Machine Learning and AI have the potential to transform data-driven scientific discovery, enabling accurate predictions for several scientific phenomena. As many scientific questions are inherently causal, this paper looks at the causal inference task of treatment effect estimation, where the outcome of interest is recorded in high-dimensional observations in a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). Despite being the simplest possible causal setting and a perfect fit for deep learning, we theoretically find that many common choices in the literature may lead to biased estimates. To test the practical impact of these considerations, we recorded ISTAnt, the first real-world benchmark for causal inference downstream tasks on high-dimensional observations as an RCT studying how garden ants (Lasius neglectus) respond to microparticles applied onto their colony members by hygienic grooming. Comparing 6 480 models fine-tuned from state-of-the-art visual backbones, we find that the sampling and modeling choices significantly affect the accuracy of the causal estimate, and that classification accuracy is not a proxy thereof.

Machine Learning and AI have the potential to transform data-driven scientific discovery, enabling accurate predictions for several scientific phenomena. As many scientific questions are inherently causal, this paper looks at the causal inference task of treatment effect estimation, where we assume binary effects that are recorded as high-dimensional images in a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). Despite being the simplest possible setting and a perfect fit for deep learning, we theoretically find that many common choices in the literature may lead to biased estimates. To test the practical impact of these considerations, we recorded the first real-world benchmark for causal inference downstream tasks on high-dimensional observations as an RCT studying how garden ants (Lasius neglectus) respond to microparticles applied onto their colony members by hygienic grooming. Comparing 6 480 models fine-tuned from state-of-the-art visual backbones, we find that the sampling and modeling choices significantly affect the accuracy of the causal estimate, and that classification accuracy is not a proxy thereof. We further validated the analysis, repeating it on a synthetically generated visual data set controlling the causal model. Our results suggest that future benchmarks should carefully consider real downstream scientific questions, especially causal ones. Further, we highlight guidelines for representation learning methods to help answer causal questions in the sciences. All code and data will be released.

Over the last several years, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has maintained consistent growth among businesses. During our 2017 survey of IT decision makers in the United States and Japan, we discovered that approximately 74% of businesses in both regions were already using some form of AI or ML to protect their organizations from cyber threats. When we checked in with both regions at the end of 2018, 73% of respondents we surveyed reported they planned to use even more AI/ML tools in the following year. For this report, we surveyed 800 IT professionals with cybersecurity decision-making power across the US, UK, Japan, and Australia/New Zealand regions at the end of 2019, and discovered that 96% of respondents now use AI/ML tools in their cybersecurity programs. Despite the increase in adoption rates for these technologies, more than half of IT decision makers admitted they do not fully understand the benefits of these tools.