Abstract:Causal inference with observational data critically relies on untestable and extra-statistical assumptions that have (sometimes) testable implications. Well-known sets of assumptions that are sufficient to justify the causal interpretation of certain estimators are called identification strategies. These templates for causal analysis, however, do not perfectly map into empirical research practice. Researchers are often left in the disjunctive of either abstracting away from their particular setting to fit in the templates, risking erroneous inferences, or avoiding situations in which the templates cannot be applied, missing valuable opportunities for conducting empirical analysis. In this article, I show how directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) can help researchers to conduct empirical research and assess the quality of evidence without excessively relying on research templates. First, I offer a concise introduction to causal inference frameworks. Then I survey the arguments in the methodological literature in favor of using research templates, while either avoiding or limiting the use of causal graphical models. Third, I discuss the problems with the template model, arguing for a more flexible approach to DAGs that helps illuminating common problems in empirical settings and improving the credibility of causal claims. I demonstrate this approach in a series of worked examples, showing the gap between identification strategies as invoked by researchers and their actual applications. Finally, I conclude highlighting the benefits that routinely incorporating causal graphical models in our scientific discussions would have in terms of transparency, testability, and generativity.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is how to conduct more flexible and transparent empirical research using Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) in causal inference without relying entirely on existing research templates. Specifically, the paper focuses on the following aspects: 1. **Hypothesis problems in causal inference**: - The paper points out that when using observational data for causal inference, some unverifiable assumptions need to be relied on. These assumptions usually involve unobserved variables and are thus difficult to test directly. - Researchers often face a dilemma in practical applications: either they fit specific research scenarios into existing causal analysis templates too abstractly, which may lead to incorrect inferences; or they avoid using these templates and miss the opportunity to conduct empirical analysis. 2. **Limitations of research templates**: - The paper discusses the limitations of existing research templates, especially that these templates often cannot be perfectly mapped to specific empirical research in practical applications. Researchers often need to make compromises between theoretical assumptions and actual data. - The author believes that relying too much on these templates may limit the flexibility and innovativeness of the research and reduce the credibility of the research results. 3. **Application and advantages of DAGs**: - The paper proposes that by using DAGs, researchers can express and evaluate causal hypotheses more clearly without relying entirely on existing templates. - DAGs can help researchers better understand the data - generation process, identify potential confounding factors, and evaluate the rationality of different hypotheses. - The author demonstrates through a series of examples how to use DAGs to encode the implicit substantive assumptions in the research and reveals the gap between practical applications and theoretical templates. 4. **Improving the transparency and credibility of causal inference**: - The paper emphasizes that incorporating DAGs into scientific research discussions can improve the transparency, testability, and generativity of the research. - The author suggests that by combining testable assumptions and sensitivity analysis, researchers can evaluate the credibility of causal inference more reasonably, thereby improving the overall quality of the research. In summary, this paper aims to explore how to use DAGs for more flexible and transparent causal inference in complex research environments to improve the credibility and practicality of research results.

Credible causal inference beyond toy models

Causal inference for psychologists who think that causal inference is not for them

The Causal Roadmap and Simulations to Improve the Rigor and Reproducibility of Real-data Applications

A biologist's guide to model selection and causal inference

Towards Bounding Causal Effects under Markov Equivalence

Deep Learning With DAGs

DAG With Omitted Objects Displayed (DAGWOOD): A framework for revealing causal assumptions in DAGs

A cautious approach to constraint-based causal model selection

Measurement error and information bias in causal diagrams: mapping epidemiological concepts and graphical structures

Causal modelling without introducing counterfactuals or abstract distributions

A review of some recent advances in causal inference

Partially Intervenable Causal Models

Causal Inference in Educational Systems: A Graphical Modeling Approach

A Human-Centered Approach for Bootstrapping Causal Graph Creation

An Automated Approach to Causal Inference in Discrete Settings

Causal inference and data fusion in econometrics

Confidence in Causal Discovery with Linear Causal Models

Econometric Causality: The Central Role of Thought Experiments

Average Causal Effect Estimation in DAGs with Hidden Variables: Extensions of Back-Door and Front-Door Criteria

Invited Commentary: Where Do the Causal DAGs Come From?

Causal Inference Grounded in Causal Diagrams: Benefits, Limitations, and Opportunities for the Information Systems Field