Three facets of causal inference: Identification, explanation, and generalization

This paper addresses causal inference and modeling over event streams where data have high throughput, are unbounded, and may arrive out of order. The availability of large amount of data with these characteristics presents several new challenges related to causal modeling, such as the need for fast causal inference operations while ensuring consistent and valid results. There is no existing work specifically for such a streaming environment. We meet the challenges by introducing a time-centric causal inference strategy which leverages temporal precedence information to decrease the number of conditional independence tests required to establish the causalities between variables in a causal network. (Dependency and temporal precedence of cause over effect are the two properties of a causal relationship.) Moreover, we employ change-driven causal network inference to safely reduce the running time further. In this paper we present the Order-Aware Temporal Network Inference algorithm to model the temporal precedence relationships into a temporal network and then propose the Enhanced Fast Causal Network Inference algorithm for learning a causal network faster using the temporal network. Experiments using synthetic and real datasets demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed algorithms.

Understanding causal mechanisms among variables is critical to efficient management of complex biological systems such as animal agriculture production. The increasing availability of data from commercial livestock operations offers unique opportunities for attaining causal insight, despite the inherently observational nature of these data. Causal claims based on observational data are substantiated by recent theoretical and methodological developments in the rapidly evolving field of causal inference. Thus, the objectives of this review are as follows: 1) to introduce a unifying conceptual framework for investigating causal effects from observational data in livestock, 2) to illustrate its implementation in the context of the animal sciences, and 3) to discuss opportunities and challenges associated with this framework. Foundational to the proposed conceptual framework are graphical objects known as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). As mathematical constructs and practical tools, DAGs encode putative structural mechanisms underlying causal models together with their probabilistic implications. The process of DAG elicitation and causal identification is central to any causal claims based on observational data. We further discuss necessary causal assumptions and associated limitations to causal inference. Last, we provide practical recommendations to facilitate implementation of causal inference from observational data in the context of the animal sciences.

Previous chapter Next chapter Full AccessProceedings Proceedings of the 2022 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM)Learning Infomax and Domain-Independent Representations for Causal Effect Inference with Real-World DataZhixuan Chu, Stephen L. Rathbun, and Sheng LiZhixuan Chu, Stephen L. Rathbun, and Sheng Lipp.433 - 441Chapter DOI:https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977172.49PDFBibTexSections ToolsAdd to favoritesExport CitationTrack CitationsEmail SectionsAboutAbstract The foremost challenge to causal inference with real-world data is to handle the imbalance in the covariates with respect to different treatment options, caused by treatment selection bias. To address this issue, recent literature has explored domain-invariant representation learning based on different domain divergence metrics (e.g., Wasserstein distance, maximum mean discrepancy, position-dependent metric, and domain overlap). In this paper, we reveal the weaknesses of these strategies, i.e., they lead to the loss of predictive information when enforcing the domain invariance; and the treatment effect estimation performance is unstable, which heavily relies on the characteristics of the domain distributions and the choice of domain divergence metrics. Motivated by information theory, we propose to learn the Infomax and Domain-Independent Representations to solve the above puzzles. Our method utilizes the mutual information between the global feature representations and individual feature representations, and the mutual information between feature representations and treatment assignment predictions, in order to maximally capture the common predictive information for both treatment and control groups. Moreover, our method filters out the influence of instrumental and irrelevant variables, and thus it effectively increases the predictive ability of potential outcomes. Experimental results on both the synthetic and real-world datasets show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance on causal effect inference. Moreover, our method exhibits reliable prediction performances when facing data with different characteristics of data distributions, complicated variable types, and severe covariate imbalance. Previous chapter Next chapter RelatedDetails Published:2022eISBN:978-1-61197-717-2 https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977172Book Series Name:ProceedingsBook Code:PRDT22Book Pages:1-737Key words:causal inference, selection bias, mutual information, real-world data

Empirical constitutional studies: The state of the field

, the book specifies core objects of study (claims, evidence, decision rules, and governance controls), explicit scope boundaries, and a methodological spine spanning uncertainty budgeting, causal identification, trustworthiness evaluation, and lifecycle engineering for reproducible deployment. The central argument is that connected-world systems are durable only when validity and legitimacy are jointly engineered: statistical guarantees and machine learning generalization must be coupled to provenance, audit readiness, and dispute resolution. The resulting research outputs include reusable taxonomies, protocols, evaluation designs, and governance tools adaptable to heterogeneous infrastructures in South Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas. The manuscript targets researchers building cumulative theory, practitioners designing scalable platforms, and policymakers regulating behaviors and accountability without over-specifying technology. Keywords HorizonStack, connected-world systems, evidence provenance, uncertainty budgeting, causal inference, interpretable statistics, trustworthy machine learning, federated learning, extended reality interfaces, blockchain governance, photonic computing, scalable analytics, reproducibility, MLOps, critical infrastructure, technology-neutral regulation, data sovereignty, audit readiness

Justifying operational decisions for robots is a challenging task as the operator or the robot itself has to understand the underlying physical interaction between the robot and the environment to predict the potential outcome. It is desirable to understand how the decision influences the operational performance in the way of causal relationship for the purpose of explainable decision-making. Here we propose a novel causal inference framework for the discovery and inference on the reasoning of the operational decisions for robots. It unifies both domain knowledge integration and model-free causal inference, allowing a data-driven causal knowledge learning on time series data. The framework is evaluated in the experiments of an underwater robot with complex environmental interactions. The results show that the framework can learn the causal structure and inference model to accurately explain and predict the operation performance with integrated physics.

Causal inference is a permanent challenge topic in statistics, data science, and many other scientific fields.In this paper, we give an overview of statistical methods for causal inference. There are two main frameworks of causal inference: the potential outcome model and the causal network model. The potential outcome framework is used to evaluate causal effects of a known treatment or exposure variable on a given response or outcome variable. We review several commonly-used approaches in this framework for causal effect evaluation.The causal network framework is used to depict causal relationships among variables and the data generation mechanism in complex systems.We review two main approaches for structural learning: the constraint-based method and the score-based method.In the recent years, the evaluation of causal effects and the structural learning of causal networks are combined together.At the first stage, the hybrid approach learns a Markov equivalent class of causal networks from observed data;then at the second stage, it evaluates the causal effect for each causal network in the class; it also obtains a set of causal effects.The current frameworks of causal inference still have various demerits and disadvantages.We discuss these challenges and possible solutions in modern big data studies.

Psychologists have long had interest in the processes through which antecedent variables produce their effects on the outcomes of ultimate interest (e.g., Wood-worth's Stimulus-Organism-Response model). Models involving such meditational processes have characterized many of the important psychological theories of the 20th century and continue to the present day. However, it was not until Judd and Kenny (1981) and Baron and Kenny (1986) combined ideas from experimental design and structural equation modeling that statistical methods for directly testing such models, now known as mediation analysis, began to be developed. Methodologists have improved these statistical methods, developing new, more efficient estimators for mediated effects. They have also extended mediation analysis to multilevel data structures, models involving multiple mediators, models in which interactions occur, and an array of noncontinuous outcome measures (see MacKinnon, 2008). This work nicely maps on to key questions of applied researchers and has led to an outpouring of research testing meditational models (As of August, 2011, Baron and Kenny's article has had over 24,000 citations according to Google Scholar).

ObjectivesIt remains unclear whether non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a cause or a consequence of metabolic syndrome (MetS). We proposed a simplified Bayesian network (BN) and attempted to confirm...

BackgroundCausal inference has seen an increasing popularity in medical research. Estimation of causal effects from observational data allows to draw conclusions from data when randomized controlled trials cannot be conducted. Although the identification of structural causal models (SCM) and the calculation of structural coefficients has received much attention, a key requirement for valid causal inference is that conclusions are drawn based on the true data-generating model.MethodsIt remains widely unknown how large the probability is to reject the true structural causal model when observational data from it is sampled. The latter probability – the causal false-positive risk – is crucial, as rejection of the true causal model can induce bias in the estimation of causal effects. In this paper, the widely used causal models of confounders and colliders are studied regarding their causal false-positive risk in linear Markovian models. A simulation study is carried out which investigates the causal false-positive risk in Gaussian linear Markovian models. Therefore, the testable implications of the DAG corresponding to confounders and colliders are analyzed from a Bayesian perspective. Furthermore, the induced bias in estimating the structural coefficients and causal effects is studied.ResultsResults show that the false-positive risk of rejecting a true SCM of even simple building blocks like confounders and colliders is substantial. Importantly, estimation of average, direct and indirect causal effects can become strongly biased if a true model is rejected. The causal false-positive risk may thus serve as an indicator or proxy for the induced bias.ConclusionWhile the identification of structural coefficients and testable implications of causal models have been studied rigorously in the literature, this paper shows that causal inference also must develop new concepts for controlling the causal false-positive risk. Although a high risk cannot be equated with a substantial bias, it is indicative of the induced bias. The latter fact calls for the development of more advanced risk measures for committing a causal type I error in causal inference.

A good deal of humility: Cochran on observational studies

In sequential causal inference, two types of causal effects are of practical interest, namely, the causal effect of the treatment regime (called the sequential causal effect) and the blip effect of treatmenton on the potential outcome after the last treatment. The well-known G-formula expresses these causal effects in terms of the standard paramaters. In this article, we obtain a new G-formula that expresses these causal effects in terms of the point observable effects of treatments similar to treatment in the framework of single-point causal inference. Based on the new G-formula, we estimate these causal effects by maximum likelihood via point observable effects with methods extended from single-point causal inference. We are able to increase precision of the estimation without introducing biases by an unsaturated model imposing constraints on the point observable effects. We are also able to reduce the number of point observable effects in the estimation by treatment assignment conditions.

The central thesis of this book is that causal inferences based on careful integrative multi-method research designs have advantages over similar inferences that rely on only one method. A necessary first step in making this argument is showing that many applications of qualitative and quantitative methods in the social sciences share an underlying notion of causation. If causation in these two methodological traditions is fundamentally not the same sort of relation, then there is good reason to worry that they cannot contribute to a joint causal project. Indeed, given such fundamentally divergent worldviews, it is unclear that the methods could even contribute to testing each others’ assumptions – the central theme of integrative multi-method research designs. I argue below that the potential-outcomes framework, in which causal effects are characterized as the difference between what actually happens in a given case and what would have happened had that case been assigned to a different treatment category, can serve as that notion. After introducing this concept, I argue that stereotypically qualitative and quantitative causal thinking can be seen as sharing an underlying conceptual structure. The potential-outcomes framework is used to explicate causal models and hypotheses throughout the book. Existing work on the potential-outcomes framework has produced clear insights into the challenges of causal inference. Most famously, authors have pointed to the fundamental problem of causal inference: because it is impossible to observe both what does happen to a case in reality and what would have happened to that case had the independent variable been assigned a different value, no direct empirical observation of causation at the case level is possible (Holland 1986). Prior research also provides detailed findings regarding the assumptions necessary to get around this problem and make causal inferences in experiments, natural experiments, and quantitative observational studies (e.g. Morgan and Winship 2007). The last segment of this chapter reviews those findings with respect to regression-type analysis of observational studies, paying special attention to the assumptions about control variables necessary for regression-based causal inference. In particular, this literature shows that scholars need independent evidence that the regression does not suffer from confounders, colliders, or post-treatment bias. While these assumptions are not sufficient for causal inference, they are necessary and provide key openings for integrative multi-method research design.

Understanding the causes of biodiversity change is essential for addressing environmental challenges. While causal attribution has advanced in other fields, ecologists remain cautious about causal claims or misinterpret predictive models as causal. With growing spatio‐temporal data, computational power and cross‐disciplinary collaboration, discussions on improving attribution methods in ecology are gaining momentum. However, practical guidance remains limited for non‐experts. Here, we identify the challenges and decisions involved in detecting and attributing biodiversity change and provide an overview of suitable methods based on available data and specific research questions. The first challenge we address pertains to biodiversity and driver data. Unlike controlled experimental data in other disciplines, ecological data often stem from monitoring programs or field samplings with varying degrees of rigour, which complicates the analysis due to sampling biases, interacting drivers, measurement error or spatio‐temporal variations. We specifically outline how data structure (e.g. structured vs. opportunistic data) and data coverage along the spatial and temporal scale impact detection and attribution. The second challenge involves the ability to detect directional change in the system of interest, which is associated with numerous hurdles. We provide an overview of the most relevant approaches to deal with sampling variability, gaps and biases in the data, non‐linearity in the temporal trends and to identify the most appropriate spatio‐temporal resolution. For the third challenge, causal attribution, we focus on data‐driven approaches. We review recent frameworks that draw on methodologies from other disciplines, offering analytical roadmaps and step‐by‐step guidance for causal inference. These include constructing theoretical causal models a priori, full causal models based on data and theory and posterior causal interpretation tailored to specific data and research questions. Moving forward, it is essential to foster interdisciplinary collaboration to adapt and refine methodologies from other fields, ensure robust data collection and sharing practices, promote the integration of advanced computational tools and improve the link between data‐driven and theory‐driven approaches. This approach will enhance our ability to make robust causal inferences; thereby improving our understanding of biodiversity changes and informing effective conservation strategies.

Causal inference for non-censored response variables, such as binary or quantitative outcomes, is often based on either (1) direct standardization ('G-formula') or (2) inverse probability of treatment assignment weights ('propensity score'). To do causal inference in survival analysis, one needs to address right-censoring, and often, special techniques are required for that purpose. We will show how censoring can be dealt with 'once and for all' by means of so-called pseudo-observations when doing causal inference in survival analysis. The pseudo-observations can be used as a replacement of the outcomes without censoring when applying 'standard' causal inference methods, such as (1) or (2) earlier. We study this idea for estimating the average causal effect of a binary treatment on the survival probability, the restricted mean lifetime, and the cumulative incidence in a competing risks situation. The methods will be illustrated in a small simulation study and via a study of patients with acute myeloid leukemia who received either myeloablative or non-myeloablative conditioning before allogeneic hematopoetic cell transplantation. We will estimate the average causal effect of the conditioning regime on outcomes such as the 3-year overall survival probability and the 3-year risk of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.