An Identifiable Cost-Aware Causal Decision-Making Framework Using Counterfactual Reasoning
This addresses cost-aware causal decision-making for systems under abnormal conditions, representing a novel method for a known bottleneck.
The paper tackles decision-making under abnormal conditions by proposing a minimum-cost causal decision framework using counterfactual reasoning, which outperforms conventional methods on synthetic and real-world datasets with improvements in F1-score, cost efficiency, and nDCG@k values.
Decision making under abnormal conditions is a critical process that involves evaluating the current state and determining the optimal action to restore the system to a normal state at an acceptable cost. However, in such scenarios, existing decision-making frameworks highly rely on reinforcement learning or root cause analysis, resulting in them frequently neglecting the cost of the actions or failing to incorporate causal mechanisms adequately. By relaxing the existing causal decision framework to solve the necessary cause, we propose a minimum-cost causal decision (MiCCD) framework via counterfactual reasoning to address the above challenges. Emphasis is placed on making counterfactual reasoning processes identifiable in the presence of a large amount of mixed anomaly data, as well as finding the optimal intervention state in a continuous decision space. Specifically, it formulates a surrogate model based on causal graphs, using abnormal pattern clustering labels as supervisory signals. This enables the approximation of the structural causal model among the variables and lays a foundation for identifiable counterfactual reasoning. With the causal structure approximated, we then established an optimization model based on counterfactual estimation. The Sequential Least Squares Programming (SLSQP) algorithm is further employed to optimize intervention strategies while taking costs into account. Experimental evaluations on both synthetic and real-world datasets reveal that MiCCD outperforms conventional methods across multiple metrics, including F1-score, cost efficiency, and ranking quality(nDCG@k values), thus validating its efficacy and broad applicability.