Most counterfactual inference frameworks traditionally assume acyclic structural causal models (SCMs), i.e. directed acyclic graphs (DAGs).

Counterfactual inference aims to estimate the counterfactual outcome at the individual level given knowledge of an observed treatment and the factual outcome, with broad applications in fields such as epidemiology, econometrics, and management science. Previous methods rely on a known structural causal model (SCM) or assume the homogeneity of the exogenous variable and strict monotonicity between the outcome and exogenous variable. In this paper, we propose a principled approach for identifying and estimating the counterfactual outcome. We first introduce a simple and intuitive rank preservation assumption to identify the counterfactual outcome without relying on a known structural causal model. Building on this, we propose a novel ideal loss for theoretically unbiased learning of the counterfactual outcome and further develop a kernel-based estimator for its empirical estimation. Our theoretical analysis shows that the rank preservation assumption is not stronger than the homogeneity and strict monotonicity assumptions, and shows that the proposed ideal loss is convex, and the proposed estimator is unbiased. Extensive semi-synthetic and real-world experiments are conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

The do-calculus is a sound and complete tool for identifying causal effects in acyclic directed mixed graphs (ADMGs) induced by structural causal models (SCMs). However, in many real-world applications, especially in high-dimensional settings, constructing a fully specified ADMG is often infeasible. This limitation has led to growing interest in partially specified causal representations, particularly through cluster-directed mixed graphs (C-DMGs), which group variables into clusters and offer a more abstract yet practical view of causal dependencies. While these representations can include cycles, recent work has shown that the do-calculus remains sound and complete for identifying macro-level causal effects in C-DMGs over ADMGs under the assumption that all clusters sizes are greater than 1.

Individual treatment effects are not point-identified from data. The Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS) circumvents this limitation by characterizing individual-level causality through intersection bounds derived from combined experimental and observational data. In finite samples, however, standard plug-in estimators systematically fail: they violate structural probability constraints and suffer from extremum bias induced by max-min operators, yielding spuriously narrow intervals. We propose a neural framework for finite-sample PNS estimation that resolves both pathologies. We introduce an anchored neural architecture that guarantees structural constraint satisfaction by construction. To correct extremum bias, we employ precision-corrected intersection-bound inference, leveraging Epistemic Neural Networks for scalable, high-dimensional uncertainty quantification. Empirical evaluations confirm that this approach maintains nominal coverage and exact constraint validity in high-dimensional regimes where standard estimators systematically undercover.

We consider the linear causal representation learning setting where we observe a linear mixing of $d$ unknown latent factors, which follow a linear structural causal model. Recent work has shown that it is possible to recover the latent factors as well as the underlying structural causal model over them, up to permutation and scaling, provided that we have at least $d$ environments, each of which corresponds to perfect interventions on a single latent node (factor). After this powerful result, a key open problem faced by the community has been to relax these conditions: allow for coarser than perfect single-node interventions, and allow for fewer than $d$ of them, since the number of latent factors $d$ could be very large. In this work, we consider precisely such a setting, where we allow a smaller than $d$ number of environments, and also allow for very coarse interventions that can very coarsely \textit{change the entire causal graph over the latent factors}. On the flip side, we relax what we wish to extract to simply the \textit{list of nodes that have shifted between one or more environments}. We provide a surprising identifiability result that it is indeed possible, under some very mild standard assumptions, to identify the set of shifted nodes. Our identifiability proof moreover is a constructive one: we explicitly provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a node to be a shifted node, and show that we can check these conditions given observed data. Our algorithm lends itself very naturally to the sample setting where instead of just interventional distributions, we are provided datasets of samples from each of these distributions. We corroborate our results on both synthetic experiments as well as an interesting psychometric dataset.

Despitethis noble goal, it has been acknowledged in the literature that statistical tests based ontheEOareoblivious totheunderlying causal mechanisms thatgenerated the disparity in the first place (Hardt et al. 2016).

We then apply the framework to the challenging practical setting where confounding factors (that induce spurious correlations) are observable only on asmall fraction of data.

We incorporate an exogenous variable in the SCM that is learned and utilised for reasoning about interventionsintheobservation.