Interventional Causal Representation Learning

The theory of identifiable representation learning aims to build general-purpose methods that extract high-level latent (causal) factors from low-level sensory data. Most existing works focus on identifiable representation learning with observational data, relying on distributional assumptions on latent (causal) factors. However, in practice, we often also have access to interventional data for representation learning. How can we leverage interventional data to help identify high-level latents? To this end, we explore the role of interventional data for identifiable representation learning in this work. We study the identifiability of latent causal factors with and without interventional data, under minimal distributional assumptions on the latents. We prove that, if the true latent variables map to the observed high-dimensional data via a polynomial function, then representation learning via minimizing the standard reconstruction loss of autoencoders identifies the true latents up to affine transformation. If we further have access to interventional data generated by hard $do$ interventions on some of the latents, then we can identify these intervened latents up to permutation, shift and scaling.

Empirical Gateaux Derivatives for Causal Inference

We study a constructive algorithm that approximates Gateaux derivatives for statistical functionals by finite-differencing, with a focus on causal inference functionals. We consider the case where probability distributions are not known a priori but also need to be estimated from data. These estimated distributions lead to empirical Gateaux derivatives, and we study the relationships between empirical, numerical, and analytical Gateaux derivatives. Starting with a case study of estimating the mean potential outcome (hence average treatment effect), we instantiate the exact relationship between finite-differences and the analytical Gateaux derivative. We then derive requirements on the rates of numerical approximation in perturbation and smoothing that preserve the statistical benefits of one-step adjustments, such as rate-double-robustness. We then study more complicated functionals such as dynamic treatment regimes and the linear-programming formulation for policy optimization in infinite-horizon Markov decision processes. The newfound ability to approximate bias adjustments in the presence of arbitrary constraints illustrates the usefulness of constructive approaches for Gateaux derivatives. We also find that the statistical structure of the functional (rate-double robustness) can permit less conservative rates of finite-difference approximation. This property, however, can be specific to particular functionals, e.g. it occurs for the mean potential outcome (hence average treatment effect) but not the infinite-horizon MDP policy value.

Predicting from Predictions

Predictions about people, such as their expected educational achievement or their credit risk, can be performative and shape the outcome that they aim to predict. Understanding the causal effect of these predictions on the eventual outcomes is crucial for foreseeing the implications of future predictive models and selecting which models to deploy. However, this causal estimation task poses unique challenges: model predictions are usually deterministic functions of input features and highly correlated with outcomes, which can make the causal effects of predictions impossible to disentangle from the direct effect of the covariates. We study this problem through the lens of causal identifiability, and despite the hardness of this problem in full generality, we highlight three natural scenarios where the causal effect of predictions on outcomes can be identified from observational data: randomization in predictions or prediction-based decisions, overparameterization of the predictive model deployed during data collection, and discrete prediction outputs. We show empirically that, under suitable identifiability conditions, standard variants of supervised learning that predict from predictions can find transferable functional relationships between features, predictions, and outcomes, allowing for conclusions about newly deployed prediction models. Our positive results fundamentally rely on model predictions being recorded during data collection, bringing forward the importance of rethinking standard data collection practices to enable progress towards a better understanding of social outcomes and performative feedback loops.

Valid Inference after Causal Discovery

Causal graph discovery and causal effect estimation are two fundamental tasks in causal inference. While many methods have been developed for each task individually, statistical challenges arise when applying these methods jointly: estimating causal effects after running causal discovery algorithms on the same data leads to "double dipping," invalidating coverage guarantees of classical confidence intervals. To this end, we develop tools for valid post-causal-discovery inference. One key contribution is a randomized version of the greedy equivalence search (GES) algorithm, which permits a valid, finite-sample correction of classical confidence intervals. Across empirical studies, we show that a naive combination of causal discovery and subsequent inference algorithms typically leads to highly inflated miscoverage rates; at the same time, our noisy GES method provides reliable coverage control while achieving more accurate causal graph recovery than data splitting.

Statistical and Computational Trade-offs in Variational Inference: A Case Study in Inferential Model Selection

Variational inference has recently emerged as a popular alternative to the classical Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) in large-scale Bayesian inference. The core idea of variational inference is to trade statistical accuracy for computational efficiency. It aims to approximate the posterior, reducing computation costs but potentially compromising its statistical accuracy. In this work, we study this statistical and computational trade-off in variational inference via a case study in inferential model selection. Focusing on Gaussian inferential models (a.k.a. variational approximating families) with diagonal plus low-rank precision matrices, we initiate a theoretical study of the trade-offs in two aspects, Bayesian posterior inference error and frequentist uncertainty quantification error. From the Bayesian posterior inference perspective, we characterize the error of the variational posterior relative to the exact posterior. We prove that, given a fixed computation budget, a lower-rank inferential model produces variational posteriors with a higher statistical approximation error, but a lower computational error; it reduces variances in stochastic optimization and, in turn, accelerates convergence. From the frequentist uncertainty quantification perspective, we consider the precision matrix of the variational posterior as an uncertainty estimate. We find that, relative to the true asymptotic precision, the variational approximation suffers from an additional statistical error originating from the sampling uncertainty of the data. Moreover, this statistical error becomes the dominant factor as the computation budget increases. As a consequence, for small datasets, the inferential model need not be full-rank to achieve optimal estimation error. We finally demonstrate these statistical and computational trade-offs inference across empirical studies, corroborating the theoretical findings.

Breaking Feedback Loops in Recommender Systems with Causal Inference

Recommender systems play a key role in shaping modern web ecosystems. These systems alternate between (1) making recommendations (2) collecting user responses to these recommendations, and (3) retraining the recommendation algorithm based on this feedback. During this process the recommender system influences the user behavioral data that is subsequently used to update it, thus creating a feedback loop. Recent work has shown that feedback loops may compromise recommendation quality and homogenize user behavior, raising ethical and performance concerns when deploying recommender systems. To address these issues, we propose the Causal Adjustment for Feedback Loops (CAFL), an algorithm that provably breaks feedback loops using causal inference and can be applied to any recommendation algorithm that optimizes a training loss. Our main observation is that a recommender system does not suffer from feedback loops if it reasons about causal quantities, namely the intervention distributions of recommendations on user ratings. Moreover, we can calculate this intervention distribution from observational data by adjusting for the recommender system's predictions of user preferences. Using simulated environments, we demonstrate that CAFL improves recommendation quality when compared to prior correction methods.

Recommendation Systems with Distribution-Free Reliability Guarantees

When building recommendation systems, we seek to output a helpful set of items to the user. Under the hood, a ranking model predicts which of two candidate items is better, and we must distill these pairwise comparisons into the user-facing output. However, a learned ranking model is never perfect, so taking its predictions at face value gives no guarantee that the user-facing output is reliable. Building from a pre-trained ranking model, we show how to return a set of items that is rigorously guaranteed to contain mostly good items. Our procedure endows any ranking model with rigorous finite-sample control of the false discovery rate (FDR), regardless of the (unknown) data distribution. Moreover, our calibration algorithm enables the easy and principled integration of multiple objectives in recommender systems. As an example, we show how to optimize for recommendation diversity subject to a user-specified level of FDR control, circumventing the need to specify ad hoc weights of a diversity loss against an accuracy loss. Throughout, we focus on the problem of learning to rank a set of possible recommendations, evaluating our methods on the Yahoo! Learning to Rank and MSMarco datasets.

Partial Identification with Noisy Covariates: A Robust Optimization Approach

Causal inference from observational datasets often relies on measuring and adjusting for covariates. In practice, measurements of the covariates can often be noisy and/or biased, or only measurements of their proxies may be available. Directly adjusting for these imperfect measurements of the covariates can lead to biased causal estimates. Moreover, without additional assumptions, the causal effects are not point-identifiable due to the noise in these measurements. To this end, we study the partial identification of causal effects given noisy covariates, under a user-specified assumption on the noise level. The key observation is that we can formulate the identification of the average treatment effects (ATE) as a robust optimization problem. This formulation leads to an efficient robust optimization algorithm that bounds the ATE with noisy covariates. We show that this robust optimization approach can extend a wide range of causal adjustment methods to perform partial identification, including backdoor adjustment, inverse propensity score weighting, double machine learning, and front door adjustment. Across synthetic and real datasets, we find that this approach provides ATE bounds with a higher coverage probability than existing methods.

Augmenting Neural Networks with Priors on Function Values

The need for function estimation in label-limited settings is common in the natural sciences. At the same time, prior knowledge of function values is often available in these domains. For example, data-free biophysics-based models can be informative on protein properties, while quantum-based computations can be informative on small molecule properties. How can we coherently leverage such prior knowledge to help improve a neural network model that is quite accurate in some regions of input space -- typically near the training data -- but wildly wrong in other regions? Bayesian neural networks (BNN) enable the user to specify prior information only on the neural network weights, not directly on the function values. Moreover, there is in general no clear mapping between these. Herein, we tackle this problem by developing an approach to augment BNNs with prior information on the function values themselves. Our probabilistic approach yields predictions that rely more heavily on the prior information when the epistemic uncertainty is large, and more heavily on the neural network when the epistemic uncertainty is small.