1/4 Comments on your Front-Door paper:
* The expression "a single, strictly exogenous mediator
variable" is problematic: (1) Causality p. 82 defines
FDC as "A set of variables", not "a single variable". (2)
"exogenous mediator" is an oxymoron. I originally
called it (1973):
* The expression "a single, strictly exogenous mediator
variable" is problematic: (1) Causality p. 82 defines
FDC as "A set of variables", not "a single variable". (2)
"exogenous mediator" is an oxymoron. I originally
called it (1973):
2/ "Mediating Instrumental Variables"
ucla.in/2pJzGNK, best described as an "exogenously-disturbed mediator".
* "The first application of FDC" sounds too pessimistic. Situations involving exogenously-disturbed mediators are at least as plausible as "exclusion-restricted
ucla.in/2pJzGNK, best described as an "exogenously-disturbed mediator".
* "The first application of FDC" sounds too pessimistic. Situations involving exogenously-disturbed mediators are at least as plausible as "exclusion-restricted
3/ exogenous variables" (traditional IV's) which were introduced 70 yrs earlier, when DAGs were not
around to invite scrutiny. Imbens comments
reflect that absence ucla.in/36EoNzO
* Why introduce FDC in the context of linear regression
where ATE is identifiable by
around to invite scrutiny. Imbens comments
reflect that absence ucla.in/36EoNzO
* Why introduce FDC in the context of linear regression
where ATE is identifiable by
4/ Wright's rule ucla.in/2LcpmHz
The miracle of FDC stems from its non-parametric identifiability.
* The do(X) operator was not introduced as a shorthand for "a variable that is randomly assigned", far from it,
see ucla.in/2LY8M2X. Actions need no randomization.
The miracle of FDC stems from its non-parametric identifiability.
* The do(X) operator was not introduced as a shorthand for "a variable that is randomly assigned", far from it,
see ucla.in/2LY8M2X. Actions need no randomization.
