In 2011, Judea Pearl received the Turing Award, considered the Nobel Prize in Computing, for fundamental contributions to artificial intelligence through the development of a calculus for probabilistic and causal reasoning. It includes pioneering the development of causal discovery algorithms. These computer algorithms can analyze large multivariate datasets and automatically discover the causal relationships among the constituent variables. They have been widely used in many critical fields such as medicine and economics to support decisions. However, to our knowledge, they have not been leveraged in law. This paper attempts to alleviate this gap by investigating whether causal discovery algorithms can be leveraged for automated generation of legal arguments. To that end, a novel legal dataset is prepared by identifying 17 legal concepts, such as physical assault and property dispute. A curated collection of 150 homicide cases are annotated with these concepts, e.g., a case is annotated with physical assault only if a physical assault had been reported in that case. Subsequently, a selected set of widely-used causal discovery algorithms is applied to the annotated dataset to discover the causal relationships between the legal concepts. Additionally, the degrees of belief associated with the discovered relationships are quantified in mathematical probabilities. It is shown that some of the causal relationships help generate viable legal arguments, e.g., if one could establish that a physical assault has not taken place during a homicide, it should be a sufficient condition (with probability 1) to establish that the homicide has not been committed due to a property-related dispute. Thus, this paper shows that causal discovery algorithms can be helpful in generating legal arguments, opening up avenues for promising future endeavors.

How do you go about integrating causal knowledge into decision systems or agents? We sat down with Matteo Ceriscioli to find out about his research in this space. This interview is the latest in our series featuring the AAAI/SIGAI Doctoral Consortium participants. Could you start by telling us a bit about your PhD - where are you studying, and what's the broad topic of your research? The idea is to integrate causal knowledge into agents or decision systems to make them more reliable.

Often, observational data alone is not enough to uniquely identify a system's causal structure.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Detectinglargescale system problems by mining console logs.

Inaddition, existingOICA algorithms rely on the Expectation Maximization (EM) procedure that requires computationally expensiveinference oftheposterior distribution ofindependent components.

Discovery of causal relations from observational data is essential for many disciplines of science and real-world applications. However, unlike other machine learning algorithms, whose development has been greatly fostered by a large amount of available benchmark datasets, causal discovery algorithms are notoriously difficult to be systematically evaluated because few datasets with known ground-truth causal relations are available. In this work, we handle the problem of evaluating causal discovery algorithms by building a flexible simulator in the medical setting. We develop a neuropathic pain diagnosis simulator, inspired by the fact that the biological processes of neuropathic pathophysiology are well studied with well-understood causal influences. Our simulator exploits the causal graph of the neuropathic pain pathology and its parameters in the generator are estimated from real-life patient cases. We show that the data generated from our simulator have similar statistics as real-world data. As a clear advantage, the simulator can produce infinite samples without jeopardizing the privacy of real-world patients. Our simulator provides a natural tool for evaluating various types of causal discovery algorithms, including those to deal with practical issues in causal discovery, such as unknown confounders, selection bias, and missing data. Using our simulator, we have evaluated extensively causal discovery algorithms under various settings.

State-of-the-art causal discovery methods usually assume that the observational data is complete. However, the missing data problem is pervasive in many practical scenarios such as clinical trials, economics, and biology. One straightforward way to address the missing data problem is first to impute the data using off-the-shelf imputation methods and then apply existing causal discovery methods. However, such a two-step method may suffer from suboptimality, as the imputation algorithm may introduce bias for modeling the underlying data distribution. In this paper, we develop a general method, which we call MissDAG, to perform causal discovery from data with incomplete observations. Focusing mainly on the assumptions of ignorable missingness and the identifiable additive noise models (ANMs), MissDAG maximizes the expected likelihood of the visible part of observations under the expectation-maximization (EM) framework. In the E-step, in cases where computing the posterior distributions of parameters in closed-form is not feasible, Monte Carlo EM is leveraged to approximate the likelihood. In the M-step, MissDAG leverages the density transformation to model the noise distributions with simpler and specific formulations by virtue of the ANMs and uses a likelihood-based causal discovery algorithm with directed acyclic graph constraint. We demonstrate the flexibility of MissDAG for incorporating various causal discovery algorithms and its efficacy through extensive simulations and real data experiments.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities across a range of reasoning and generation tasks. However, research studies have shown that LLMs lack the ability to identify causal relationships, a fundamental cornerstone of human intelligence. We first conduct an exploratory investigation of LLMs' behavior when asked to perform a causal-discovery task and find that they mostly rely on the semantic meaning of variable names, ignoring the observation data. This is unsurprising, given that LLMs were never trained to process structural datasets. To first tackle this challenge, we prompt the LLMs with the outputs of established causal discovery algorithms designed for observational datasets. These algorithm outputs effectively serve as the sufficient statistics of the observation data. However, quite surprisingly, we find that prompting the LLMs with these sufficient statistics decreases the LLMs' performance in causal discovery. To address this current limitation, we propose CARE, a framework that enhances LLMs' causal-reasoning ability by teaching them to effectively utilize the outputs of established causal-discovery algorithms through supervised fine-tuning. Experimental results show that a finetuned Qwen2.5-1.5B model produced by CARE significantly outperforms both traditional causal-discovery algorithms and state-of-the-art LLMs with over a thousand times more parameters, demonstrating effective utilization of its own knowledge and the external algorithmic clues.