Jakob Zeitler

Gecia Bravo-Hermsdorff, David S. Watson, Jialin Yu et al.

One of the goals of causal inference is to generalize from past experiments and observational data to novel conditions. While it is in principle possible to eventually learn a mapping from a novel experimental condition to an outcome of interest, provided a sufficient variety of experiments is available in the training data, coping with a large combinatorial space of possible interventions is hard. Under a typical sparse experimental design, this mapping is ill-posed without relying on heavy regularization or prior distributions. Such assumptions may or may not be reliable, and can be hard to defend or test. In this paper, we take a close look at how to warrant a leap from past experiments to novel conditions based on minimal assumptions about the factorization of the distribution of the manipulated system, communicated in the well-understood language of factor graph models. A postulated $\textit{interventional factor model}$ (IFM) may not always be informative, but it conveniently abstracts away a need for explicitly modeling unmeasured confounding and feedback mechanisms, leading to directly testable claims. Given an IFM and datasets from a collection of experimental regimes, we derive conditions for identifiability of the expected outcomes of new regimes never observed in these training data. We implement our framework using several efficient algorithms, and apply them on a range of semi-synthetic experiments.

Jakob Zeitler, Ricardo Silva

Due to unmeasured confounding, it is often not possible to identify causal effects from a postulated model. Nevertheless, we can ask for partial identification, which usually boils down to finding upper and lower bounds of a causal quantity of interest derived from all solutions compatible with the encoded structural assumptions. One appealing way to derive such bounds is by casting it in terms of a constrained optimization method that searches over all causal models compatible with evidence, as introduced in the classic work of Balke and Pearl (1994) for discrete data. Although by construction this guarantees tight bounds, it poses a formidable computational challenge. To cope with this issue, alternatives include algorithms that are not guaranteed to be tight, or by introducing restrictions on the class of models. In this paper, we introduce a novel alternative: inspired by ideas coming from belief propagation, we enforce compatibility between marginals of a causal model and data, without constructing a global causal model. We call this collection of locally consistent marginals the causal marginal polytope. As global independence constraints disappear when considering small dimensional tractable marginals, this also leads to a rethinking of how to elicit and express causal knowledge. We provide an explicit algorithm and implementation of this idea, and assess its practicality with numerical experiments.

Kirtan Padh, Jakob Zeitler, David Watson et al.

Causal effect estimation is important for many tasks in the natural and social sciences. We design algorithms for the continuous partial identification problem: bounding the effects of multivariate, continuous treatments when unmeasured confounding makes identification impossible. Specifically, we cast causal effects as objective functions within a constrained optimization problem, and minimize/maximize these functions to obtain bounds. We combine flexible learning algorithms with Monte Carlo methods to implement a family of solutions under the name of stochastic causal programming. In particular, we show how the generic framework can be efficiently formulated in settings where auxiliary variables are clustered into pre-treatment and post-treatment sets, where no fine-grained causal graph can be easily specified. In these settings, we can avoid the need for fully specifying the distribution family of hidden common causes. Monte Carlo computation is also much simplified, leading to algorithms which are more computationally stable against alternatives.