Babak Salimi

Yarden Gabbay, Haoquan Guan, Shaull Almagor et al.

Causal analyses derived from observational data underpin high-stakes decisions in domains such as healthcare, public policy, and economics. Yet such conclusions can be surprisingly fragile: even minor data errors - duplicate records, or entry mistakes - may drastically alter causal relationships. This raises a fundamental question: how robust is a causal claim to small, targeted modifications in the data? Addressing this question is essential for ensuring the reliability, interpretability, and reproducibility of empirical findings. We introduce SubCure, a framework for robustness auditing via cardinality repairs. Given a causal query and a user-specified target range for the estimated effect, SubCure identifies a small set of tuples or subpopulations whose removal shifts the estimate into the desired range. This process not only quantifies the sensitivity of causal conclusions but also pinpoints the specific regions of the data that drive those conclusions. We formalize this problem under both tuple- and pattern-level deletion settings and show both are NP-complete. To scale to large datasets, we develop efficient algorithms that incorporate machine unlearning techniques to incrementally update causal estimates without retraining from scratch. We evaluate SubCure across four real-world datasets covering diverse application domains. In each case, it uncovers compact, high-impact subsets whose removal significantly shifts the causal conclusions, revealing vulnerabilities that traditional methods fail to detect. Our results demonstrate that cardinality repair is a powerful and general-purpose tool for stress-testing causal analyses and guarding against misleading claims rooted in ordinary data imperfections.

Jiongli Zhu, Geyang Xu, Felipe Lorenzi et al.

Structured data-quality issues, such as missing values correlated with demographics, culturally biased labels, or systemic selection biases, routinely degrade the reliability of machine-learning pipelines. Regulators now increasingly demand evidence that high-stakes systems can withstand these realistic, interdependent errors, yet current robustness evaluations typically use random or overly simplistic corruptions, leaving worst-case scenarios unexplored. We introduce SAVAGE, a causally inspired framework that (i) formally models realistic data-quality issues through dependency graphs and flexible corruption templates, and (ii) systematically discovers corruption patterns that maximally degrade a target performance metric. SAVAGE employs a bi-level optimization approach to efficiently identify vulnerable data subpopulations and fine-tune corruption severity, treating the full ML pipeline, including preprocessing and potentially non-differentiable models, as a black box. Extensive experiments across multiple datasets and ML tasks (data cleaning, fairness-aware learning, uncertainty quantification) demonstrate that even a small fraction (around 5 %) of structured corruptions identified by SAVAGE severely impacts model performance, far exceeding random or manually crafted errors, and invalidating core assumptions of existing techniques. Thus, SAVAGE provides a practical tool for rigorous pipeline stress-testing, a benchmark for evaluating robustness methods, and actionable guidance for designing more resilient data workflows.