We propose a constructive algorithm for identifying complete data distributions in graphical models of missing data. The complete data distribution is unrestricted, while the missingness mechanism is assumed to factorize according to a conditional directed acyclic graph. Our approach follows an interventionist perspective in which missingness indicators are treated as variables that can be intervened on. A central challenge in this setting is that sequences of interventions on missingness indicators may induce and propagate selection bias, so that identification can fail even when a propensity score is invariant to available interventions. To address this challenge, we introduce a tree-based identification algorithm that explicitly tracks the creation and propagation of selection bias and determines whether it can be avoided through admissible intervention strategies. The resulting tree provides both a diagnostic and a constructive characterization of identifiability under a given missingness mechanism. Building on these results, we develop recursive inverse probability weighting procedures that mirror the intervention logic of the identification algorithm, yielding valid estimating equations for both the missingness mechanism and functionals of the complete data distribution. Simulation studies and a real-data application illustrate the practical performance of the proposed methods. An accompanying R package, flexMissing, implements all proposed procedures.

For two causal structures with the same set of visible variables, one is said to observationally dominate the other if the set of distributions over the visible variables realizable by the first contains the set of distributions over the visible variables realizable by the second. Knowing such dominance relations is useful for adjudicating between these structures given observational data. We here consider the problem of determining the partial order of equivalence classes of causal structures with latent variables relative to observational dominance. We provide a complete characterization of the dominance order in the case of three visible variables, and a partial characterization in the case of four visible variables. Our techniques also help to identify which observational equivalence classes have a set of realizable distributions that is characterized by nontrivial inequality constraints, analogous to Bell inequalities and instrumental inequalities. We find evidence that as one increases the number of visible variables, the equivalence classes satisfying nontrivial inequality constraints become ubiquitous. (Because such classes are the ones for which there can be a difference in the distributions that are quantumly and classically realizable, this implies that the potential for quantum-classical gaps is also ubiquitous.) Furthermore, we find evidence that constraint-based causal discovery algorithms that rely solely on conditional independence constraints have a significantly weaker distinguishing power among observational equivalence classes than algorithms that go beyond these (i.e., algorithms that also leverage nested Markov constraints and inequality constraints).

What types of differences among causal structures with latent variables are impossible to distinguish by statistical data obtained by probing each visible variable? If the probing scheme is simply passive observation, then it is well-known that many different causal structures can realize the same joint probability distributions. Even for the simplest case of two visible variables, for instance, one cannot distinguish between one variable being a causal parent of the other and the two variables sharing a latent common cause. However, it is possible to distinguish between these two causal structures if we have recourse to more powerful probing schemes, such as the possibility of intervening on one of the variables and observing the other. Herein, we address the question of which causal structures remain indistinguishable even given the most informative types of probing schemes on the visible variables. We find that two causal structures remain indistinguishable if and only if they are both associated with the same mDAG structure (as defined by Evans (2016)). We also consider the question of when one causal structure dominates another in the sense that it can realize all of the joint probability distributions that can be realized by the other using a given probing scheme. (Equivalence of causal structures is the special case of mutual dominance.) Finally, we investigate to what extent one can weaken the probing schemes implemented on the visible variables and still have the same discrimination power as a maximally informative probing scheme.

The classical causal relations between a set of variables, some observed and some latent, can induce both equality constraints (typically conditional independences) as well as inequality constraints (Instrumental and Bell inequalities being prototypical examples) on their compatible distribution over the observed variables. Enumerating a causal structure's implied inequality constraints is generally far more difficult than enumerating its equalities. Furthermore, only inequality constraints ever admit violation by quantum correlations. For both those reasons, it is important to classify causal scenarios into those which impose inequality constraints versus those which do not. Here we develop methods for detecting such scenarios by appealing to d-separation, e-separation, and incompatible supports. Many (perhaps all?) scenarios with exclusively equality constraints can be detected via a condition articulated by Henson, Lal and Pusey (HLP). Considering all scenarios with up to 4 observed variables, which number in the thousands, we are able to resolve all but three causal scenarios, providing evidence that the HLP condition is, in fact, exhaustive.