Investigators reported that modern pipelines often learn multimodal representations by optimizing reconstruction objectives. These representations compress high-dimensional records into low-dimensional features. That approach can succeed for downstream prediction. It can fail, however, when the downstream goal is causal identification rather than mere reconstruction. The study team observed — and proved — that preserving information needed for causal inference is not equivalent to preserving reconstruction accuracy. Small losses in reconstruction can translate into large biases in causal estimands.
The authors studied two explicit families of estimands. First were counterfactual outcomes under alternative treatments: phenotype-specific effects and patient-level counterfactual risk profiles similar to digital-twin outputs. Second were interventional direct and indirect effects in settings with exposure-induced intermediate confounding. The source material specified that interventional mediation places stronger demands on representations than counterfactual comparisons do. Data indicated that a representation sufficient for estimating counterfactual contrasts may still be insufficient for decomposing mediation effects.
The paper contains formal impossibility results. The authors proved that no training objective which depends only on the covariates — whether reconstruction, contrastive, or physics-informed objectives — can certify that a learned representation is sufficient for causal identification. In other words, optimizing any covariate-only loss cannot provide guarantees that the representation retains all confounding-relevant information. In a linear structural model, the study team showed concretely that a representation could incur an arbitrarily small increase in reconstruction loss while inducing an arbitrarily large bias in causal estimates. The source did not report specific parameter values beyond that qualitative construction; readers should consult the full text for the formal proofs.
Investigators decomposed the estimation error of cross-fitted doubly robust estimators into two parts. The first-order term is a representation bias: this component survives double robustness and cross-fitting and therefore does not vanish as sample size grows if the representation is insufficient. The second-order term is a remainder due to nuisance-estimation errors. The authors reported that, when representation insufficiency exists, coverage of nominal intervals can deteriorate with increasing sample size because the first-order representation bias dominates. The source did not provide alternate estimators that remove this first-order bias except by ensuring representation sufficiency.
The authors proposed a practical workflow designed to reduce the risk of representation-induced bias. They recommended training modality-specific variational autoencoders outside the estimation sample, then applying cross-fitted doubly robust and one-step estimators for causal parameters. The workflow also includes locking phenotypes, running select-then-confirm pathway analysis, constructing portable representations to enable external replication, and deploying diagnostics for representation insufficiency, exposure leakage, and sensitivity analysis. The source document described these elements in conceptual detail but did not report step-by-step code-level protocols within the main text; the authors made implementation code available in their repository.
In simulations the team examined how discard of a rare confounder by the representation affected inference. When the representation omitted a rare confounder that was moderately strong, interventional indirect-effect intervals exhibited only 2% coverage at n = 3,000. The authors noted that standard reconstruction loss failed to flag the problem. By contrast, a simple predictive diagnostic identified the insufficiency in 100% of replicated simulations. The source emphasized that these results are simulation-based; no patient data were analyzed. Code implementing the estimators, diagnostics, and simulation study is publicly available at the authors’ repository: https://github.com/congca0/reconstruction-is-not-enough.
Limitations and open questions raised by the authors
The study used simulated data and formal constructions; the authors noted that the impossibility results concern any objective that depends solely on covariates, but practical performance will depend on data-generating mechanisms that vary across applications. The source did not provide empirical results on real-world electronic health record datasets. The paper also did not specify exact tuning or preprocessing steps that guarantee representation sufficiency in applied settings. Open questions documented in the source include how to design representation objectives that explicitly preserve causal information and how to operationalize the proposed diagnostics across diverse clinical modalities.
Posted and availability
The preprint was posted October 23, 2026, on medRxiv. The authors declared no competing interests and provided code and implementations for replication and further study.