Gene regulatory network inference (GRNI) aims to discover how genes causally regulate each other from gene expression data. It is well-known that statistical dependencies in observed data do not necessarily imply causation, as spurious dependencies may arise from latent confounders, such as non-coding RNAs. Numerous GRNI methods have thus been proposed to address this confounding issue. However, dependencies may also result from selection-only cells satisfying certain survival or inclusion criteria are observed-while these selection-induced spurious dependencies are frequently overlooked in gene expression data analyses. In this work, we show that such selection is ubiquitous and, when ignored or conflated with true regulations, can lead to flawed causal interpretation and misguided intervention recommendations. To address this challenge, a fundamental question arises: can we distinguish dependencies due to regulation, confounding, and crucially, selection? We show that gene perturbations offer a simple yet effective answer: selection-induced dependencies are symmetric under perturbation, while those from regulation or confounding are not. Building on this motivation, we propose GISL (Gene regulatory network Inference in the presence of Selection bias and Latent confounders), a principled algorithm that leverages perturbation data to uncover both true gene regulatory relations and non-regulatory mechanisms of selection and confounding up to the equivalence class. Experiments on synthetic and real-world gene expression data demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

Despite theoretical advantages, causal methods for Gene Regulatory Network (GRN) inference from single-cell RNA-seq data consistently fail to match or outperform correlation-based baselines in many realistic benchmarks, a persistent puzzle which casts doubt on the value of causality for this task. We argue that existing benchmarks are insufficiently controlled to answer this question because they evaluate on real or semi-real data where multiple pathologies co-occur, confounding failure modes, and obscuring the specific conditions under which different inference methods excel or fail. To address this gap, we introduce a controlled diagnostic framework that isolates seven biologically motivated pathologies (dropout, latent confounders, cell-type mixing, feedback loops, network density, sample size, and pseudotime drift) and measure how six representative methods spanning three inference paradigms degrade as each pathology intensifies. Across 6,120 controlled experiments, we find that causal methods genuinely dominate in clean and structurally favorable regimes, but specific pathologies (notably dropout and latent confounders) selectively neutralize their advantages. We further introduce an errortype decomposition that reveals methods with similar aggregate accuracy commit qualitatively different errors. To probe whether single-pathology effects persist when multiple stressors co-occur, we perform an interaction sweep over the three most impactful pathologies and find that their joint effects are sub-additive, while also exposing density-conditional cross-overs invisible to single-dial analysis. Our findings offer a nuanced understanding of when and why different methods succeed or fail for GRN inference, providing actionable insights for method development and practical guidance for practitioners.3

In the causal bandit setup, we propose a two-stage approach.

Before deploying any newly developed policy, it is important to assess its impact. In many high-stakes domains, it is risky or unethical to implement such policies directly for online evaluation.

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

Thistask is challenging because the causal graph is unknown and even there may exist latent confounders.

Thistask is challenging because the causal graph is unknown and even there may exist latent confounders.