Graphical models have been widely used as parsimonious encoders of assumptions of the underlying causal system and provide a basis for causal inferences. Models encoding stronger constraints tend to require higher expressive power, which are also harder, and sometimes impossible to empirically falsify. In this paper, we introduce two new collections of distributions that include counterfactual quantities which are experimentally accessible under counterfactual randomizations. Correspondingly, we define two new classes of graphical models for encoding empirically testable constraints in these distributions. We further present a sound and complete calculus, based on counterfactual calculus, which licenses inferences in these two new models with rules that are within the empirically falsifiable boundary. Finally, we formulate a hierarchy over several graphical models based on the constraints they encode and study the fundamental trade-off between the expressive power and empirical falsifiability of different models across the hierarchy.

In decision-making processes, an intelligent agent with causal knowledge can optimize action spaces to avoid unnecessary exploration. A structural causal bandit framework provides guidance on how to prune actions that are unable to maximize reward by leveraging prior knowledge of the underlying causal structure among actions. A key assumption of this framework is that the agent has access to a fully-specified causal diagram representing the target system. In this paper, we extend the structural causal bandits to scenarios where the agent leverages a Markov equivalence class. In such cases, the causal structure is provided to the agent in the form of a partial ancestral graph (PAG). We propose a generalized framework for identifying potentially optimal actions within this graph structure, thereby broadening the applicability of structural causal bandits.

The trustworthiness of AI decision-making systems is increasingly important. A key feature of such systems is the ability to provide recommendations for how an individual may reverse a negative decision, a problem known as algorithmic recourse. Existing approaches treat recourse outcomes as counterfactuals of a fixed unit, ignoring that real-world recourse involves repeated decisions on the same individual under possibly different latent conditions. We develop a causal framework that models recourse as a process over pre- and post-intervention outcomes, allowing for partial stability and resampling of latent variables. We introduce post-recourse stability conditions that enable reasoning about recourse from observational data alone, and develop a copula-based algorithm for inferring the effects of recourse under these conditions. For settings where paired observations of the same individual before and after intervention are available (called recourse data), we develop methods for inferring copula parameters and performing goodness-of-fit testing. When the copula model is rejected, we provide a distribution-free algorithm for learning recourse effects directly from recourse data. We demonstrate the value of the proposed methods on real and semi-synthetic datasets.

The Ladder of Causation describes three qualitatively different types of activities an agent may be interested in engaging in, namely, seeing (observational), doing (interventional), and imagining (counterfactual) (Pearl and Mackenzie, 2018). The inferential challenge imposed by the causal hierarchy is that data is collected by an agent observing or intervening in a system (layers 1 and 2), while its goal may be to understand what would have happened had it taken a different course of action, contrary to what factually ended up happening (layer 3). While there exists a solid understanding of the conditions under which cross-layer inferences are allowed from observations to interventions, the results are somewhat scarcer when targeting counterfactual quantities. In this paper, we study the identification of nested counterfactuals from an arbitrary combination of observations and experiments. Specifically, building on a more explicit definition of nested counterfactuals, we prove the counterfactual unnesting theorem (CUT), which allows one to map arbitrary nested counterfactuals to unnested ones. For instance, applications in mediation and fairness analysis usually evoke notions of direct, indirect, and spurious effects, which naturally require nesting. Second, we introduce a sufficient and necessary graphical condition for counterfactual identification from an arbitrary combination of observational and experimental distributions. Lastly, we develop an efficient and complete algorithm for identifying nested counterfactuals; failure of the algorithm returning an expression for a query implies it is not identifiable.

One common task in many data sciences applications is to answer questions about the effect of new interventions, like: 'what would happen to Y if we make X equal to x while observing covariates Z = z?'. Formally, this is known as conditional effect identification, where the goal is to determine whether a post-interventional distribution is computable from the combination of an observational distribution and assumptions about the underlying domain represented by a causal diagram. A plethora of methods was developed for solving this problem, including the celebrated do-calculus [Pearl, 1995]. In practice, these results are not always applicable since they require a fully specified causal diagram as input, which is usually not available. In this paper, we assume as the input of the task a less informative structure known as a partial ancestral graph (PAG), which represents a Markov equivalence class of causal diagrams, learnable from observational data.

Combination therapy refers to the use of multiple treatments - such as surgery, medication, and behavioral therapy - to cure a single disease, and has become a cornerstone for treating various conditions including cancer, HIV, and depression. All possible combinations of treatments lead to a collection of treatment regimens (i.e., policies) with mixed scopes, or what physicians could observe and which actions they should take depending on the context. In this paper, we investigate the online reinforcement learning setting for optimizing the policy space with mixed scopes. In particular, we develop novel online algorithms that achieve sublinear regret compared to an optimal agent deployed in the environment. The regret bound has a dependency on the maximal cardinality of the induced state-action space associated with mixed scopes. We further introduce a canonical representation for an arbitrary subset of interventional distributions given a causal diagram, which leads to a non-trivial, minimal representation of the model parameters.

A plethora of methods was developed for solving this problem, including the celebrated do-calculus [Pearl, 1995]. In practice, these results are not always applicable since they require a fully specified causal diagram as input, which is usually not available.

We next discuss two lines of related literature.