The aim of this paper is to make clear and precise the relationship between the Rubin causal model (RCM) and structural causal model (SCM) frameworks for causal inference. Adopting a neutral logical perspective, and drawing on previous work, we show what is required for an RCM to be representable by an SCM. A key result then shows that every RCM---including those that violate algebraic principles implied by the SCM framework---emerges as an abstraction of some representable RCM. Finally, we illustrate the power of this ameliorative perspective by pinpointing an important role for SCM principles in classic applications of RCMs; conversely, we offer a characterization of the algebraic constraints implied by a graph, helping to substantiate further comparisons between the two frameworks.

One of the fundamental challenges found throughout the data sciences is to explain why things happen in specific ways, or through which mechanisms a certain variable $X$ exerts influences over another variable $Y$. In statistics and machine learning, significant efforts have been put into developing machinery to estimate correlations across variables efficiently. In causal inference, a large body of literature is concerned with the decomposition of causal effects under the rubric of mediation analysis. However, many variations are spurious in nature, including different phenomena throughout the applied sciences. Despite the statistical power to estimate correlations and the identification power to decompose causal effects, there is still little understanding of the properties of spurious associations and how they can be decomposed in terms of the underlying causal mechanisms. In this manuscript, we develop formal tools for decomposing spurious variations in both Markovian and Semi-Markovian models. We prove the first results that allow a non-parametric decomposition of spurious effects and provide sufficient conditions for the identification of such decompositions. The described approach has several applications, ranging from explainable and fair AI to questions in epidemiology and medicine, and we empirically demonstrate its use.

Fairness studies of algorithmic decision-making systems often simplify complex decision processes, such as bail or loan approvals, into binary classification tasks. However, these approaches overlook that such decisions are not inherently binary (e.g., approve or not approve bail or loan); they also involve non-binary treatment decisions (e.g., bail conditions or loan terms) that can influence the downstream outcomes (e.g., loan repayment or reoffending). In this paper, we argue that non-binary treatment decisions are integral to the decision process and controlled by decision-makers and, therefore, should be central to fairness analyses in algorithmic decision-making. We propose a causal framework that extends fairness analyses and explicitly distinguishes between decision-subjects' covariates and the treatment decisions. This specification allows decision-makers to use our framework to (i) measure treatment disparity and its downstream effects in historical data and, using counterfactual reasoning, (ii) mitigate the impact of past unfair treatment decisions when automating decision-making. We use our framework to empirically analyze four widely used loan approval datasets to reveal potential disparity in non-binary treatment decisions and their discriminatory impact on outcomes, highlighting the need to incorporate treatment decisions in fairness assessments. Moreover, by intervening in treatment decisions, we show that our framework effectively mitigates treatment discrimination from historical data to ensure fair risk score estimation and (non-binary) decision-making processes that benefit all stakeholders.

Affective computing has made significant strides in emotion recognition and generation, yet current approaches mainly focus on short-term pattern recognition and lack a comprehensive framework to guide affective agents toward long-term human well-being. To address this, we propose a teleology-driven affective computing framework that unifies major emotion theories (basic emotion, appraisal, and constructivist approaches) under the premise that affect is an adaptive, goal-directed process that facilitates survival and development. Our framework emphasizes aligning agent responses with both personal/individual and group/collective well-being over extended timescales. We advocate for creating a "dataverse" of personal affective events, capturing the interplay between beliefs, goals, actions, and outcomes through real-world experience sampling and immersive virtual reality. By leveraging causal modeling, this "dataverse" enables AI systems to infer individuals' unique affective concerns and provide tailored interventions for sustained well-being. Additionally, we introduce a meta-reinforcement learning paradigm to train agents in simulated environments, allowing them to adapt to evolving affective concerns and balance hierarchical goals - from immediate emotional needs to long-term self-actualization. This framework shifts the focus from statistical correlations to causal reasoning, enhancing agents' ability to predict and respond proactively to emotional challenges, and offers a foundation for developing personalized, ethically aligned affective systems that promote meaningful human-AI interactions and societal well-being.

The aim of this paper is to make clear and precise the relationship between the Rubin causal model (RCM) and structural causal model (SCM) frameworks for causal inference. Adopting a neutral logical perspective, and drawing on previous work, we show what is required for an RCM to be representable by an SCM. A key result then shows that every RCM---including those that violate algebraic principles implied by the SCM framework---emerges as an abstraction of some representable RCM. Finally, we illustrate the power of this ameliorative perspective by pinpointing an important role for SCM principles in classic applications of RCMs; conversely, we offer a characterization of the algebraic constraints implied by a graph, helping to substantiate further comparisons between the two frameworks.

One of the fundamental challenges found throughout the data sciences is to explain why things happen in specific ways, or through which mechanisms a certain variable X exerts influences over another variable Y . In statistics and machine learning, significant efforts have been put into developing machinery to estimate correlations across variables efficiently. In causal inference, a large body of literature is concerned with the decomposition of causal effects under the rubric of mediation analysis. However, many variations are spurious in nature, including different phenomena throughout the applied sciences. Despite the statistical power to estimate correlations and the identification power to decompose causal effects, there is still little understanding of the properties of spurious associations and how they can be decomposed in terms of the underlying causal mechanisms. In this manuscript, we develop formal tools for decomposing spurious variations in both Markovian and Semi-Markovian models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable efficiency in tackling various tasks based on human instructions, but recent studies reveal that these models often fail to achieve satisfactory results on questions involving reasoning, such as mathematics or physics questions. This phenomenon is usually attributed to the uncertainty regarding whether these models could genuinely comprehend the knowledge embedded in the text or merely learn to replicate the token distribution without a true understanding of the content. In this paper, we delve into this problem and aim to enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. First, we investigate if the model has genuine reasoning capabilities by visualizing the text generation process at the attention and representation level. Then, we formulate the reasoning process of LLMs into a causal framework, which provides a formal explanation of the problems we observe in the visualization. Finally, building upon this causal framework, we propose Deconfounded Causal Adaptation (DCA), a novel parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) method to enhance the model's reasoning capabilities by encouraging the model to extract the general problem-solving skills and apply these skills to different questions. Experiments show that our method outperforms the baseline consistently across multiple benchmarks, and with only 1.2M tunable parameters, we achieve better or comparable results to other fine-tuning methods. This demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of our method in improving the overall accuracy and reliability of LLMs.

We are interested in developing a data-driven method to evaluate race-induced biases in law enforcement systems. While the recent works have addressed this question in the context of police-civilian interactions using police stop data, they have two key limitations. First, bias can only be properly quantified if true criminality is accounted for in addition to race, but it is absent in prior works. Second, law enforcement systems are multi-stage and hence it is important to isolate the true source of bias within the "causal chain of interactions" rather than simply focusing on the end outcome; this can help guide reforms. In this work, we address these challenges by presenting a multi-stage causal framework incorporating criminality. We provide a theoretical characterization and an associated data-driven method to evaluate (a) the presence of any form of racial bias, and (b) if so, the primary source of such a bias in terms of race and criminality. Our framework identifies three canonical scenarios with distinct characteristics: in settings like (1) airport security, the primary source of observed bias against a race is likely to be bias in law enforcement against innocents of that race; (2) AI-empowered policing, the primary source of observed bias against a race is likely to be bias in law enforcement against criminals of that race; and (3) police-civilian interaction, the primary source of observed bias against a race could be bias in law enforcement against that race or bias from the general public in reporting against the other race. Through an extensive empirical study using police-civilian interaction data and 911 call data, we find an instance of such a counter-intuitive phenomenon: in New Orleans, the observed bias is against the majority race and the likely reason for it is the over-reporting (via 911 calls) of incidents involving the minority race by the general public.