What can be estimated? Identifiability, estimability, causal inference
  and ill-posed inverse problems
  We consider basic conceptual questions concerning the relationship between
statistical estimation and causal inference. Firstly, we show how to translate
causal inference problems into an abstract statistical formalism without
requiring any structure beyond an arbitrarily-indexed family of probability
models. The formalism is simple but can incorporate a variety of causal
modelling frameworks, including 'structural causal models', but also models
expressed in terms of, e.g., differential equations. We focus primarily on the
structural/graphical causal modelling literature, however. Secondly, we
consider the extent to which causal and statistical concerns can be cleanly
separated, examining the fundamental question: 'What can be estimated from
data?'. We call this the problem of estimability. We approach this by analysing
a standard formal definition of 'can be estimated' commonly adopted in the
causal inference literature -- identifiability -- in our abstract statistical
formalism. We use elementary category theory to show that identifiability
implies the existence of a Fisher-consistent estimator, but also show that this
estimator may be discontinuous, and thus unstable, in general. This difficulty
arises because the causal inference problem is, in general, an ill-posed
inverse problem. Inverse problems have three conditions which must be satisfied
to be considered well-posed: existence, uniqueness, and stability of solutions.
Here identifiability corresponds to the question of uniqueness; in contrast, we
take estimability to mean satisfaction of all three conditions, i.e.
well-posedness. Lack of stability implies that naive translation of a causally
identifiable quantity into an achievable statistical estimation target may
prove impossible. Our article is primarily expository and aimed at unifying
ideas from multiple fields, though we provide new constructions and proofs.
