Marie Brockschmidt

Dennis Frauen, Marie Brockschmidt, Konstantin Hess et al.

Large language model (LLM) development is currently driven by large-scale empirical iteration over data mixtures, reward models, routing strategies, and evaluation pipelines. Here, we argue that many central questions in LLM development and evaluation are inherently causal: What is the effect of adding a data domain during pretraining? How do annotator preferences change when LLMs generate text in a different style? Should a prompt be routed to a larger or smaller model given inference cost constraints? In general, causal methods are well-suited to such settings where interventions change outcomes but, surprisingly, are underrepresented in LLM development. Our contribution is threefold: (1) We explain how causal methods can help develop modern LLM development and evaluation: LLM development relies heavily on logged data, which are often subject to confounding and distribution shifts; evaluation uses learned but potentially biased judges; and deployment environments are non-stationary. These conditions make purely predictive approaches fragile and create opportunities for principled identification and estimation methods from causal inference. (2) We further map opportunities for causal methods in the entire LLM development pipeline, including pretraining, alignment, routing, agentic workflows, and evaluation. (3) We discuss new research opportunities around leveraging causal methods for LLM development and evaluation. Overall, we argue that causal methods are potentially underutilized for the LLM development and evaluation pipeline, despite the fact that such methods can ensure a reliable and scientifically grounded design.

Marie Brockschmidt, Santo M. A. R. Thies, Maresa Schröder et al.

In causal inference, confounders are variables that influence both treatment decisions and outcomes. However, unlike as in randomized clinical trials, the treatment assignment mechanism in observational studies is not known, and it is thus unclear which covariates act as confounders. Here, we aim to generate insight for causal inference and answer: which of the observed covariates act as confounders? We introduce ConfoundingSHAP, a Shapley-based method for attributing confounding strength to individual covariates. Our contributions are twofold. First, we propose a Shapley game targeted to infer the confounding strength of the covariates. Our resulting Shapley values differ from the standard applications of SHAP explanations on causal targets, such as understanding treatment effect heterogeneity, which are ill-suited for our task. Second, as our task requires evaluating the value function over many adjustment sets, we provide a scalable TabPFN-based estimation that avoids exhaustive refitting. We demonstrate the practical value across various datasets, where ConfoundingSHAP provides informative explanations of which observed covariates drive confounding and thereby helps to provide more insight for causal inference in practice.

Emil Javurek, Dennis Frauen, Marie Brockschmidt et al.

Causal sensitivity analysis aims to provide bounds for causal effect estimates in the presence of unobserved confounding. However, existing methods for causal sensitivity analysis are per-instance procedures, meaning that changes to the dataset, causal query, sensitivity level, or treatment require new computation. Here, we instead present an in-context learning approach. Specifically, we propose an amortized approach to causal sensitivity analysis based on prior-data fitted networks. A key challenge is that the sensitivity bounds are not directly available when sampling training data. To address this, we develop a general prior-data construction that is applicable across the class of generalized treatment sensitivity models. Our construction involves a Lagrangian scalarization of the objective to generate training labels for the bounds through a tradeoff between causal effect min/max-imization and sensitivity model violation, which avoids model-specific analytical derivations. We further show that, under standard convexity and linearity conditions, our objective recovers the full Pareto frontier of solutions. Empirically, we demonstrate our amortized approach across various datasets, causal queries, and sensitivity levels, where our approach achieves a test-time computation that is orders of magnitude faster than per-instance methods. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first foundation model for in-context learning for causal sensitivity analysis.

Marie Brockschmidt, Maresa Schröder, Stefan Feuerriegel

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of clinical research by modeling time-to-event outcomes such as metastasis, disease relapse, or patient death. Unlike standard tabular data, survival data often come with incomplete event information due to dropout, or loss to follow-up. This poses unique challenges for synthetic data generation, where it is crucial for clinical research to faithfully reproduce both the event-time distribution and the censoring mechanism. In this paper, we propose SurvDiff, an end-to-end diffusion model specifically designed for generating synthetic data in survival analysis. SurvDiff is tailored to capture the data-generating mechanism by jointly generating mixed-type covariates, event times, and right-censoring, guided by a survival-tailored loss function. The loss encodes the time-to-event structure and directly optimizes for downstream survival tasks, which ensures that SurvDiff (i) reproduces realistic event-time distributions and (ii) preserves the censoring mechanism. Across multiple datasets, we show that \survdiff consistently outperforms state-of-the-art generative baselines in both distributional fidelity and downstream evaluation metrics across multiple medical datasets. To the best of our knowledge, SurvDiff is the first diffusion model explicitly designed for generating synthetic survival data.