Models are widely used for investigating cause-effect relationships in complex systems. However, often different models yield diverging causal claims about specific phenomena. Therefore, critical reflection is needed on causal insights derived from modeling. As an example, we here compare ecological models dealing with the dynamics and collapse of cod in the Baltic Sea. The models addressed different specific questions, but also vary widely in system conceptualization and complexity. With each model, certain ecological factors and mechanisms were analyzed in detail, while others were included but remained unchanged, or were excluded. Model-based causal analyses of the same system are thus inherently constrained by diverse implicit assumptions about possible determinants of causation. In developing recommendations for human action, awareness is needed of this strong context dependence of causal claims, which is often not entirely clear. Model comparisons can be supplemented by integrating findings from multiple models and confronting models with multiple observed patterns.

模型广泛用于研究复杂系统中的因果关系。然而，通常不同的模型会对特定现象产生不同的因果关系。因此，需要对从建模中得出的因果见解进行批判性反思。作为一个例子，我们在这里比较了处理波罗的海鳕鱼动态和崩溃的生态模型。这些模型解决了不同的具体问题，但在系统概念化和复杂性方面也有很大差异。每个模型都详细分析了某些生态因素和机制，而其他的则包括但保持不变或被排除在外。因此，对同一系统的基于模型的因果分析固有地受到关于可能的因果决定因素的各种隐含假设的限制。在制定人类行动建议时，需要意识到因果声明的这种强烈的上下文依赖性，这通常并不完全清楚。模型比较可以通过整合来自多个模型的结果和面对具有多个观察模式的模型来补充。