ArticleProceedings of machine learning research2020
Deriving Bounds and Inequality Constraints Using Logical Relations Among Counterfactuals.
Article in Proceedings of machine learning research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Causal parameters may not be point identified in the presence of unobserved confounding. However, information about non-identified parameters, in the form of bounds, may still be recovered from the observed data in some cases. We develop a new general method for obtaining bounds on causal parameters using rules of probability and restrictions on counterfactuals implied by causal graphical models. We additionally provide inequality constraints on functionals of the observed data law implied by such causal models. Our approach is motivated by the observation that logical relations between identified and non-identified counterfactual events often yield information about non-identified events. We show that this approach is powerful enough to recover known sharp bounds and tight inequality constraints, and to derive novel bounds and constraints.
Identifiers
33294849PMC7720862What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.