Stephan Bongers

AI
h-index33
8papers
779citations
Novelty59%
AI Score34

8 Papers

MLFeb 19, 2024
When Do Off-Policy and On-Policy Policy Gradient Methods Align?

Davide Mambelli, Stephan Bongers, Onno Zoeter et al.

Policy gradient methods are widely adopted reinforcement learning algorithms for tasks with continuous action spaces. These methods succeeded in many application domains, however, because of their notorious sample inefficiency their use remains limited to problems where fast and accurate simulations are available. A common way to improve sample efficiency is to modify their objective function to be computable from off-policy samples without importance sampling. A well-established off-policy objective is the excursion objective. This work studies the difference between the excursion objective and the traditional on-policy objective, which we refer to as the on-off gap. We provide the first theoretical analysis showing conditions to reduce the on-off gap while establishing empirical evidence of shortfalls arising when these conditions are not met.

LGDec 9, 2024
SimuDICE: Offline Policy Optimization Through World Model Updates and DICE Estimation

Catalin E. Brita, Stephan Bongers, Frans A. Oliehoek

In offline reinforcement learning, deriving an effective policy from a pre-collected set of experiences is challenging due to the distribution mismatch between the target policy and the behavioral policy used to collect the data, as well as the limited sample size. Model-based reinforcement learning improves sample efficiency by generating simulated experiences using a learned dynamic model of the environment. However, these synthetic experiences often suffer from the same distribution mismatch. To address these challenges, we introduce SimuDICE, a framework that iteratively refines the initial policy derived from offline data using synthetically generated experiences from the world model. SimuDICE enhances the quality of these simulated experiences by adjusting the sampling probabilities of state-action pairs based on stationary DIstribution Correction Estimation (DICE) and the estimated confidence in the model's predictions. This approach guides policy improvement by balancing experiences similar to those frequently encountered with ones that have a distribution mismatch. Our experiments show that SimuDICE achieves performance comparable to existing algorithms while requiring fewer pre-collected experiences and planning steps, and it remains robust across varying data collection policies.

AIMay 16, 2018
Beyond Structural Causal Models: Causal Constraints Models

Tineke Blom, Stephan Bongers, Joris M. Mooij

Structural Causal Models (SCMs) provide a popular causal modeling framework. In this work, we show that SCMs are not flexible enough to give a complete causal representation of dynamical systems at equilibrium. Instead, we propose a generalization of the notion of an SCM, that we call Causal Constraints Model (CCM), and prove that CCMs do capture the causal semantics of such systems. We show how CCMs can be constructed from differential equations and initial conditions and we illustrate our ideas further on a simple but ubiquitous (bio)chemical reaction. Our framework also allows to model functional laws, such as the ideal gas law, in a sensible and intuitive way.

AIMar 23, 2018
Causal Modeling of Dynamical Systems

Stephan Bongers, Tineke Blom, Joris M. Mooij

Dynamical systems are widely used in science and engineering to model systems consisting of several interacting components. Often, they can be given a causal interpretation in the sense that they not only model the evolution of the states of the system's components over time, but also describe how their evolution is affected by external interventions on the system that perturb the dynamics. We introduce the formal framework of structural dynamical causal models (SDCMs) that explicates the causal semantics of the system's components as part of the model. SDCMs represent a dynamical system as a collection of stochastic processes and specify the basic causal mechanisms that govern the dynamics of each component as a structured system of random differential equations of arbitrary order. SDCMs extend the versatile causal modeling framework of structural causal models (SCMs), also known as structural equation models (SEMs), by explicitly allowing for time-dependence. An SDCM can be thought of as the stochastic-process version of an SCM, where the static random variables of the SCM are replaced by dynamic stochastic processes and their derivatives. We provide the foundations for a theory of SDCMs, by (i) formally defining SDCMs, their solutions, stochastic interventions, and a graphical representation; (ii) studying existence and uniqueness of the solutions for given initial conditions; (iii) providing Markov properties for SDCMs with initial conditions; (iv) discussing under which conditions SDCMs equilibrate to SCMs as time tends to infinity; (v) relating the properties of the SDCM to those of the equilibrium SCM. This correspondence enables one to leverage the wealth of statistical tools and discovery methods available for SCMs when studying the causal semantics of a large class of stochastic dynamical systems. The theory is illustrated with examples from different scientific domains.

LGJul 20, 2017
Domain Adaptation by Using Causal Inference to Predict Invariant Conditional Distributions

Sara Magliacane, Thijs van Ommen, Tom Claassen et al.

An important goal common to domain adaptation and causal inference is to make accurate predictions when the distributions for the source (or training) domain(s) and target (or test) domain(s) differ. In many cases, these different distributions can be modeled as different contexts of a single underlying system, in which each distribution corresponds to a different perturbation of the system, or in causal terms, an intervention. We focus on a class of such causal domain adaptation problems, where data for one or more source domains are given, and the task is to predict the distribution of a certain target variable from measurements of other variables in one or more target domains. We propose an approach for solving these problems that exploits causal inference and does not rely on prior knowledge of the causal graph, the type of interventions or the intervention targets. We demonstrate our approach by evaluating a possible implementation on simulated and real world data.

MLJul 4, 2017
Causal Consistency of Structural Equation Models

Paul K. Rubenstein, Sebastian Weichwald, Stephan Bongers et al.

Complex systems can be modelled at various levels of detail. Ideally, causal models of the same system should be consistent with one another in the sense that they agree in their predictions of the effects of interventions. We formalise this notion of consistency in the case of Structural Equation Models (SEMs) by introducing exact transformations between SEMs. This provides a general language to consider, for instance, the different levels of description in the following three scenarios: (a) models with large numbers of variables versus models in which the `irrelevant' or unobservable variables have been marginalised out; (b) micro-level models versus macro-level models in which the macro-variables are aggregate features of the micro-variables; (c) dynamical time series models versus models of their stationary behaviour. Our analysis stresses the importance of well specified interventions in the causal modelling process and sheds light on the interpretation of cyclic SEMs.

MENov 18, 2016
Foundations of Structural Causal Models with Cycles and Latent Variables

Stephan Bongers, Patrick Forré, Jonas Peters et al.

Structural causal models (SCMs), also known as (nonparametric) structural equation models (SEMs), are widely used for causal modeling purposes. In particular, acyclic SCMs, also known as recursive SEMs, form a well-studied subclass of SCMs that generalize causal Bayesian networks to allow for latent confounders. In this paper, we investigate SCMs in a more general setting, allowing for the presence of both latent confounders and cycles. We show that in the presence of cycles, many of the convenient properties of acyclic SCMs do not hold in general: they do not always have a solution; they do not always induce unique observational, interventional and counterfactual distributions; a marginalization does not always exist, and if it exists the marginal model does not always respect the latent projection; they do not always satisfy a Markov property; and their graphs are not always consistent with their causal semantics. We prove that for SCMs in general each of these properties does hold under certain solvability conditions. Our work generalizes results for SCMs with cycles that were only known for certain special cases so far. We introduce the class of simple SCMs that extends the class of acyclic SCMs to the cyclic setting, while preserving many of the convenient properties of acyclic SCMs. With this paper we aim to provide the foundations for a general theory of statistical causal modeling with SCMs.

AIAug 29, 2016
From Deterministic ODEs to Dynamic Structural Causal Models

Paul K. Rubenstein, Stephan Bongers, Bernhard Schoelkopf et al.

Structural Causal Models are widely used in causal modelling, but how they relate to other modelling tools is poorly understood. In this paper we provide a novel perspective on the relationship between Ordinary Differential Equations and Structural Causal Models. We show how, under certain conditions, the asymptotic behaviour of an Ordinary Differential Equation under non-constant interventions can be modelled using Dynamic Structural Causal Models. In contrast to earlier work, we study not only the effect of interventions on equilibrium states; rather, we model asymptotic behaviour that is dynamic under interventions that vary in time, and include as a special case the study of static equilibria.