Understanding causal relationships among the variables of a system is paramount to explain and control its behavior. For many real-world systems, however, the true causal graph is not readily available and one must resort to predictions made by algorithms or domain experts. Therefore, metrics that quantitatively assess the goodness of a causal graph provide helpful checks before using it in downstream tasks. Existing metrics provide an absolute number of inconsistencies between the graph and the observed data, and without a baseline, practitioners are left to answer the hard question of how many such inconsistencies are acceptable or expected. Here, we propose a novel consistency metric by constructing a baseline through node permutations. By comparing the number of inconsistencies with those on the baseline, we derive an interpretable metric that captures whether the graph is significantly better than random. Evaluating on both simulated and real data sets from various domains, including biology and cloud monitoring, we demonstrate that the true graph is not falsified by our metric, whereas the wrong graphs given by a hypothetical user are likely to be falsified.

The goal of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is to explain why an anomaly occurred by identifying where the fault originated. Several recent works model the anomalous event as resulting from a change in the causal mechanism at the root cause, i.e., as a soft intervention. RCA is then the task of identifying which causal mechanism changed. In real-world applications, one often has either few or only a single sample from the post-intervention distribution: a severe limitation for most methods, which assume one knows or can estimate the distribution. However, even those that do not are statistically ill-posed due to the need to probe regression models in regions of low probability density. In this paper, we propose simple, efficient methods to overcome both difficulties in the case where there is a single root cause and the causal graph is a polytree. When one knows the causal graph, we give guarantees for a traversal algorithm that requires only marginal anomaly scores and does not depend on specifying an arbitrary anomaly score cut-off. When one does not know the causal graph, we show that the heuristic of identifying root causes as the variables with the highest marginal anomaly scores is causally justified. To this end, we prove that anomalies with small scores are unlikely to cause those with larger scores in polytrees and give upper bounds for the likelihood of causal pathways with non-monotonic anomaly scores.

We propose a notion of causal influence that describes the ‘intrinsic’ part of the contribution of a node on a target node in a DAG. By recursively writing each node as a function of the upstream noise terms, we separate the intrinsic information added by each node from the one obtained from its ancestors. To interpret the intrinsic information as a causal contribution, we consider ‘structure-preserving interventions’ that randomize each node in a way that mimics the usual dependence on the parents and does not perturb the observed joint distribution. To get a measure that is invariant across arbitrary orderings of nodes we use Shapley based symmetrization and show that it reduces in the linear case to simple ANOVA after resolving the target node into noise variables. We describe our contribution analysis for variance and entropy, but contributions for other target metrics can be defined analogously.

We study the differences arising from merging predictors in the causal and anticausal directions using the same data. In particular we study the asymmetries that arise in a simple model where we merge the predictors using one binary variable as target and two continuous variables as predictors. We use Causal Maximum Entropy (CMAXENT) as inductive bias to merge the predictors, however, we expect similar differences to hold also when we use other merging methods that take into account asymmetries between cause and effect. We show that if we observe all bivariate distributions, the CMAXENT solution reduces to a logistic regression in the causal direction and Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) in the anticausal direction. Furthermore, we study how the decision boundaries of these two solutions differ whenever we observe only some of the bivariate distributions implications for Out-Of-Variable (OOV) generalisation.

We present DoWhy-GCM, an extension of the DoWhy Python library, which leverages graphical causal models. Unlike existing causality libraries, which mainly focus on effect estimation, DoWhy-GCM addresses diverse causal queries, such as identifying the root causes of outliers and distributional changes, attributing causal influences to the data generating process of each node, or diagnosis of causal structures. With DoWhy-GCM, users typically specify cause-effect relations via a causal graph, fit causal mechanisms, and pose causal queries---all with just a few lines of code. The general documentation is available at https://www.pywhy.org/dowhy and the DoWhy-GCM specific code at https://github.com/py-why/dowhy/tree/main/dowhy/gcm.

Shapley values are model-agnostic methods for explaining model predictions. Many commonly used methods of computing Shapley values, known as off-manifold methods, rely on model evaluations on out-of-distribution input samples. Consequently, explanations obtained are sensitive to model behaviour outside the data distribution, which may be irrelevant for all practical purposes. While on-manifold methods have been proposed which do not suffer from this problem, we show that such methods are overly dependent on the input data distribution, and therefore result in unintuitive and misleading explanations. To circumvent these problems, we propose ManifoldShap, which respects the model’s domain of validity by restricting model evaluations to the data manifold. We show, theoretically and empirically, that ManifoldShap is robust to off-manifold perturbations of the model and leads to more accurate and intuitive explanations than existing state-of-the-art Shapley methods.

In this work, we initiate the idea of using denoising diffusion models to learn priors for online decision making problems. We specifically focus on bandit meta-learning, aiming to learn a policy that performs well across bandit tasks of a same class. To this end, we train a diffusion model that learns the underlying task distribution and combine Thompson sampling with the learned prior to deal with new tasks at test time. Our posterior sampling algorithm carefully balances between the learned prior and the noisy observations that come from the learner's interaction with the environment. To capture realistic bandit scenarios, we propose a novel diffusion model training procedure that trains from incomplete and noisy data, which could be of independent interest. Finally, our extensive experiments clearly demonstrate the potential of the proposed approach.

Independence testing is a classical statistical problem that has been extensively studied in the batch setting when one fixes the sample size before collecting data. However, practitioners often prefer procedures that adapt to the complexity of a problem at hand instead of setting sample size in advance. Ideally, such procedures should (a) stop earlier on easy tasks (and later on harder tasks), hence making better use of available resources, and (b) continuously monitor the data and efficiently incorporate statistical evidence after collecting new data, while controlling the false alarm rate. Classical batch tests are not tailored for streaming data: valid inference after data peeking requires correcting for multiple testing which results in low power. Following the principle of testing by betting, we design sequential kernelized independence tests that overcome such shortcomings. We exemplify our broad framework using bets inspired by kernelized dependence measures, e.g., the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion. Our test is also valid under non-i.i.d. time-varying settings. We demonstrate the power of our approaches on both simulated and real data.

This paper proposes a new approach for testing Granger non-causality on panel data. Instead of aggregating panel member statistics, we aggregate their corresponding p-values and show that the resulting p-value approximately bounds the type I error by the chosen significance level even if the panel members are dependent. We compare our approach against the most widely used Granger causality algorithm on panel data and show that our approach yields lower FDR at the same power for large sample sizes and panels with cross sectional dependencies. Finally, we examine COVID-19 data about confirmed cases and deaths measured in countries/regions worldwide and show that our approach is able to discover the true causal relation between confirmed cases and deaths while state-of-the-art approaches fail.

Current techniques for explaining outliers cannot tell what caused the outliers. We present a formal method to identify "root causes" of outliers, amongst variables. The method requires a causal graph of the variables along with the functional causal model. It quantifies the contribution of each variable to the target outlier score, which explains to what extent each variable is a "root cause" of the target outlier. We study the empirical performance of the method through simulations and present a real-world case study identifying "root causes" of extreme river flows.

Causal contributions measure the strengths of different causes to a target quantity. Understanding causal contributions is important in empirical sciences and data-driven disciplines since it allows to answer practical queries like “what are the contributions of each cause to the effect?” In this paper, we develop a principled method for quantifying causal contributions. First, we provide desiderata of properties axioms that causal contribution measures should satisfy and propose the do-Shapley values (inspired by do-interventions [Pearl, 2000]) as a unique method satisfying these properties. Next, we develop a criterion under which the do-Shapley values can be efficiently inferred from non-experimental data. Finally, we provide do-Shapley estimators exhibiting consistency, computational feasibility, and statistical robustness. Simulation results corroborate with the theory.

We describe a formal approach based on graphical causal models to identify the "root causes" of the change in the probability distribution of variables. After factorizing the joint distribution into conditional distributions of each variable, given its parents (the "causal mechanisms"), we attribute the change to changes of these causal mechanisms. This attribution analysis accounts for the fact that mechanisms often change independently and sometimes only some of them change. Through simulations, we study the performance of our distribution change attribution proposal. We then present a real-world case study identifying the drivers of the difference in the income distribution between men and women.

We discuss promising recent contributions on quantifying feature relevance using Shapley values, where we observed some confusion on which probability distribution is the right one for dropped features. We argue that the confusion is based on not carefully distinguishing between observational and interventional conditional probabilities and try a clarification based on Pearl’s seminal work on causality. We conclude that unconditional rather than conditional expectations provide the right notion of dropping features. This contradicts the view of the authors of the software package SHAP. In that work, unconditional expectations (which we argue to be conceptually right) are only used as approximation for the conditional ones, which encouraged others to ’improve’ SHAP in a way that we believe to be flawed.

We address the problem of inferring the causal relation between two variables by comparing the least-squares errors of the predictions in both possible causal directions. Under the assumption of an independence between the function relating cause and effect, the conditional noise distribution, and the distribution of the cause, we show that the errors are smaller in causal direction if both variables are equally scaled and the causal relation is close to deterministic. Based on this, we provide an easily applicable method that only requires a regression in both possible causal directions. The performance of this method is compared with different related causal inference methods in various artificial and real-world data sets.