Identifying Causal Effects Under Functional Dependencies

We study the identification of causal effects, motivated by two improvements to identifiability which can be attained if one knows that some variables in a causal graph are functionally determined by their parents (without needing to know the specific functions). First, an unidentifiable causal effect may become identifiable when certain variables are functional. Second, certain functional variables can be excluded from being observed without affecting the identifiability of a causal effect, which may significantly reduce the number of needed variables in observational data. Our results are largely based on an elimination procedure which removes functional variables from a causal graph while preserving key properties in the resulting causal graph, including the identifiability of causal effects.

Tractable Bounding of Counterfactual Queries by Knowledge Compilation

We discuss the problem of bounding partially identifiable queries, such as counterfactuals, in Pearlian structural causal models. A recently proposed iterated EM scheme yields an inner approximation of those bounds by sampling the initialisation parameters. Such a method requires multiple (Bayesian network) queries over models sharing the same structural equations and topology, but different exogenous probabilities. This setup makes a compilation of the underlying model to an arithmetic circuit advantageous, thus inducing a sizeable inferential speed-up. We show how a single symbolic knowledge compilation allows us to obtain the circuit structure with symbolic parameters to be replaced by their actual values when computing the different queries. We also discuss parallelisation techniques to further speed up the bound computation. Experiments against standard Bayesian network inference show clear computational advantages with up to an order of magnitude of speed-up.

On the Complexity of Counterfactual Reasoning

We study the computational complexity of counterfactual reasoning in relation to the complexity of associational and interventional reasoning on structural causal models (SCMs). We show that counterfactual reasoning is no harder than associational or interventional reasoning on fully specified SCMs in the context of two computational frameworks. The first framework is based on the notion of treewidth and includes the classical variable elimination and jointree algorithms. The second framework is based on the more recent and refined notion of causal treewidth which is directed towards models with functional dependencies such as SCMs. Our results are constructive and based on bounding the (causal) treewidth of twin networks -- used in standard counterfactual reasoning that contemplates two worlds, real and imaginary -- to the (causal) treewidth of the underlying SCM structure. In particular, we show that the latter (causal) treewidth is no more than twice the former plus one. Hence, if associational or interventional reasoning is tractable on a fully specified SCM then counterfactual reasoning is tractable too. We extend our results to general counterfactual reasoning that requires contemplating more than two worlds and discuss applications of our results to counterfactual reasoning with a partially specified SCM that is coupled with data. We finally present empirical results that measure the gap between the complexities of counterfactual reasoning and associational/interventional reasoning on random SCMs.