Add counterfactual terminology callouts to quasi-experimental notebooks#854
Add counterfactual terminology callouts to quasi-experimental notebooks#854drbenvincent wants to merge 8 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
Each of the four quasi-experimental notebooks (ITS, DiD, RDD, excess deaths) now has an admonition callout clarifying that "counterfactual" is used in the Rubin/potential outcomes sense, how this differs from Pearl's L3 unit-level counterfactuals, and why the usage is appropriate. Also removes a misleading do-operator reference from excess_deaths.ipynb and adds three bibliography entries (Rubin 1974, Imbens & Rubin 2015, Pearl 2009). Closes #852 Made-with: Cursor
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
Made-with: Cursor
np.zeros/np.ones produce float64 by default, but the model's treated container expects bool. Pass dtype=bool to match the original data type. Made-with: Cursor
Made-with: Cursor
Made-with: Cursor
Anticipates PR #850 renaming counterfactuals_do_operator to interventional_what_if_do_operator. Both PRs should merge together. Made-with: Cursor
Made-with: Cursor
Made-with: Cursor
|
The individual call out boxes seem like a good idea. But i don't think Pearl's actual terminology here is "out of the box" helpful. A couple of things: "Abductive inference" is better than "abduction" as it's less easy to confuse with kidnapping. Secondly i don't think "abductive inference" is a great description of what Pearl is doing here. Or at least if we use the term we need to unpack it a bit more. Something like Pearlian counterfactuals aim at Inference about the best explanation of individual action. These depends on a thorough estimate of each individual's response profile. To do this we need to estimate their precise error term and re-use it in downstream calculations. " which require abduction — inferring unit-specific exogenous variables from observed data and then reasoning about what would have happened to that particular unit under a different action." I think i'd just drop the abduction term and emphasise it's about unit-specific effects. So in these cases distinct from what we care about DiD etc... |
NathanielF
left a comment
NathanielF
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe drop or explain abduction a bit better why Pearlian counterfactuals are effectively not relevant
2 participants
Summary
:::{admonition}callout to four quasi-experimental notebooks (interrupted_time_series,difference_in_differences,regression_discontinuity,excess_deaths) clarifying that "counterfactual" is used in the Rubin/potential outcomes sense and how this differs from Pearl's L3 unit-level counterfactualsexcess_deaths.ipynb(the notebook does not usepm.do)dtypebug inregression_discontinuity.ipynb(np.zeros/np.onesproducing float64 instead of bool for thetreateddata container)Closes #852
Changes Made
Each callout is tailored to the specific method:
All callouts include references and cross-reference the
interventional_what_if_do_operatornotebook for the full L2/L3 distinction.Test plan
.ipynband.myst.mdversions updated consistently