Maciej Liskiewicz

Julian Dörfler, Benito van der Zander, Markus Bläser et al.

Learning the unknown causal parameters of a linear structural causal model is a fundamental task in causal analysis. The task, known as the problem of identification, asks to estimate the parameters of the model from a combination of assumptions on the graphical structure of the model and observational data, represented as a non-causal covariance matrix. In this paper, we give a new sound and complete algorithm for generic identification which runs in polynomial space. By standard simulation results, this algorithm has exponential running time which vastly improves the state-of-the-art double exponential time method using a Gröbner basis approach. The paper also presents evidence that parameter identification is computationally hard in general. In particular, we prove, that the task asking whether, for a given feasible correlation matrix, there are exactly one or two or more parameter sets explaining the observed matrix, is hard for $\forall R$, the co-class of the existential theory of the reals. In particular, this problem is $coNP$-hard. To our best knowledge, this is the first hardness result for some notion of identifiability.

Julian Dörfler, Benito van der Zander, Markus Bläser et al.

The framework of Pearl's Causal Hierarchy (PCH) formalizes three types of reasoning: probabilistic (i.e. purely observational), interventional, and counterfactual, that reflect the progressive sophistication of human thought regarding causation. We investigate the computational complexity aspects of reasoning in this framework focusing mainly on satisfiability problems expressed in probabilistic and causal languages across the PCH. That is, given a system of formulas in the standard probabilistic and causal languages, does there exist a model satisfying the formulas? Our main contribution is to prove the exact computational complexities showing that languages allowing addition and marginalization (via the summation operator) yield NP^PP, PSPACE-, and NEXP-complete satisfiability problems, depending on the level of the PCH. These are the first results to demonstrate a strictly increasing complexity across the PCH: from probabilistic to causal and counterfactual reasoning. On the other hand, in the case of full languages, i.e. allowing addition, marginalization, and multiplication, we show that the satisfiability for the counterfactual level remains the same as for the probabilistic and causal levels, solving an open problem in the field.

Sebastian Berndt, Maciej Liskiewicz

The goal of an algorithm substitution attack (ASA), also called a subversion attack (SA), is to replace an honest implementation of a cryptographic tool by a subverted one which allows to leak private information while generating output indistinguishable from the honest output. Bellare, Paterson, and Rogaway provided at CRYPTO'14 a formal security model to capture this kind of attacks and constructed practically implementable ASAs against a large class of symmetric encryption schemes. At CCS'15, Ateniese, Magri, and Venturi extended this model to allow the attackers to work in a fully-adaptive and continuous fashion and proposed subversion attacks against digital signature schemes. Both papers also showed the impossibility of ASAs in cases where the cryptographic tools are deterministic. Also at CCS'15, Bellare, Jaeger, and Kane strengthened the original model and proposed a universal ASA against sufficiently random encryption schemes. In this paper we analyze ASAs from the perspective of steganography - the well known concept of hiding the presence of secret messages in legal communications. While a close connection between ASAs and steganography is known, this lacks a rigorous treatment. We consider the common computational model for secret-key steganography and prove that successful ASAs correspond to secure stegosystems on certain channels and vice versa. This formal proof allows us to conclude that ASAs are stegosystems and to "rediscover" several results concerning ASAs known in the steganographic literature.

Johannes Textor, Maciej Liskiewicz

Identifying and controlling bias is a key problem in empirical sciences. Causal diagram theory provides graphical criteria for deciding whether and how causal effects can be identified from observed (nonexperimental) data by covariate adjustment. Here we prove equivalences between existing as well as new criteria for adjustment and we provide a new simplified but still equivalent notion of d-separation. These lead to efficient algorithms for two important tasks in causal diagram analysis: (1) listing minimal covariate adjustments (with polynomial delay); and (2) identifying the subdiagram involved in biasing paths (in linear time). Our results improve upon existing exponential-time solutions for these problems, enabling users to assess the effects of covariate adjustment on diagrams with tens to hundreds of variables interactively in real time.