to

### Generalization in anti-causal learning

The ability to learn and act in novel situations is still a prerogative of animate intelligence, as current machine learning methods mostly fail when moving beyond the standard i.i.d. setting. What is the reason for this discrepancy? Most machine learning tasks are anti-causal, i.e., we infer causes (labels) from effects (observations). Typically, in supervised learning we build systems that try to directly invert causal mechanisms. Instead, in this paper we argue that strong generalization capabilities crucially hinge on searching and validating meaningful hypotheses, requiring access to a causal model. In such a framework, we want to find a cause that leads to the observed effect. Anti-causal models are used to drive this search, but a causal model is required for validation. We investigate the fundamental differences between causal and anti-causal tasks, discuss implications for topics ranging from adversarial attacks to disentangling factors of variation, and provide extensive evidence from the literature to substantiate our view. We advocate for incorporating causal models in supervised learning to shift the paradigm from inference only, to search and validation.

### Counterfactual Invariance to Spurious Correlations: Why and How to Pass Stress Tests

Informally, a spurious correlation' is the dependence of a model on some aspect of the input data that an analyst thinks shouldn't matter. In machine learning, these have a know-it-when-you-see-it character; e.g., changing the gender of a sentence's subject changes a sentiment predictor's output. To check for spurious correlations, we can stress test' models by perturbing irrelevant parts of input data and seeing if model predictions change. In this paper, we study stress testing using the tools of causal inference. We introduce \emph{counterfactual invariance} as a formalization of the requirement that changing irrelevant parts of the input shouldn't change model predictions. We connect counterfactual invariance to out-of-domain model performance, and provide practical schemes for learning (approximately) counterfactual invariant predictors (without access to counterfactual examples). It turns out that both the means and implications of counterfactual invariance depend fundamentally on the true underlying causal structure of the data. Distinct causal structures require distinct regularization schemes to induce counterfactual invariance. Similarly, counterfactual invariance implies different domain shift guarantees depending on the underlying causal structure. This theory is supported by empirical results on text classification.

### Error Asymmetry in Causal and Anticausal Regression

It is generally difficult to make any statements about the expected prediction error in an univariate setting without further knowledge about how the data were generated. Recent work showed that knowledge about the real underlying causal structure of a data generation process has implications for various machine learning settings. Assuming an additive noise and an independence between data generating mechanism and its input, we draw a novel connection between the intrinsic causal relationship of two variables and the expected prediction error. We formulate the theorem that the expected error of the true data generating function as prediction model is generally smaller when the effect is predicted from its cause and, on the contrary, greater when the cause is predicted from its effect. The theorem implies an asymmetry in the error depending on the prediction direction. This is further corroborated with empirical evaluations in artificial and real-world data sets.

### On Causal and Anticausal Learning

We consider the problem of function estimation in the case where an underlying causal model can be inferred. This has implications for popular scenarios such as covariate shift, concept drift, transfer learning and semi-supervised learning. We argue that causal knowledge may facilitate some approaches for a given problem, and rule out others. In particular, we formulate a hypothesis for when semi-supervised learning can help, and corroborate it with empirical results.

### Discovering Causal Signals in Images

This paper establishes the existence of observable footprints that reveal the "causal dispositions" of the object categories appearing in collections of images. We achieve this goal in two steps. First, we take a learning approach to observational causal discovery, and build a classifier that achieves state-of-the-art performance on finding the causal direction between pairs of random variables, given samples from their joint distribution. Second, we use our causal direction classifier to effectively distinguish between features of objects and features of their contexts in collections of static images. Our experiments demonstrate the existence of a relation between the direction of causality and the difference between objects and their contexts, and by the same token, the existence of observable signals that reveal the causal dispositions of objects.