Emre Kıcıman

Parikshit Bansal, Yashoteja Prabhu, Emre Kiciman et al. · microsoft-research

Given a user's input text, text-matching recommender systems output relevant items by comparing the input text to available items' description, such as product-to-product recommendation on e-commerce platforms. As users' interests and item inventory are expected to change, it is important for a text-matching system to generalize to data shifts, a task known as out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization. However, we find that the popular approach of fine-tuning a large, base language model on paired item relevance data (e.g., user clicks) can be counter-productive for OOD generalization. For a product recommendation task, fine-tuning obtains worse accuracy than the base model when recommending items in a new category or for a future time period. To explain this generalization failure, we consider an intervention-based importance metric, which shows that a fine-tuned model captures spurious correlations and fails to learn the causal features that determine the relevance between any two text inputs. Moreover, standard methods for causal regularization do not apply in this setting, because unlike in images, there exist no universally spurious features in a text-matching task (the same token may be spurious or causal depending on the text it is being matched to). For OOD generalization on text inputs, therefore, we highlight a different goal: avoiding high importance scores for certain features. We do so using an intervention-based regularizer that constraints the causal effect of any token on the model's relevance score to be similar to the base model. Results on Amazon product and 3 question recommendation datasets show that our proposed regularizer improves generalization for both in-distribution and OOD evaluation, especially in difficult scenarios when the base model is not accurate.

Somya Sharma, Swati Sharma, Licheng Liu et al.

An improved understanding of soil can enable more sustainable land-use practices. Nevertheless, soil is called a complex, living medium due to the complex interaction of different soil processes that limit our understanding of soil. Process-based models and analyzing observed data provide two avenues for improving our understanding of soil processes. Collecting observed data is cost-prohibitive but reflects real-world behavior, while process-based models can be used to generate ample synthetic data which may not be representative of reality. We propose a framework, knowledge-guided representation learning, and causal structure learning (KGRCL), to accelerate scientific discoveries in soil science. The framework improves representation learning for simulated soil processes via conditional distribution matching with observed soil processes. Simultaneously, the framework leverages both observed and simulated data to learn a causal structure among the soil processes. The learned causal graph is more representative of ground truth than other graphs generated from other causal discovery methods. Furthermore, the learned causal graph is leveraged in a supervised learning setup to predict the impact of fertilizer use and changing weather on soil carbon. We present the results in five different locations to show the improvement in the prediction performance in out-of-sample and few-shots setting.

Somya Sharma, Swati Sharma, Andy Neal et al.

Measuring and monitoring soil organic carbon is critical for agricultural productivity and for addressing critical environmental problems. Soil organic carbon not only enriches nutrition in soil, but also has a gamut of co-benefits such as improving water storage and limiting physical erosion. Despite a litany of work in soil organic carbon estimation, current approaches do not generalize well across soil conditions and management practices. We empirically show that explicit modeling of cause-and-effect relationships among the soil processes improves the out-of-distribution generalizability of prediction models. We provide a comparative analysis of soil organic carbon estimation models where the skeleton is estimated using causal discovery methods. Our framework provide an average improvement of 81% in test mean squared error and 52% in test mean absolute error.

Ahmed Alaa, Rachael V. Phillips, Emre Kıcıman et al.

The validity of medical studies based on real-world clinical data, such as observational studies, depends on critical assumptions necessary for drawing causal conclusions about medical interventions. Many published studies are flawed because they violate these assumptions and entail biases such as residual confounding, selection bias, and misalignment between treatment and measurement times. Although researchers are aware of these pitfalls, they continue to occur because anticipating and addressing them in the context of a specific study can be challenging without a large, often unwieldy, interdisciplinary team with extensive expertise. To address this expertise gap, we explore the use of large language models (LLMs) as co-pilot tools to assist researchers in identifying study design flaws that undermine the validity of causal inferences. We propose a conceptual framework for LLMs as causal co-pilots that encode domain knowledge across various fields, engaging with researchers in natural language interactions to provide contextualized assistance in study design. We provide illustrative examples of how LLMs can function as causal co-pilots, propose a structured framework for their grounding in existing causal inference frameworks, and highlight the unique challenges and opportunities in adapting LLMs for reliable use in epidemiological research.

Amit Sharma, Vasilis Syrgkanis, Cheng Zhang et al.

Estimation of causal effects involves crucial assumptions about the data-generating process, such as directionality of effect, presence of instrumental variables or mediators, and whether all relevant confounders are observed. Violation of any of these assumptions leads to significant error in the effect estimate. However, unlike cross-validation for predictive models, there is no global validator method for a causal estimate. As a result, expressing different causal assumptions formally and validating them (to the extent possible) becomes critical for any analysis. We present DoWhy, a framework that allows explicit declaration of assumptions through a causal graph and provides multiple validation tests to check a subset of these assumptions. Our experience with DoWhy highlights a number of open questions for future research: developing new ways beyond causal graphs to express assumptions, the role of causal discovery in learning relevant parts of the graph, and developing validation tests that can better detect errors, both for average and conditional treatment effects. DoWhy is available at https://github.com/microsoft/dowhy.

Amit Sharma, Emre Kiciman

In addition to efficient statistical estimators of a treatment's effect, successful application of causal inference requires specifying assumptions about the mechanisms underlying observed data and testing whether they are valid, and to what extent. However, most libraries for causal inference focus only on the task of providing powerful statistical estimators. We describe DoWhy, an open-source Python library that is built with causal assumptions as its first-class citizens, based on the formal framework of causal graphs to specify and test causal assumptions. DoWhy presents an API for the four steps common to any causal analysis---1) modeling the data using a causal graph and structural assumptions, 2) identifying whether the desired effect is estimable under the causal model, 3) estimating the effect using statistical estimators, and finally 4) refuting the obtained estimate through robustness checks and sensitivity analyses. In particular, DoWhy implements a number of robustness checks including placebo tests, bootstrap tests, and tests for unoberved confounding. DoWhy is an extensible library that supports interoperability with other implementations, such as EconML and CausalML for the the estimation step. The library is available at https://github.com/microsoft/dowhy

Katie Matton, Robert Osazuwa Ness, John Guttag et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating plausible explanations of how they arrived at an answer to a question. However, these explanations can misrepresent the model's "reasoning" process, i.e., they can be unfaithful. This, in turn, can lead to over-trust and misuse. We introduce a new approach for measuring the faithfulness of LLM explanations. First, we provide a rigorous definition of faithfulness. Since LLM explanations mimic human explanations, they often reference high-level concepts in the input question that purportedly influenced the model. We define faithfulness in terms of the difference between the set of concepts that LLM explanations imply are influential and the set that truly are. Second, we present a novel method for estimating faithfulness that is based on: (1) using an auxiliary LLM to modify the values of concepts within model inputs to create realistic counterfactuals, and (2) using a Bayesian hierarchical model to quantify the causal effects of concepts at both the example- and dataset-level. Our experiments show that our method can be used to quantify and discover interpretable patterns of unfaithfulness. On a social bias task, we uncover cases where LLM explanations hide the influence of social bias. On a medical question answering task, we uncover cases where LLM explanations provide misleading claims about which pieces of evidence influenced the model's decisions.

Yifei Xu, Tusher Chakraborty, Srinagesh Sharma et al.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased impressive reasoning abilities in structured tasks like mathematics and programming, largely driven by Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), which uses outcome-based signals that are scalable, effective, and robust against reward hacking. However, applying similar techniques to open-ended long-form reasoning tasks remains challenging due to the absence of generic, verifiable reward signals. To address this, we propose Direct Reasoning Optimization (DRO), a reinforcement learning framework for fine-tuning LLMs on open-ended, particularly long-form, reasoning tasks, guided by a new reward signal: the Reasoning Reflection Reward (R3). At its core, R3 selectively identifies and emphasizes key tokens in the reference outcome that reflect the influence of the model's preceding chain-of-thought reasoning, thereby capturing the consistency between reasoning and reference outcome at a fine-grained level. Crucially, R3 is computed internally using the same model being optimized, enabling a fully self-contained training setup. Additionally, we introduce a dynamic data filtering strategy based on R3 for open-ended reasoning tasks, reducing cost while improving downstream performance. We evaluate DRO on two diverse datasets -- ParaRev, a long-form paragraph revision task, and FinQA, a math-oriented QA benchmark -- and show that it consistently outperforms strong baselines while remaining broadly applicable across both open-ended and structured domains.

Yifei Xu, Tusher Chakraborty, Emre Kıcıman et al.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) to align with user preferences is challenging due to the high cost of quality human annotations in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and the generalizability limitations of AI Feedback. To address these challenges, we propose RLTHF, a human-AI hybrid framework that combines LLM-based initial alignment with selective human annotations to achieve full-human annotation alignment with minimal effort. RLTHF identifies hard-to-annotate samples mislabeled by LLMs using a reward model's reward distribution and iteratively enhances alignment by integrating strategic human corrections while leveraging LLM's correctly labeled samples. Evaluations on HH-RLHF and TL;DR datasets show that RLTHF reaches full-human annotation-level alignment with only 6-7% of the human annotation effort. Furthermore, models trained on RLTHF's curated datasets for downstream tasks outperform those trained on fully human-annotated datasets, underscoring the effectiveness of RLTHF.

Margaret Capetz, Swati Sharma, Rafael Padilha et al.

Mitigating climate change requires transforming agriculture to minimize environ mental impact and build climate resilience. Regenerative agricultural practices enhance soil organic carbon (SOC) levels, thus improving soil health and sequestering carbon. A challenge to increasing regenerative agriculture practices is cheaply measuring SOC over time and understanding how SOC is affected by regenerative agricultural practices and other environmental factors and farm management practices. To address this challenge, we introduce an AI-driven Soil Organic Carbon Copilot that automates the ingestion of complex multi-resolution, multi-modal data to provide large-scale insights into soil health and regenerative practices. Our data includes extreme weather event data (e.g., drought and wildfire incidents), farm management data (e.g., cropland information and tillage predictions), and SOC predictions. We find that integrating public data and specialized models enables large-scale, localized analysis for sustainable agriculture. In comparisons of agricultural practices across California counties, we find evidence that diverse agricultural activity may mitigate the negative effects of tillage; and that while extreme weather conditions heavily affect SOC, composting may mitigate SOC loss. Finally, implementing role-specific personas empowers agronomists, farm consultants, policymakers, and other stakeholders to implement evidence-based strategies that promote sustainable agriculture and build climate resilience.

Somya Sharma, Swati Sharma, Rafael Padilha et al.

Monitoring organic matter is pivotal for maintaining soil health and can help inform sustainable soil management practices. While sensor-based soil information offers higher-fidelity and reliable insights into organic matter changes, sampling and measuring sensor data is cost-prohibitive. We propose a multi-modal, scalable framework that can estimate organic matter from remote sensing data, a more readily available data source while leveraging sparse soil information for improving generalization. Using the sensor data, we preserve underlying causal relations among sensor attributes and organic matter. Simultaneously we leverage inherent structure in the data and train the model to discriminate among domains using contrastive learning. This causal and contrastive constraint minimization ensures improved generalization and adaptation to other domains. We also shed light on the interpretability of the framework by identifying attributes that are important for improving generalization. Identifying these key soil attributes that affect organic matter will aid in efforts to standardize data collection efforts.

Tomas Geffner, Javier Antoran, Adam Foster et al.

Causal inference is essential for data-driven decision making across domains such as business engagement, medical treatment and policy making. However, research on causal discovery has evolved separately from inference methods, preventing straight-forward combination of methods from both fields. In this work, we develop Deep End-to-end Causal Inference (DECI), a single flow-based non-linear additive noise model that takes in observational data and can perform both causal discovery and inference, including conditional average treatment effect (CATE) estimation. We provide a theoretical guarantee that DECI can recover the ground truth causal graph under standard causal discovery assumptions. Motivated by application impact, we extend this model to heterogeneous, mixed-type data with missing values, allowing for both continuous and discrete treatment decisions. Our results show the competitive performance of DECI when compared to relevant baselines for both causal discovery and (C)ATE estimation in over a thousand experiments on both synthetic datasets and causal machine learning benchmarks across data-types and levels of missingness.

Yanbo Xu, Divyat Mahajan, Liz Manrao et al.

For many kinds of interventions, such as a new advertisement, marketing intervention, or feature recommendation, it is important to target a specific subset of people for maximizing its benefits at minimum cost or potential harm. However, a key challenge is that no data is available about the effect of such a prospective intervention since it has not been deployed yet. In this work, we propose a split-treatment analysis that ranks the individuals most likely to be positively affected by a prospective intervention using past observational data. Unlike standard causal inference methods, the split-treatment method does not need any observations of the target treatments themselves. Instead it relies on observations of a proxy treatment that is caused by the target treatment. Under reasonable assumptions, we show that the ranking of heterogeneous causal effect based on the proxy treatment is the same as the ranking based on the target treatment's effect. In the absence of any interventional data for cross-validation, Split-Treatment uses sensitivity analyses for unobserved confounding to select model parameters. We apply Split-Treatment to both a simulated data and a large-scale, real-world targeting task and validate our discovered rankings via a randomized experiment for the latter.

Razieh Nabi, Joel Pfeiffer, Murat Ali Bayir et al.

In classical causal inference, inferring cause-effect relations from data relies on the assumption that units are independent and identically distributed. This assumption is violated in settings where units are related through a network of dependencies. An example of such a setting is ad placement in sponsored search advertising, where the clickability of a particular ad is potentially influenced by where it is placed and where other ads are placed on the search result page. In such scenarios, confounding arises due to not only the individual ad-level covariates but also the placements and covariates of other ads in the system. In this paper, we leverage the language of causal inference in the presence of interference to model interactions among the ads. Quantification of such interactions allows us to better understand the click behavior of users, which in turn impacts the revenue of the host search engine and enhances user satisfaction. We illustrate the utility of our formalization through experiments carried out on the ad placement system of the Bing search engine.

Yuqing Du, Stas Tiomkin, Emre Kiciman et al.

One difficulty in using artificial agents for human-assistive applications lies in the challenge of accurately assisting with a person's goal(s). Existing methods tend to rely on inferring the human's goal, which is challenging when there are many potential goals or when the set of candidate goals is difficult to identify. We propose a new paradigm for assistance by instead increasing the human's ability to control their environment, and formalize this approach by augmenting reinforcement learning with human empowerment. This task-agnostic objective preserves the person's autonomy and ability to achieve any eventual state. We test our approach against assistance based on goal inference, highlighting scenarios where our method overcomes failure modes stemming from goal ambiguity or misspecification. As existing methods for estimating empowerment in continuous domains are computationally hard, precluding its use in real time learned assistance, we also propose an efficient empowerment-inspired proxy metric. Using this, we are able to successfully demonstrate our method in a shared autonomy user study for a challenging simulated teleoperation task with human-in-the-loop training.