Identifying the causal pathways of unfairness is a critical objective for improving policy design and algorithmic decision-making. Prior work in causal fairness analysis often requires knowledge of the causal graph, hindering practical applications in complex or low-knowledge domains. Moreover, global discovery methods that learn causal structure from data can display unstable performance on finite samples, preventing robust fairness conclusions. To mitigate these challenges, we introduce local discovery for direct discrimination (LD3): a method that uncovers structural evidence of direct unfairness by identifying the causal parents of an outcome variable. LD3 performs a linear number of conditional independence tests relative to variable set size, and allows for latent confounding under the sufficient condition that all parents of the outcome are observed. We show that LD3 returns a valid adjustment set (VAS) under a new graphical criterion for the weighted controlled direct effect, a qualitative indicator of direct discrimination. LD3 limits unnecessary adjustment, providing interpretable VAS for assessing unfairness. We use LD3 to analyze causal fairness in two complex decision systems: criminal recidivism prediction and liver transplant allocation. LD3 was more time-efficient and returned more plausible results on real-world data than baselines, which took 46× to 5870× longer to execute.

Despite the increasing effectiveness of language models, their reasoning capabilities remain underdeveloped. In particular, causal reasoning through counterfactual question answering is lacking. This work aims to bridge this gap. We first derive novel metrics that balance accuracy in factual and counterfactual questions, capturing a more complete view of the reasoning abilities of language models than traditional factual-only based metrics. Second, we propose several fine-tuning approaches that aim to elicit better reasoning mechanisms, in the sense of the proposed metrics. Finally, we evaluate the performance of the fine-tuned language models in a variety of realistic scenarios. In particular, we investigate to what extent our fine-tuning approaches systemically achieve better generalization with respect to the base models in several problems that require, among others, inductive and deductive reasoning capabilities.

Causal reasoning and compositional reasoning are two core aspirations in AI. Measuring the extent of these behaviors requires principled evaluation methods. We explore a unified perspective that considers both behaviors simultaneously, termed compositional causal reasoning (CCR): the ability to infer how causal measures compose and, equivalently, how causal quantities propagate through graphs. We instantiate a framework for the systematic evaluation of CCR for the average treatment effect and the probability of necessity and sufficiency. As proof of concept, we demonstrate CCR evaluation for language models in the Llama, Phi, and GPT families. On a math word problem, our framework revealed a range of taxonomically distinct error patterns. CCR errors increased with the complexity of causal paths for all models except o1.

Learning the unique directed acyclic graph corresponding to an unknown causal model is a challenging task. Methods based on functional causal models can identify a unique graph, but either suffer from the curse of dimensionality or impose strong parametric assumptions. To address these challenges, we propose a novel hybrid approach for global causal discovery in observational data that leverages local causal substructures. We first present a topological sorting algorithm that leverages ancestral relationships in linear structural causal models to establish a compact top-down hierarchical ordering, encoding more causal information than linear orderings produced by existing methods. We demonstrate that this approach generalizes to nonlinear settings with arbitrary noise. We then introduce a nonparametric constraint-based algorithm that prunes spurious edges by searching for local conditioning sets, achieving greater accuracy than current methods. We provide theoretical guarantees for correctness and worst-case polynomial time complexities, with empirical validation on synthetic data.

Causal discovery is crucial for causal inference in observational studies, as it can enable the identification of *valid adjustment sets* (VAS) for unbiased effect estimation. However, global causal discovery is notoriously hard in the nonparametric setting, with exponential time and sample complexity in the worst case. To address this, we propose *local discovery by partitioning* (LDP): a local causal discovery method that is tailored for downstream inference tasks without requiring parametric and pretreatment assumptions. LDP is a constraint-based procedure that returns a VAS for an exposure-outcome pair under latent confounding, given sufficient conditions. The total number of independence tests performed is worst-case quadratic with respect to the cardinality of the variable set. Asymptotic theoretical guarantees are numerically validated on synthetic graphs. Adjustment sets from LDP yield less biased and more precise average treatment effect estimates than baseline discovery algorithms, with LDP outperforming on confounder recall, runtime, and test count for VAS discovery. Notably, LDP ran at least $1300\times$ faster than baselines on a benchmark.