The goal of causal inference is to understand the outcome of alternative courses of action. However, all causal inference requires assumptions. Such assumptions can be more influential than in typical tasks for probabilistic modeling, and testing those assumptions is important to assess the validity of causal inference. We develop model criticism for Bayesian causal inference, building on the idea of posterior predictive checks to assess model fit. Our approach involves decomposing the problem, separately criticizing the model of treatment assignments and the model of outcomes. Conditioned on the assumption of unconfoundedness---that the treatments are assigned independently of the potential outcomes---we show how to check any additional modeling assumption. Our approach provides a foundation for diagnosing model-based causal inferences.
Download