Causal effect estimation from observational data is fundamental across various applications.

Causal effect estimation is critical to a range of scientific disciplines. Existing methods for this task either require interventional data, knowledge about the ground-truth causal graph, or rely on assumptions such as unconfoundedness, restricting their applicability in real-world settings. In the domain of tabular machine learning, Prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) have achieved state-of-theart predictive performance, having been pre-trained on synthetic causal data to solve tabular prediction problems via in-context learning. To assess whether this can be transferred to the problem of causal effect estimation, we pre-train PFNs on synthetic data drawn from a wide variety of causal structures, including interventions, to predict interventional outcomes given observational data. Through extensive experiments in synthetic and semi-synthetic settings, we show that our approach allows for the accurate estimation of causal effects without knowledge of the underlying causal graph.

We consider inferring the causal effect of a treatment (intervention) on an outcome of interest in situations where there is potentially an unobserved confounder influencing both the treatment and the outcome. This is achievable by assuming access to two separate sets of control (proxy) measurements associated with treatment and outcomes, which are used to estimate treatment effects through a function termed the causal bridge (CB). We present a new theoretical perspective, associated assumptions for when estimating treatment effects with the CB is feasible, and a bound on the average error of the treatment effect when the CB assumptions are violated. From this new perspective, we then demonstrate how coupling the CB with an autoencoder architecture allows for the sharing of statistical strength between observed quantities (proxies, treatment, and outcomes), thus improving the quality of the CB estimates. Experiments on synthetic and real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach relative to state-of-the-art methodology for causal inference with proxy measurements.

There is a precise sense in which drawing causal inferences from observational data is hard, even when identifiability is assumed. In particular, Robins and Ritov (1997) and Robins et al. (2003) showed that causal effects can be discontinuous as a function of the data distribution: two arbitrarily close data distributions might correspond to different causal effects. This is a fact independent of the choice of estimator; however, not all estimators are equally unstable. Our contribution is to surface a second layer of instability that depends on the choice of estimator. We show that many standard point estimates can be read as point summaries of multimodal distributions over the space of structural causal models. As such, estimators can jump discontinuously in the data distribution. This defines a taxonomy of estimators that admits a decision-theoretic reading: stability depends on whether the implicit loss function an estimator optimizes is aligned with the causal effect itself. Specifically, inverse propensity weighted estimators and regression estimators are examples of discontinuous summaries, while explicit posterior means and medians are shown to be continuous.

Estimating causal effects in industrial time series requires handling temporal dynamics, time-varying treatments, and unobserved confounders. Existing causal foundation models (CausalPFN, CausalFM) operate only on static cross-sectional data; neural temporal methods (CRN, G-Net) require per-dataset training; and concurrent temporal-PFN proposals have not been demonstrated at industrial scale. None output explicit per-pair reliability signals alongside their CATE estimates. We introduce Temporal Causal Prior-Data Fitted Networks (TCPFN), a foundation model for zero-shot temporal causal discovery with learned reliability signals. TCPFN makes four contributions: (1) a Causal Judgment Head that jointly predicts null-effect probability, confounding strength, identifiability, mediation fraction, and causal regime; (2) a mixed training prior covering six causal regimes (independent, direct, confounded, mediated, time-varying confounded, feedback) plus CausalFM-style front-door and instrumental-variable priors; (3) a discrete-token panel-data architecture with cross-attention masking that prevents inter-horizon leakage; (4) zero-shot inference at industrial scale via FAISS-based context selection and one-step posterior correction. On 19 benchmark datasets across five domains, TCPFN achieves competitive zero-shot causal discovery: AUROC 0.96 on Tennessee Eastman, 0.93 on SWaT, 0.98 on Causal Rivers, 0.97 on CAUSRCA. The null detector reaches NullF1 0.94, AUROC 0.99. TCPFN scales to V=1,275 on a proprietary Kraft pulp-and-paper dataset in 6 hours on a single GPU; PCMCI, a CPU-only library, on a V=666 sub-panel of the same data took 81.5 hours, extrapolating by O(V^2) to ~12.5 days at V=1,275. TCPFN's top edges identify cross-subsystem causal relationships while PCMCI's surface within-instrument controller-measurement coupling -- a scalability case study.

We introduce DeCaFlow, a deconfounding causal generative model. Training once per dataset using just observational data and the underlying causal graph, DeCaFlow enables accurate causal inference on continuous variables under the presence of hidden confounders. Specifically, we extend previous results on causal estimation under hidden confounding to show that a single instance of DeCaFlow provides correct estimates for all causal queries identifiable with do-calculus, leveraging proxy variables to adjust for the causal effects when do-calculus alone is insufficient. Moreover, we show that counterfactual queries are identifiable as long as their interventional counterparts are identifiable, and thus are also correctly estimated by DeCaFlow. Our empirical results on diverse settings--including the Ecoli70 dataset, with 3 independent hidden confounders, tens of observed variables and hundreds of causal queries--show that DeCaFlow outperforms existing approaches, while demonstrating its out-of-the-box applicability to any given causal graph.

In settings where ML models are used to inform the allocation of resources, agents affected by the allocation decisions might have an incentive to strategically change their features to secure better outcomes. While prior work has studied strategic responses broadly, disentangling misreporting from genuine adaptation remains a fundamental challenge. In this paper, we propose a causally-motivated approach to identify and quantify how much an agent misreports on average by distinguishing deceptive changes in their features from genuine adaptation. Our key insight is that, unlike genuine adaptation, misreported features do not causally affect downstream variables (i.e., causal descendants). We exploit this asymmetry by comparing the causal effect of misreported features on their causal descendants as derived from manipulated datasets against those from unmanipulated datasets. We formally prove identifiability of the misreporting rate and characterize the variance of our estimator. We empirically validate our theoretical results using a semi-synthetic and real Medicare dataset with misreported data, demonstrating that our approach can be employed to identify misreporting in real-world scenarios.

We consider the problem of estimating a causal effect in a multi-domain setting. The causal effect of interest is confounded by an unobserved confounder and can change between the different domains. We assume that we have access to a proxy of the hidden confounder and that all variables are discrete or categorical. We propose methodology to estimate the causal effect in the target domain, where we assume to observe only the proxy variable. Under these conditions, we prove identifiability (even when treatment and response variables are continuous). We introduce two estimation techniques, prove consistency, and derive confidence intervals. The theoretical results are supported by simulation studies and a real-world example studying the causal effect of website rankings on consumer choices.

The do-calculus is a sound and complete tool for identifying causal effects in acyclic directed mixed graphs (ADMGs) induced by structural causal models (SCMs). However, in many real-world applications, especially in high-dimensional settings, constructing a fully specified ADMG is often infeasible. This limitation has led to growing interest in partially specified causal representations, particularly through cluster-directed mixed graphs (C-DMGs), which group variables into clusters and offer a more abstract yet practical view of causal dependencies. While these representations can include cycles, recent work has shown that the do-calculus remains sound and complete for identifying macro-level causal effects in C-DMGs over ADMGs under the assumption that all clusters sizes are greater than 1.

Identification conditions describe the computability of a target query or parameter of interest as a function of the type and amount of information available. In causal identification, this information is often expressed in the form of a causal graph, and data are observed or collected for some subset of variables in the graph. Target queries may be for a single effect alone or for a class of effects in a given model. The derivation of an identification algorithm then defines mathematically the process by which the desired causal effect(s) can be uniquely determined, theoretically, in expectation. Identifiability in expectation, or'theoretical identifiability,' generally assumes asymptotic properties, infinite data, or other mathematically idealized conditions. In this paper, we explore a fundamental distinction between this theoretical, idealized notion of identifiability and a proposed alternative that is computation-bound. The framework we propose -- 'computational identifiability' -- is to instead define a finite computational search procedure for an empirical estimator. If this process finds an estimator empirically, within a desired error tolerance, then identifiability is satisfied, conditional on the specified assumptions of the search (i.e., a prior distribution over the parameters) and conditional on the search procedure itself. Through several experiments, we demonstrate how this framework allows us to answer fine-grained, practical identification questions, such as identification with small finite samples, with ambiguous graphical criteria, with mixed observational-interventional data, and across counterfactual data and estimands.