S. Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 94, 1053–1062 (1999).
doi: 10.1080/01621459.1999.10473858
LaLonde, R. J. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. Am. Econ. Rev. 76, 604–620 (1986).
Protzko, J. Effects of cognitive training on the structure of intelligence. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 24, 1022–1031 (2017).
pubmed: 27844294
doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1196-1
Schmidt, F. L. Beyond questionable research methods: the role of omitted relevant research in the credibility of research. Arch. Sci. Psychol. 5, 32–41 (2017).
Meehl, P. E. Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychol. Rep. 66, 195–244 (1990).
doi: 10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195
Chaku, N., Kelly, D. P. & Beltz, A. M. Individualized learning potential in stressful times: how to leverage intensive longitudinal data to inform online learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 121, 106772 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106772
Moeller, J. et al. Generalizability crisis meets heterogeneity revolution: determining under which boundary conditions findings replicate and generalize. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5wsna (2022).
Dunning, T. et al. (eds). Information, Accountability, And Cumulative Learning: Lessons From Metaketa I (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Low, H. & Meghir, C. The use of structural models in econometrics. J. Econ. Perspect. 31, 33–58 (2017).
doi: 10.1257/jep.31.2.33
Todd, P. E. & Wolpin, K. I. Assessing the impact of a school subsidy program in Mexico: using a social experiment to validate a dynamic behavioral model of child schooling and fertility. Am. Econ. Rev. 96, 1384–1417 (2006).
pubmed: 29135207
doi: 10.1257/aer.96.5.1384
Pearl, J., Glymour, M. & Jewell, N. P. Causal Inference in Statistics: A Primer (John Wiley & Sons, 2016).
Achen, C. H. Let’s put garbage-can regressions and garbage-can probits where they belong. Confl. Manage. Peace Sci. 22, 327–339 (2005).
doi: 10.1080/07388940500339167
Athey, S. & Imbens, G. Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7353–7360 (2016).
pubmed: 27382149
pmcid: 4941430
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510489113
Geng, E. H., Holmes, C. B., Moshabela, M., Sikazwe, I. & Petersen, M. L. Personalized public health: an implementation research agenda for the HIV response and beyond. PLoS Med. 16, e1003020 (2019).
pubmed: 31891581
pmcid: 6938296
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003020
Moeller, J. Averting the next credibility crisis in psychological science: within-person methods for personalized diagnostics and intervention. J. Pers. Oriented Res. 7, 53–77 (2021).
pubmed: 35462628
doi: 10.17505/jpor.2021.23795
Pearl, J. & Bareinboim, E. Transportability of causal and statistical relations: a formal approach. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 25, 247–254 (2011).
Wager, S. & Athey, S. Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 113, 1228–1242 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1319839
Benjamin-Chung, J. et al. Spillover effects in epidemiology: parameters, study designs and methodological considerations. Int. J. Epidemiol. 47, 332–347 (2018).
pubmed: 29106568
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyx201
Hudgens, M. G. & Halloran, M. E. Toward causal inference with interference. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 103, 832–842 (2008).
pubmed: 19081744
pmcid: 2600548
doi: 10.1198/016214508000000292
Imai, K., Jiang, Z. & Malani, A. Causal inference with interference and noncompliance in two-stage randomized experiments. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 116, 632–644 (2021).
doi: 10.1080/01621459.2020.1775612
Tchetgen, E. J. T. & VanderWeele, T. J. On causal inference in the presence of interference. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 21, 55–75 (2012).
doi: 10.1177/0962280210386779
Zhang, C., Mohan, K. & Pearl, J. Causal inference with non-IID data using linear graphical models. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 13214–13225 (2022).
Eberhardt, F. & Scheines, R. Interventions and causal inference. Phil. Sci. 74, 981–995 (2007).
doi: 10.1086/525638
Mooij, J. M., Magliacane, S. & Claassen, T. Joint causal inference from multiple contexts. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 21, 3919–4026 (2020).
Peters, J., Bühlmann, P. & Meinshausen, N. Causal inference by using invariant prediction: identification and confidence intervals. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 78, 947–1012 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/rssb.12167
Aalen, O., Røysland, K., Gran, J., Kouyos, R. & Lange, T. Can we believe the DAGs? A comment on the relationship between causal DAGs and mechanisms. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 25, 2294–2314 (2016).
pubmed: 24463886
doi: 10.1177/0962280213520436
Driver, C. C. & Voelkle, M. C. in Continuous Time Modeling in the Behavioral and Related Sciences (eds Van Montfort, K. et al.) 79–109 (Springer International, 2018).
Røysland, K. A martingale approach to continuous-time marginal structural models. Bernoulli 17, 895–915 (2011).
doi: 10.3150/10-BEJ303
Ryan, O. & Hamaker, E. L. Time to intervene: a continuous-time approach to network analysis and centrality. Psychometrika 87, 214–252 (2022).
pubmed: 34165691
doi: 10.1007/s11336-021-09767-0