Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42230810›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Chaotic and complex dynamics expose the limits of counterfactual reasoning.

Yahya Aalaila, Gerrit Großmann, Sumantrak Mukherjee, Jonas Wahl, Sebastian Vollmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yahya AalailaData Science and its Applications Research Group, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Kaiserslautern, Germany. yahya.aalaila@dfki.de.
Gerrit GroßmannData Science and its Applications Research Group, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Kaiserslautern, Germany.
Sumantrak MukherjeeData Science and its Applications Research Group, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Kaiserslautern, Germany.
Jonas WahlResearch Department Neuro-Mechanistic Modeling, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarbrücken, Germany.
Sebastian VollmerData Science and its Applications Research Group, German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Kaiserslautern, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01IW23005European Research Council 948112
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Counterfactual reasoning, a cornerstone of human cognition and decision-making, is often seen as the "holy grail" of causal learning, with applications ranging from interpreting machine learning models to promoting algorithmic fairness. While counterfactual reasoning has been extensively studied in contexts with clearly defined static causal models, many real-world scenarios reside in dynamic settings often involving model and parameter uncertainty, observational noise, and chaotic behavior. The reliability of counterfactual analysis in such settings remains largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate the limitations of counterfactual reasoning in dynamic settings. We specifically focus on counterfactual sequence estimation and demonstrate empirically that even modest levels of model uncertainty or observational noise can lead to dramatic deviations between predicted and true counterfactual trajectories. Our findings urge caution when applying counterfactual reasoning in dynamical systems, particularly those that may exhibit complex, chaotic behavior, and highlight fundamental limitations in answering certain counterfactual queries reliably.

Identifiers

PMID42230810
PMCPMC13230520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.