Sourabh Balgi, Adel Daoud, Jose M. Peña, Geoffrey T. Wodtke, Jesse Zhou
arXiv 12 Jan 2024 · Statistics — Machine Learning · publishedSociological Methods & Research (2025) · 1 citations (OpenAlex)
arXiv:2401.06864 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text
Social science theories often postulate causal relationships among a set of variables or events. Although directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are increasingly used to represent these theories, their full potential has not yet been realized in practice. As non-parametric causal models, DAGs require no assumptions about the functional form of the hypothesized relationships. Nevertheless, to simplify the task of empirical evaluation, researchers tend to invoke such assumptions anyway, even though they are typically arbitrary and do not reflect any theoretical content or prior knowledge. Moreover, functional form assumptions can engender bias, whenever they fail to accurately capture the complexity of the causal system under investigation. In this article, we introduce causal-graphical normalizing flows (cGNFs), a novel approach to causal inference that leverages deep neural networks to empirically evaluate theories represented as DAGs. Unlike conventional approaches, cGNFs model the full joint distribution of the data according to a DAG supplied by the analyst, without relying on stringent assumptions about functional form. In this way, the method allows for flexible, semi-parametric estimation of any causal estimand that can be identified from the DAG, including total effects, conditional effects, direct and indirect effects, and path-specific effects. We illustrate the method with a reanalysis of Blau and Duncan's (1967) model of status attainment and Zhou's (2019) model of conditional versus controlled mobility. To facilitate adoption, we provide open-source software together with a series of online tutorials for implementing cGNFs. The article concludes with a discussion of current limitations and directions for future development.
appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 86% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.
The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.
| Reference | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | Main text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blau, P. M. and Duncan, O. D (1967) The American Occupational Structure | 1.000 | 16 | 4 | 100% |
| 2 | Zhou, X (2019) Equalization or selection? reassessing the “meritocratic power” of a college degree in intergenerational income mobility | 1.000 | 12 | 4 | 100% |
| 3 | Wehenkel, A. and Louppe, G (2019) Unconstrained monotonic neural networks | 0.874 | 5 | 2 | 100% |
| 4 | Elwert, F (2013) Graphical causal models | 0.843 | 3 | 3 | 100% |
| 5 | Pearl, J (2009) Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference | 0.811 | 4 | 2 | 100% |
| 6 | Balgi, S., Peña, J. M., and Daoud, A (2022) Personalized public policy analysis using causal-graphical normalizing flows self | 0.737 | 3 | 3 | 67% |
| 7 | Huang, C.-W., Krueger, D., Lacoste, A., and Courville, A. C (2018) Neural autoregressive flows | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 8 | Koch, B., Sainburg, T., Geraldo, P., Jiang, S., Sun, Y., and Foster,… (2021) Deep learning of potential outcomes | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 9 | VanderWeele, T. J (2015) Explanation in Causal Inference: Methods for Mediation and Interaction | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 10 | Wehenkel, A. and Louppe, G (2021) Graphical normalizing flows | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
Showing the top 10 of 83 scored citations.
arXiv econ.EM papers that cite this one, ranked by how heavily they lean on it.
| Citing paper | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Causal Mediation Analysis with Multiple Mediators: A Simulation Approach | 1.000 | 12 | 3 |
| 2 | Detecting and Mitigating Treatment Leakage in Text-Based Causal Inference: Distillation and Sensitivity Analysis | 0.405 | 1 | 1 |