Lucius E. J. Bynum

Lucius E. J. Bynum, Joshua R. Loftus, Julia Stoyanovich

Counterfactuals are often described as 'retrospective,' focusing on hypothetical alternatives to a realized past. This description relates to an often implicit assumption about the structure and stability of exogenous variables in the system being modeled -- an assumption that is reasonable in many settings where counterfactuals are used. In this work, we consider cases where we might reasonably make a different assumption about exogenous variables, namely, that the exogenous noise terms of each unit do exhibit some unit-specific structure and/or stability. This leads us to a different use of counterfactuals -- a 'forward-looking' rather than 'retrospective' counterfactual. We introduce "counterfactual treatment choice," a type of treatment choice problem that motivates using forward-looking counterfactuals. We then explore how mismatches between interventional versus forward-looking counterfactual approaches to treatment choice, consistent with different assumptions about exogenous noise, can lead to counterintuitive results.

Joshua R. Loftus, Lucius E. J. Bynum, Sakina Hansen

Explaining artificial intelligence or machine learning models is increasingly important. To use such data-driven systems wisely we must understand how they interact with the world, including how they depend causally on data inputs. In this work we develop Causal Dependence Plots (CDPs) to visualize how one variable--an outcome--depends on changes in another variable--a predictor--$\textit{along with any consequent causal changes in other predictor variables}$. Crucially, CDPs differ from standard methods based on holding other predictors constant or assuming they are independent. CDPs make use of an auxiliary causal model because causal conclusions require causal assumptions. With simulations and real data experiments, we show CDPs can be combined in a modular way with methods for causal learning or sensitivity analysis. Since people often think causally about input-output dependence, CDPs can be powerful tools in the xAI or interpretable machine learning toolkit and contribute to applications like scientific machine learning and algorithmic fairness.

Lucius E. J. Bynum, Aahlad Manas Puli, Diego Herrero-Quevedo et al.

Causal inference and the estimation of causal effects plays a central role in decision-making across many areas, including healthcare and economics. Estimating causal effects typically requires an estimator that is tailored to each problem of interest. But developing estimators can take significant effort for even a single causal inference setting. For example, algorithms for regression-based estimators, propensity score methods, and doubly robust methods were designed across several decades to handle causal estimation with observed confounders. Similarly, several estimators have been developed to exploit instrumental variables (IVs), including two-stage least-squares (TSLS), control functions, and the method-of-moments. In this work, we instead frame causal inference as a dataset-level prediction problem, offloading algorithm design to the learning process. The approach we introduce, called black box causal inference (BBCI), builds estimators in a black-box manner by learning to predict causal effects from sampled dataset-effect pairs. We demonstrate accurate estimation of average treatment effects (ATEs) and conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) with BBCI across several causal inference problems with known identification, including problems with less developed estimators.

Lucius E. J. Bynum, Kyunghyun Cho

In this work, we present sequence-driven structural causal models (SD-SCMs), a framework for specifying causal models with user-defined structure and language-model-defined mechanisms. We characterize how an SD-SCM enables sampling from observational, interventional, and counterfactual distributions according to the desired causal structure. We then leverage this procedure to propose a new type of benchmark for causal inference methods, generating individual-level counterfactual data to test treatment effect estimation. We create an example benchmark consisting of thousands of datasets, and test a suite of popular estimation methods for average, conditional average, and individual treatment effect estimation. We find under this benchmark that (1) causal methods outperform non-causal methods and that (2) even state-of-the-art methods struggle with individualized effect estimation, suggesting this benchmark captures some inherent difficulties in causal estimation. Apart from generating data, this same technique can underpin the auditing of language models for (un)desirable causal effects, such as misinformation or discrimination. We believe SD-SCMs can serve as a useful tool in any application that would benefit from sequential data with controllable causal structure.

Lucius E. J. Bynum, Joshua R. Loftus, Julia Stoyanovich

Counterfactuals and counterfactual reasoning underpin numerous techniques for auditing and understanding artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The traditional paradigm for counterfactual reasoning in this literature is the interventional counterfactual, where hypothetical interventions are imagined and simulated. For this reason, the starting point for causal reasoning about legal protections and demographic data in AI is an imagined intervention on a legally-protected characteristic, such as ethnicity, race, gender, disability, age, etc. We ask, for example, what would have happened had your race been different? An inherent limitation of this paradigm is that some demographic interventions -- like interventions on race -- may not translate into the formalisms of interventional counterfactuals. In this work, we explore a new paradigm based instead on the backtracking counterfactual, where rather than imagine hypothetical interventions on legally-protected characteristics, we imagine alternate initial conditions while holding these characteristics fixed. We ask instead, what would explain a counterfactual outcome for you as you actually are or could be? This alternate framework allows us to address many of the same social concerns, but to do so while asking fundamentally different questions that do not rely on demographic interventions.

Lucius E. J. Bynum, Joshua R. Loftus, Julia Stoyanovich

A significant body of research in the data sciences considers unfair discrimination against social categories such as race or gender that could occur or be amplified as a result of algorithmic decisions. Simultaneously, real-world disparities continue to exist, even before algorithmic decisions are made. In this work, we draw on insights from the social sciences brought into the realm of causal modeling and constrained optimization, and develop a novel algorithmic framework for tackling pre-existing real-world disparities. The purpose of our framework, which we call the "impact remediation framework," is to measure real-world disparities and discover the optimal intervention policies that could help improve equity or access to opportunity for those who are underserved with respect to an outcome of interest. We develop a disaggregated approach to tackling pre-existing disparities that relaxes the typical set of assumptions required for the use of social categories in structural causal models. Our approach flexibly incorporates counterfactuals and is compatible with various ontological assumptions about the nature of social categories. We demonstrate impact remediation with a hypothetical case study and compare our disaggregated approach to an existing state-of-the-art approach, comparing its structure and resulting policy recommendations. In contrast to most work on optimal policy learning, we explore disparity reduction itself as an objective, explicitly focusing the power of algorithms on reducing inequality.