Vanessa Didelez

Christine W. Bang, Vanessa Didelez

Equivalence classes of DAGs (represented by CPDAGs) may be too large to provide useful causal information. Here, we address incorporating tiered background knowledge yielding restricted equivalence classes represented by 'tiered MPDAGs'. Tiered knowledge leads to considerable gains in informativeness and computational efficiency: We show that construction of tiered MPDAGs only requires application of Meek's 1st rule, and that tiered MPDAGs (unlike general MPDAGs) are chain graphs with chordal components. This entails simplifications e.g. of determining valid adjustment sets for causal effect estimation. Further, we characterise when one tiered ordering is more informative than another, providing insights into useful aspects of background knowledge.

Luca Bergen, Dino Sejdinovic, Vanessa Didelez

We consider the problem of conditional independence (CI) testing and adopt a kernel-based approach. Kernel-based CI tests embed variables in reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces, regress their embeddings on the conditioning variables, and test the resulting residuals for marginal independence. This approach yields tests that are sensitive to a broad range of conditional dependencies. Existing methods, however, rely heavily on kernel ridge regression, which is computationally expensive when properly tuned and yields poorly calibrated tests when left untuned, which limits their practical usefulness. We propose the Generalised Kernel Covariance Measure (GKCM), a regression-model-agnostic kernel-based CI test that accommodates a broad class of regression estimators. Building on the Generalised Hilbertian Covariance Measure framework (Lundborg et al., 2022), we characterise conditions under which GKCM satisfies uniform asymptotic level guarantees. In simulations, GKCM paired with tree-based regression models frequently outperforms state-of-the-art CI tests across a diverse range of data-generating processes, achieving better type I error control and competitive or superior power.

Jaime Maldonado, Jonas Krumme, Christoph Zetzsche et al.

In everyday life, we perform tasks (e.g., cooking or cleaning) that involve a large variety of objects and goals. When confronted with an unexpected or unwanted outcome, we take corrective actions and try again until achieving the desired result. The reasoning performed to identify a cause of the observed outcome and to select an appropriate corrective action is a crucial aspect of human reasoning for successful task execution. Central to this reasoning is the assumption that a factor is responsible for producing the observed outcome. In this paper, we investigate the use of probabilistic actual causation to determine whether a factor is the cause of an observed undesired outcome. Furthermore, we show how the actual causation probabilities can be used to find alternative actions to change the outcome. We apply the probabilistic actual causation analysis to a robot pouring task. When spillage occurs, the analysis indicates whether a task parameter is the cause and how it should be changed to avoid spillage. The analysis requires a causal graph of the task and the corresponding conditional probability distributions. To fulfill these requirements, we perform a complete causal modeling procedure (i.e., task analysis, definition of variables, determination of the causal graph structure, and estimation of conditional probability distributions) using data from a realistic simulation of the robot pouring task, covering a large combinatorial space of task parameters. Based on the results, we discuss the implications of the variables' representation and how the alternative actions suggested by the actual causation analysis would compare to the alternative solutions proposed by a human observer. The practical use of the analysis of probabilistic actual causation to select alternative action parameters is demonstrated.

Christine W. Bang, Vanessa Didelez

In this paper we consider the use of tiered background knowledge within constraint based causal discovery. Our focus is on settings relaxing causal sufficiency, i.e. allowing for latent variables which may arise because relevant information could not be measured at all, or not jointly, as in the case of multiple overlapping datasets. We first present novel insights into the properties of the 'tiered FCI' (tFCI) algorithm. Building on this, we introduce a new extension of the IOD (integrating overlapping datasets) algorithm incorporating tiered background knowledge, the 'tiered IOD' (tIOD) algorithm. We show that under full usage of the tiered background knowledge tFCI and tIOD are sound, while simple versions of the tIOD and tFCI are sound and complete. We further show that the tIOD algorithm can often be expected to be considerably more efficient and informative than the IOD algorithm even beyond the obvious restriction of the Markov equivalence classes. We provide a formal result on the conditions for this gain in efficiency and informativeness. Our results are accompanied by a series of examples illustrating the exact role and usefulness of tiered background knowledge.

Janine Witte, Ronja Foraita, Vanessa Didelez

Causal discovery algorithms estimate causal graphs from observational data. This can provide a valuable complement to analyses focussing on the causal relation between individual treatment-outcome pairs. Constraint-based causal discovery algorithms rely on conditional independence testing when building the graph. Until recently, these algorithms have been unable to handle missing values. In this paper, we investigate two alternative solutions: Test-wise deletion and multiple imputation. We establish necessary and sufficient conditions for the recoverability of causal structures under test-wise deletion, and argue that multiple imputation is more challenging in the context of causal discovery than for estimation. We conduct an extensive comparison by simulating from benchmark causal graphs: As one might expect, we find that test-wise deletion and multiple imputation both clearly outperform list-wise deletion and single imputation. Crucially, our results further suggest that multiple imputation is especially useful in settings with a small number of either Gaussian or discrete variables, but when the dataset contains a mix of both neither method is uniformly best. The methods we compare include random forest imputation and a hybrid procedure combining test-wise deletion and multiple imputation. An application to data from the IDEFICS cohort study on diet- and lifestyle-related diseases in European children serves as an illustrating example.

Vanessa Didelez

Directed possibly cyclic graphs have been proposed by Didelez (2000) and Nodelmann et al. (2002) in order to represent the dynamic dependencies among stochastic processes. These dependencies are based on a generalization of Granger-causality to continuous time, first developed by Schweder (1970) for Markov processes, who called them local dependencies. They deserve special attention as they are asymmetric unlike stochastic (in)dependence. In this paper we focus on their graphical representation and develop a suitable, i.e. asymmetric notion of separation, called delta-separation. The properties of this graph separation as well as of local independence are investigated in detail within a framework of asymmetric (semi)graphoids allowing a deeper insight into what information can be read off these graphs.

Michael Eichler, Vanessa Didelez

We propose a definition of causality for time series in terms of the effect of an intervention in one component of a multivariate time series on another component at some later point in time. Conditions for identifiability, comparable to the back-door and front-door criteria, are presented and can also be verified graphically. Computation of the causal effect is derived and illustrated for the linear case.

Philip Dawid, Vanessa Didelez

We consider conditions that allow us to find an optimal strategy for sequential decisions from a given data situation. For the case where all interventions are unconditional (atomic), identifiability has been discussed by Pearl & Robins (1995). We argue here that an optimal strategy must be conditional, i.e. take the information available at each decision point into account. We show that the identification of an optimal sequential decision strategy is more restrictive, in the sense that conditional interventions might not always be identified when atomic interventions are. We further demonstrate that a simple graphical criterion for the identifiability of an optimal strategy can be given.