Counterfactual reasoning, a cornerstone of human cognition and decision-making, is often seen as the 'holy grail' of causal learning, with applications ranging from interpreting machine learning models to promoting algorithmic fairness. While counterfactual reasoning has been extensively studied in contexts where the underlying causal model is well-defined, real-world causal modeling is often hindered by model and parameter uncertainty, observational noise, and chaotic behavior. The reliability of counterfactual analysis in such settings remains largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate the limitations of counterfactual reasoning within the framework of Structural Causal Models. Specifically, we empirically investigate \emph{counterfactual sequence estimation} and highlight cases where it becomes increasingly unreliable. We find that realistic assumptions, such as low degrees of model uncertainty or chaotic dynamics, can result in counterintuitive outcomes, including dramatic deviations between predicted and true counterfactual trajectories. This work urges caution when applying counterfactual reasoning in settings characterized by chaos and uncertainty. Furthermore, it raises the question of whether certain systems may pose fundamental limitations on the ability to answer counterfactual questions about their behavior.
View on arXiv@article{aalaila2025_2503.23820,
title={ When Counterfactual Reasoning Fails: Chaos and Real-World Complexity },
author={ Yahya Aalaila and Gerrit Großmann and Sumantrak Mukherjee and Jonas Wahl and Sebastian Vollmer },
journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23820},
year={ 2025 }
}