Multiply-Robust Causal Change Attribution

Comparing two samples of data, we observe a change in the distribution of an outcome variable. In the presence of multiple explanatory variables, how much of the change can be explained by each possible cause? We develop a new estimation strategy that, given a causal model, combines regression and re-weighting methods to quantify the contribution of each causal mechanism. Our proposed methodology is multiply robust, meaning that it still recovers the target parameter under partial misspecification. We prove that our estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal. Moreover, it can be incorporated into existing frameworks for causal attribution, such as Shapley values, which will inherit the consistency and large-sample distribution properties. Our method demonstrates excellent performance in Monte Carlo simulations, and we show its usefulness in an empirical application.

Assumption violations in causal discovery and the robustness of score matching

When domain knowledge is limited and experimentation is restricted by ethical, financial, or time constraints, practitioners turn to observational causal discovery methods to recover the causal structure, exploiting the statistical properties of their data. Because causal discovery without further assumptions is an ill-posed problem, each algorithm comes with its own set of usually untestable assumptions, some of which are hard to meet in real datasets. Motivated by these considerations, this paper extensively benchmarks the empirical performance of recent causal discovery methods on observational i.i.d. data generated under different background conditions, allowing for violations of the critical assumptions required by each selected approach. Our experimental findings show that score matching-based methods demonstrate surprising performance in the false positive and false negative rate of the inferred graph in these challenging scenarios, and we provide theoretical insights into their performance. This work is also the first effort to benchmark the stability of causal discovery algorithms with respect to the values of their hyperparameters. Finally, we hope this paper will set a new standard for the evaluation of causal discovery methods and can serve as an accessible entry point for practitioners interested in the field, highlighting the empirical implications of different algorithm choices.

Self-Compatibility: Evaluating Causal Discovery without Ground Truth

As causal ground truth is incredibly rare, causal discovery algorithms are commonly only evaluated on simulated data. This is concerning, given that simulations reflect common preconceptions about generating processes regarding noise distributions, model classes, and more. In this work, we propose a novel method for falsifying the output of a causal discovery algorithm in the absence of ground truth. Our key insight is that while statistical learning seeks stability across subsets of data points, causal learning should seek stability across subsets of variables. Motivated by this insight, our method relies on a notion of compatibility between causal graphs learned on different subsets of variables. We prove that detecting incompatibilities can falsify wrongly inferred causal relations due to violation of assumptions or errors from finite sample effects. Although passing such compatibility tests is only a necessary criterion for good performance, we argue that it provides strong evidence for the causal models whenever compatibility entails strong implications for the joint distribution. We also demonstrate experimentally that detection of incompatibilities can aid in causal model selection.

Toward Falsifying Causal Graphs Using a Permutation-Based Test

Understanding the causal relationships among the variables of a system is paramount to explain and control its behaviour. Inferring the causal graph from observational data without interventions, however, requires a lot of strong assumptions that are not always realistic. Even for domain experts it can be challenging to express the causal graph. Therefore, metrics that quantitatively assess the goodness of a causal graph provide helpful checks before using it in downstream tasks. Existing metrics provide an absolute number of inconsistencies between the graph and the observed data, and without a baseline, practitioners are left to answer the hard question of how many such inconsistencies are acceptable or expected. Here, we propose a novel consistency metric by constructing a surrogate baseline through node permutations. By comparing the number of inconsistencies with those on the surrogate baseline, we derive an interpretable metric that captures whether the DAG fits significantly better than random. Evaluating on both simulated and real data sets from various domains, including biology and cloud monitoring, we demonstrate that the true DAG is not falsified by our metric, whereas the wrong graphs given by a hypothetical user are likely to be falsified.

Reinterpreting causal discovery as the task of predicting unobserved joint statistics

If $X,Y,Z$ denote sets of random variables, two different data sources may contain samples from $P_{X,Y}$ and $P_{Y,Z}$, respectively. We argue that causal discovery can help inferring properties of the `unobserved joint distributions' $P_{X,Y,Z}$ or $P_{X,Z}$. The properties may be conditional independences (as in `integrative causal inference') or also quantitative statements about dependences. More generally, we define a learning scenario where the input is a subset of variables and the label is some statistical property of that subset. Sets of jointly observed variables define the training points, while unobserved sets are possible test points. To solve this learning task, we infer, as an intermediate step, a causal model from the observations that then entails properties of unobserved sets. Accordingly, we can define the VC dimension of a class of causal models and derive generalization bounds for the predictions. Here, causal discovery becomes more modest and better accessible to empirical tests than usual: rather than trying to find a causal hypothesis that is `true' a causal hypothesis is {\it useful} whenever it correctly predicts statistical properties of unobserved joint distributions. This way, a sparse causal graph that omits weak influences may be more useful than a dense one (despite being less accurate) because it is able to reconstruct the full joint distribution from marginal distributions of smaller subsets. Within such a `pragmatic' application of causal discovery, some popular heuristic approaches become justified in retrospect. It is, for instance, allowed to infer DAGs from partial correlations instead of conditional independences if the DAGs are only used to predict partial correlations.

Causal Information Splitting: Engineering Proxy Features for Robustness to Distribution Shifts

Statistical prediction models are often trained on data that is drawn from different probability distributions than their eventual use cases. One approach to proactively prepare for these shifts harnesses the intuition that causal mechanisms should remain invariant between environments. Here we focus on a challenging setting in which the causal and anticausal variables of the target are unobserved. Leaning on information theory, we develop feature selection and engineering techniques for the observed downstream variables that act as proxies. We identify proxies that help to build stable models and moreover utilize auxiliary training tasks to extract stability-enhancing information from proxies. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our techniques on synthetic and real data.

Meaningful Causal Aggregation and Paradoxical Confounding

In aggregated variables the impact of interventions is typically ill-defined because different micro-realizations of the same macro-intervention can result in different changes of downstream macro-variables. We show that this ill-definedness of causality on aggregated variables can turn unconfounded causal relations into confounded ones and vice versa, depending on the respective micro-realization. We argue that it is practically infeasible to only use aggregated causal systems when we are free from this ill-definedness. Instead, we need to accept that macro causal relations are typically defined only with reference to the micro states. On the positive side, we show that cause-effect relations can be aggregated when the macro interventions are such that the distribution of micro states is the same as in the observational distribution and also discuss generalizations of this observation.

Bounding probabilities of causation through the causal marginal problem

Probabilities of Causation play a fundamental role in decision making in law, health care and public policy. Nevertheless, their point identification is challenging, requiring strong assumptions such as monotonicity. In the absence of such assumptions, existing work requires multiple observations of datasets that contain the same treatment and outcome variables, in order to establish bounds on these probabilities. However, in many clinical trials and public policy evaluation cases, there exist independent datasets that examine the effect of a different treatment each on the same outcome variable. Here, we outline how to significantly tighten existing bounds on the probabilities of causation, by imposing counterfactual consistency between SCMs constructed from such independent datasets ('causal marginal problem'). Next, we describe a new information theoretic approach on falsification of counterfactual probabilities, using conditional mutual information to quantify counterfactual influence. The latter generalises to arbitrary discrete variables and number of treatments, and renders the causal marginal problem more interpretable. Since the question of 'tight enough' is left to the user, we provide an additional method of inference when the bounds are unsatisfactory: A maximum entropy based method that defines a metric for the space of plausible SCMs and proposes the entropy maximising SCM for inferring counterfactuals in the absence of more information.

Phenomenological Causality

Discussions on causal relations in real life often consider variables for which the definition of causality is unclear since the notion of interventions on the respective variables is obscure. Asking 'what qualifies an action for being an intervention on the variable X' raises the question whether the action impacted all other variables only through X or directly, which implicitly refers to a causal model. To avoid this known circularity, we instead suggest a notion of 'phenomenological causality' whose basic concept is a set of elementary actions. Then the causal structure is defined such that elementary actions change only the causal mechanism at one node (e.g. one of the causal conditionals in the Markov factorization). This way, the Principle of Independent Mechanisms becomes the defining property of causal structure in domains where causality is a more abstract phenomenon rather than being an objective fact relying on hard-wired causal links between tangible objects. We describe this phenomenological approach to causality for toy and hypothetical real-world examples and argue that it is consistent with the causal Markov condition when the system under consideration interacts with other variables that control the elementary actions.

Explaining the root causes of unit-level changes

Existing methods of explainable AI and interpretable ML cannot explain change in the values of an output variable for a statistical unit in terms of the change in the input values and the change in the "mechanism" (the function transforming input to output). We propose two methods based on counterfactuals for explaining unit-level changes at various input granularities using the concept of Shapley values from game theory. These methods satisfy two key axioms desirable for any unit-level change attribution method. Through simulations, we study the reliability and the scalability of the proposed methods. We get sensible results from a case study on identifying the drivers of the change in the earnings for individuals in the US.