Structural causal models (SCMs) are a widespread formalism to deal with causal systems. A recent direction of research has considered the problem of relating formally SCMs at different levels of abstraction, by defining maps between SCMs and imposing a requirement of interventional consistency. This paper offers a review of the solutions proposed so far, focusing on the formal properties of a map between SCMs, and highlighting the different layers (structural, distributional) at which these properties may be enforced. This allows us to distinguish families of abstractions that may or may not be permitted by choosing to guarantee certain properties instead of others. Such an understanding not only allows to distinguish among proposal for causal abstraction with more awareness, but it also allows to tailor the definition of abstraction with respect to the forms of abstraction relevant to specific applications.

Recent estimates report that companies lose 5% of their revenue to occupational fraud. Since most medium-sized and large companies employ Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems to track vast amounts of information regarding their business process, researchers have in the past shown interest in automatically detecting fraud through ERP system data. Current research in this area, however, is hindered by the fact that ERP system data is not publicly available for the development and comparison of fraud detection methods. We therefore endeavour to generate public ERP system data that includes both normal business operation and fraud. We propose a strategy for generating ERP system data through a serious game, model a variety of fraud scenarios in cooperation with auditing experts, and generate data from a simulated make-to-stock production company with multiple research participants. We aggregate the generated data into ready to used datasets for fraud detection in ERP systems, and supply both the raw and aggregated data to the general public to allow for open development and comparison of fraud detection approaches on ERP system data.

Formal XAI (explainable AI) is a growing area that focuses on computing explanations with mathematical guarantees for the decisions made by ML models. Inside formal XAI, one of the most studied cases is that of explaining the choices taken by decision trees, as they are traditionally deemed as one of the most interpretable classes of models. Recent work has focused on studying the computation of sufficient reasons, a kind of explanation in which given a decision tree and an instance, one explains the decision () by providing a subset of the features of such that for any other instance compatible with, it holds that () = (), intuitively meaning that the features in are already enough to fully justify the classification of by. It has been argued, however, that sufficient reasons constitute a restrictive notion of explanation. For such a reason, the community has started to study their probabilistic counterpart, in which one requires that the probability of () = () must be at least some value (0, 1], where is a random instance that is compatible with. Our paper settles the computational complexity of -sufficient-reasons over decision trees, showing that both (1) finding -sufficient-reasons that are minimal in size, and (2) finding -sufficient-reasons that are minimal inclusion-wise, do not admit polynomial-time algorithms (unless PTIME = NP). This is in stark contrast with the deterministic case (= 1) where inclusion-wise minimal sufficient-reasons are easy to compute. By doing this, we answer two open problems originally raised by Izza et al., and extend the hardness of explanations for Boolean circuits presented by Wäldchen et al. to the more restricted case of decision trees. On the positive side, we identify structural restrictions of decision trees that make the problem tractable, and show how SAT solvers might be able to tackle these problems in practical settings.

The authors recently gave an $n^{O(\log\log n)}$ time membership query algorithm for properly learning decision trees under the uniform distribution (Blanc et al., 2021). The previous fastest algorithm for this problem ran in $n^{O(\log n)}$ time, a consequence of Ehrenfeucht and Haussler (1989)'s classic algorithm for the distribution-free setting. In this article we highlight the natural open problem of obtaining a polynomial-time algorithm, discuss possible avenues towards obtaining it, and state intermediate milestones that we believe are of independent interest.

Zsolt Nagy is a software engineer, manager, tech lead, and mentor specializing in the development of maintainable web applications with cutting edge technologies since 2010. As a software engineer, Zsolt continuously challenges himself to stick to the highest possible standards. Zsolt puts extra effort into building a T-shaped profile in leadership and software engineering. You can read more about Zsolt's specializations by visiting his blogs. His tech blog (zsoltnagy.eu) is on improving your JavaScript skills by solving tech interviewing questions and developing real world web applications that you can monetize or display in your portfolio.

Nowadays cross-industry ranging challenges include the reduction of greenhouse gas emission and enabling a circular economy. However, the production of paper from waste paper is still a highly resource intensive task, especially in terms of energy consumption. While paper machines produce a lot of data, we have identified a lack of utilization of it and implement a concept using an operator assistance system and state-of-the-art machine learning techniques, e.g., classification, forecasting and alarm flood handling algorithms, to support daily operator tasks. Our main objective is to provide situation-specific knowledge to machine operators utilizing available data. We expect this will result in better adjusted parameters and therefore a lower footprint of the paper machines.

We introduce DoWhy-GCM, an extension of the DoWhy Python library, that leverages graphical causal models. Unlike existing causality libraries, which mainly focus on effect estimation questions, with DoWhy-GCM, users can ask a wide range of additional causal questions, such as identifying the root causes of outliers and distributional changes, causal structure learning, attributing causal influences, and diagnosis of causal structures. To this end, DoWhy-GCM users first model cause-effect relations between variables in a system under study through a graphical causal model, fit the causal mechanisms of variables next, and then ask the causal question. All these steps take only a few lines of code in DoWhy-GCM. The library is available at https://github.com/py-why/dowhy.

Learning models that offer robust out-of-distribution generalization and fast adaptation is a key challenge in modern machine learning. Modelling causal structure into neural networks holds the promise to accomplish robust zero and few-shot adaptation. Recent advances in differentiable causal discovery have proposed to factorize the data generating process into a set of modules, i.e. one module for the conditional distribution of every variable where only causal parents are used as predictors. Such a modular decomposition of knowledge enables adaptation to distributions shifts by only updating a subset of parameters. In this work, we systematically study the generalization and adaption performance of such modular neural causal models by comparing it to monolithic models and structured models where the set of predictors is not constrained to causal parents. Our analysis shows that the modular neural causal models outperform other models on both zero and few-shot adaptation in low data regimes and offer robust generalization. We also found that the effects are more significant for sparser graphs as compared to denser graphs.

The services that will work best for you will depend on your specific use case and your team's level of expertise. Because it takes a lot of effort and ML expertise to build and maintain high quality ML models, a general rule of thumb is to use pretrained models or AI solutions whenever possible -- that is, when they fit your use case. If your data is structured, and it's in BigQuery, and your users are already comfortable with SQL, then choose BigQuery ML. If you realize that your use case requires writing your own model code, then use custom training options in Vertex AI. Let's look at your options in some more detail.

MDPI is a publisher of peer-reviewed, open access journals since its establishment in 1996.