Applying a causal graph structure in the challenging environment of a no-holds-barred nonparametric machine learning algorithm such as a neural net or its ilk. I am interested in this because it seems necessary and kind of obvious for handling things like dataset shift, but is often ignored. What is that about?

I do not know at the moment. This is a link salad for now.

## Invariance approaches

Léon Bottou, From Causal Graphs to Causal Invariance:

For many problems, it’s difficult to even attempt drawing a causal graph. While structural causal models provide a complete framework for causal inference, it is often hard to encode known physical laws (such as Newton’s gravitation, or the ideal gas law) as causal graphs. In familiar machine learning territory, how does one model the causal relationships between individual pixels and a target prediction? This is one of the motivating questions behind the paper Invariant Risk Minimization (IRM). In place of structured graphs, the authors elevate invariance to the defining feature of causality.

He commends the Cloudera Fast Forward tutorial Causality for Machine Learning, which is a nice bit of applied work.

## Causality for feedback and continuous fields

There is a fun body of work by what is in my mind the Central European causality-ML think tank. There is some high connectivity between various interesting people: Bernhard Schölkopf, Jonas Peters, Joris Mooij, Stephan Bongers and Dominik Janzing etc. I would love to understand everything that is going on with their outputs, particularly as regards causality in feedback and control systems. Perhaps I should start with the book (Peters, Janzing, and Schölkopf 2017) (Free PDF), or the chatty casual introduction (Schölkopf 2022).

For a good explanation of what they are about by example, see Bernhard Schölkopf: Causality and Exoplanets.

I am particularly curious about their work in causality in continuous fields, e.g. Bongers et al. (2020);Bongers and Mooij (2018);Bongers et al. (2016);Rubenstein et al. (2018).

## Double learning

Künzel et al. (2019) (HT Mike McKenna) looks interesting - it is a generic intervention estimator for ML methods (AFAICT this extends the double regression/instrumental variables approach.)

… We describe a number of metaalgorithms that can take advantage of any supervised learning or regression method in machine learning and statistics to estimate the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) function. Metaalgorithms build on base algorithms—such as random forests (RFs), Bayesian additive regression trees (BARTs), or neural networks—to estimate the CATE, a function that the base algorithms are not designed to estimate directly. We introduce a metaalgorithm, the X-learner, that is provably efficient when the number of units in one treatment group is much larger than in the other and can exploit structural properties of the CATE function. For example, if the CATE function is linear and the response functions in treatment and control are Lipschitz-continuous, the X-learner can still achieve the parametric rate under regularity conditions. We then introduce versions of the X-learner that use RF and BART as base learners. In extensive simulation studies, the X-learner performs favorably, although none of the metalearners is uniformly the best. In two persuasion field experiments from political science, we demonstrate how our X-learner can be used to target treatment regimes and to shed light on underlying mechanisms.

See also Mishler and Kennedy (2021). Maybe related: Shalit, Johansson, and Sontag (2017), Shi, Blei, and Veitch (2019).

## Benchmarking

Detecting causal associations in time series datasets is a key challenge for novel insights into complex dynamical systems such as the Earth system or the human brain. Interactions in such systems present a number of major challenges for causal discovery techniques and it is largely unknown which methods perform best for which challenge.

The CauseMe platform provides ground truth benchmark datasets featuring different real data challenges to assess and compare the performance of causal discovery methods. The available benchmark datasets are either generated from synthetic models mimicking real challenges, or are real world data sets where the causal structure is known with high confidence. The datasets vary in dimensionality, complexity and sophistication.

## Incoming

Nisha Muktewar and Chris Wallace, Causality for Machine Learning is the book Bottou recommends on this theme.

For coders, Ben Dickson writes on Why machine learning struggles with causality.

Cheng Soon Ong recommends Finn Lattimore to me as an important perspective.

biomedia-mira/deepscm: Repository for Deep Structural Causal Models for Tractable Counterfactual Inference (Pawlowski, Coelho de Castro, and Glocker 2020).

## References

*arXiv:1902.07409 [Stat]*, February.

*Probabilistic and Causal Inference: The Works of Judea Pearl*, 1st ed., 36:507–56. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

*arXiv:1812.03253 [Cs, Stat]*.

*Frontiers in Psychology*11.

*arXiv:1611.06221 [Cs, Stat]*, October.

*arXiv:1803.08784 [Cs, Stat]*, March.

*arXiv:1611.06221 [Cs, Stat]*, November.

*arXiv:2104.04103 [Cs, Stat]*, September.

*arXiv:2009.09070 [Cs]*, September.

*arXiv:1909.10893 [Cs, Stat]*, November.

*Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning*, 1414–23. PMLR.

*Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science*30 (6): 063116.

*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29*, edited by D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. V. Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett, 2946–54. Curran Associates, Inc.

*Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research*76 (January): 201–64.

*arXiv:1709.02023 [Cs, Math, Stat]*, September.

*Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*116 (10): 4156–65.

*arXiv:2006.07796 [Cs, Stat]*, July.

*Journal of Hydrometeorology*23 (8): 1315–31.

*arXiv:1811.12359 [Cs, Stat]*, June.

*Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning*, 119:6348–59. PMLR.

*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30*, edited by I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, 6446–56. Curran Associates, Inc.

*arXiv:2102.12353 [Cs, Stat]*, June.

*arXiv:2109.00173 [Cs, Stat]*, August.

*Journal of Machine Learning Research*17 (32): 1–102.

*arXiv:1910.08527 [Cs, Stat]*, February.

*Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems*.

*arXiv:2110.10819 [Cs]*, October.

*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*, 33:857–69. Curran Associates, Inc.

*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology*78 (5): 947–1012.

*Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms*. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning Series. Cambridge, Massachuestts: The MIT Press.

*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics*70 (4): 1124–39.

*Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management*, 1679–82. CIKM ’18. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

*IEEE Access*8: 42200–42216.

*Journal of Machine Learning Research*21 (188): 1–86.

*Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence*.

*Nature Communications*10 (1): 2553.

*Probabilistic and Causal Inference: The Works of Judea Pearl*, 1st ed., 36:765–804. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

*Proceedings of the IEEE*109 (5): 612–34.

*arXiv:1606.03976 [Cs, Stat]*, May.

*Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems*, 2507–17. Red Hook, NY, USA: Curran Associates Inc.

*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*35 (December): 24130–43.

*ACM Computing Surveys*55 (4): 82:1–36.

*Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*36 (11): 12191–99.

*Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence*4.

*arXiv:2109.03795 [Cs, Stat]*, September.

*arXiv:2004.08697 [Cs, Stat]*, July.

*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*. Vol. 33.

*arXiv:2010.07684 [Cs]*, February.

## No comments yet. Why not leave one?