"Monkey see monkey do" is an age-old adage, referring to naïve imitation without a

To effectively study complex causal systems, it is often useful to construct representations that simplify parts of the system by discarding irrelevant details while preserving key features. The Information Bottleneck (IB) method is a widely used approach in representation learning that compresses random variables while retaining information about a target variable. Traditional methods like IB are purely statistical and ignore underlying causal structures, making them ill-suited for causal tasks. We propose the Causal Information Bottleneck (CIB), a causal extension of the IB, which compresses a set of chosen variables while maintaining causal control over a target variable. This method produces representations which are causally interpretable, and which can be used when reasoning about interventions. We present experimental results demonstrating that the learned representations accurately capture causality as intended.

We study how to extend the use of the diffusion model to answer the causal question from the observational data under the existence of unmeasured confounders. In Pearl's framework of using a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) to capture the causal intervention, a Diffusion-based Causal Model (DCM) was proposed incorporating the diffusion model to answer the causal questions more accurately, assuming that all of the confounders are observed. However, unmeasured confounders in practice exist, which hinders DCM from being applicable. To alleviate this limitation of DCM, we propose an extended model called Backdoor Criterion based DCM (BDCM), whose idea is rooted in the Backdoor criterion to find the variables in DAG to be included in the decoding process of the diffusion model so that we can extend DCM to the case with unmeasured confounders. Synthetic data experiment demonstrates that our proposed model captures the counterfactual distribution more precisely than DCM under the unmeasured confounders.

"Monkey see monkey do" is an age-old adage, referring to na\"ive imitation without a deep understanding of a system's underlying mechanics. Indeed, if a demonstrator has access to information unavailable to the imitator (monkey), such as a different set of sensors, then no matter how perfectly the imitator models its perceived environment (See), attempting to reproduce the demonstrator's behavior (Do) can lead to poor outcomes. Imitation learning in the presence of a mismatch between demonstrator and imitator has been studied in the literature under the rubric of causal imitation learning (Zhang et al., 2020), but existing solutions are limited to single-stage decision-making. This paper investigates the problem of causal imitation learning in sequential settings, where the imitator must make multiple decisions per episode. We develop a graphical criterion that is necessary and sufficient for determining the feasibility of causal imitation, providing conditions when an imitator can match a demonstrator's performance despite differing capabilities. Finally, we provide an efficient algorithm for determining imitability and corroborate our theory with simulations.

Media Mix Modeling attempts to estimate the causal effect of media spend on sales, solely based on observational data. And, as we all know estimating causal effects from observational data is fraught with challenges. Over time, two leading, and complimentary, frameworks have emerged for dealing with causal inference. This paper explores the use of Pearl's graphical framework to control for selection bias in media mix modeling, specifically in paid search ads. Suppose we are aiming to measure the causal impact of search advertising (PPC) on sales.

Identifying causal relationships for a treatment intervention is a fundamental problem in health sciences. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for identifying causal relationships. However, recent advancements in the theory of causal inference based on the foundations of structural causal models (SCMs) have allowed the identification of causal relationships from observational data, under certain assumptions. Survival analysis provides standard measures, such as the hazard ratio, to quantify the effects of an intervention. While hazard ratios are widely used in clinical and epidemiological studies for RCTs, a principled approach does not exist to compute hazard ratios for observational studies with SCMs. In this work, we review existing approaches to compute hazard ratios as well as their causal interpretation, if it exists. We also propose a novel approach to compute hazard ratios from observational studies using backdoor adjustment through SCMs and do-calculus. Finally, we evaluate the approach using experimental data for Ewing's sarcoma.

A decision-maker must consider cofounding bias when attempting to apply machine learning prediction, and, while feature selection is widely recognized as important process in data-analysis, it could cause cofounding bias. A causal Bayesian network is a standard tool for describing causal relationships, and if relationships are known, then adjustment criteria can determine with which features cofounding bias disappears. A standard modification would thus utilize causal discovery algorithms for preventing cofounding bias in feature selection. Causal discovery algorithms, however, essentially rely on the faithfulness assumption, which turn out to be easily violated in practical feature selection settings. In this paper, we propose a meta-algorithm that can remedy existing feature selection algorithms in terms of cofounding bias. Our algorithm is induced from a novel adjustment criterion that requires rather than faithfulness, an assumption which can be induced from another well-known assumption of the causal sufficiency. We further prove that the features added through our modification convert cofounding bias into prediction variance. With the aid of existing robust optimization technologies that regularize risky strategies with high variance, then, we are able to successfully improve the throughput performance of decision-making optimization, as is shown in our experimental results.

This paper discusses the problem of causal query in observational data with hidden variables, with the aim of seeking the change of an outcome when "manipulating" a variable while given a set of plausible confounding variables which affect the manipulated variable and the outcome. Such an "experiment on data" to estimate the causal effect of the manipulated variable is useful for validating an experiment design using historical data or for exploring con-founders when studying a new relationship. However, existing data-driven methods for causal effect estimation face some major challenges, including poor scalability with high dimensional data, low estimation accuracy due to heuristics used by the global causal structure learning algorithms, and the assumption of causal sufficiency when hidden variables are inevitable in data. In this paper, we develop theorems for using local search to find a superset of the adjustment (or confounding) variables for causal effect estimation from observational data under a realistic pretreatment assumption. The theorems ensure that the unbiased estimate of causal effect is obtained in the set of causal effects estimated by the superset of adjustment variables. Based on the developed theorems, we propose a data-driven algorithm for causal query. Experiments show that the proposed algorithm is faster and produces better causal effect estimation than an existing data-driven causal effect estimation method with hidden variables. The causal effects estimated by the algorithm are as good as those by the state-of-the-art methods using domain knowledge.

Just about everyone knows that correlation is not causation, but what exactly is causation? Judea Pearl has spent over two decades trying to u nderstand causation, to define it, and to develop techniques for inferring it. This work is having a great impact, and will arguably ultimately have as great an impact as Pearl's earlier work on Bayesian networks. Pearl's landmark book Causality was a technical introduction to his work on the topic. The Book of Why is meant to be a more popular introduction to the work, as well as documenting some of Pearl's personal journey throug h causation.