CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Bayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Inference

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Towards Bounding Causal Effects under Markov Equivalence

Open access
Bellot, Alexis·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2311.07259arXiv 2311.07259
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Predicting the effect of unseen interventions is a fundamental research question across the data sciences. It is well established that in general such questions cannot be answered definitively from observational data. This realization has fuelled a growing literature introducing various identifying assumptions, for example in the form of a causal diagram among relevant variables. In practice, this paradigm is still too rigid for many practical applications as it is generally not possible to confidently delineate the true causal diagram. In this paper, we consider the derivation of bounds on causal effects given only observational data. We propose to take as input a less informative structure known as a Partial Ancestral Graph, which represents a Markov equivalence class of causal diagrams and is learnable from data. In this more ``data-driven'' setting, we provide a systematic algorithm to derive bounds on causal effects that exploit the invariant properties of the equivalence class, and that can be computed analytically. We demonstrate our method with synthetic and real data examples.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2311.07259

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Vahid Balazadeh Meresht, Vasilis Syrgkanis, and Rahul G Krishnan. Partial identification of treatment effects with implicit generative models. Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 35:22816-22829, 2022.
  2. Alexander Balke and Judea Pearl. Bounds on treatment effects from studies with imperfect compliance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92(439):1171- 1176, 1997.
  3. Alexis Bellot and Mihaela van der Schaar. Deconfounded score method: Scoring dags with dense unobserved con- founding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.15106, 2021. · arXiv
  4. Alexis Bellot, Alan Malek, and Silvia Chiappa. Transporta- bility for bandits with data from different environments. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  5. David Maxwell Chickering and Judea Pearl. A clinician's tool for analyzing non-compliance. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1269-1276, 1996.
  6. Noam Finkelstein and Ilya Shpitser. Deriving bounds and inequality constraints using logical relations among counterfactuals. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artifi- cial Intelligence, pages 1348-1357. PMLR, 2020.
  7. Florian Gunsilius. Bounds in continuous instrumental vari- able models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.09502, 1, 2019. · arXiv
  8. Alexander J Hartemink, David K Gifford, Tommi S Jaakkola, and Richard A Young. Using graphical mod- els and genomic expression data to statistically validate models of genetic regulatory networks. In Biocomputing 2001, pages 422-433. World Scientific, 2000.
  9. Yaowei Hu, Yongkai Wu, Lu Zhang, and Xintao Wu. A gen- erative adversarial framework for bounding confounded causal effects. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 12104-12112, 2021.
  10. Antti Hyttinen, Frederick Eberhardt, and Matti Järvisalo. Do-calculus when the true graph is unknown. In UAI, pages 395-404, 2015.
  11. Amin Jaber, Jiji Zhang, and Elias Bareinboim. Causal identification under markov equivalence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06209, 2018a. · arXiv
  12. Amin Jaber, Jiji Zhang, and Elias Bareinboim. A graphical criterion for effect identification in equivalence classes of causal diagrams. In Proceedings of the Twenty- Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial In- telligence, 2018b.
  13. Amin Jaber, Jiji Zhang, and Elias Bareinboim. Causal iden- tification under markov equivalence: Completeness re- sults. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2981-2989.
  14. PMLR, 2019a.
  15. Amin Jaber, Jiji Zhang, and Elias Bareinboim. Identifica- tion of conditional causal effects under markov equiva- lence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 32, 2019b.
  16. Amin Jaber, Adele Ribeiro, Jiji Zhang, and Elias Barein- boim. Causal identification under markov equivalence: calculus, algorithm, and completeness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:3679-3690, 2022.
  17. Shalmali Joshi, Junzhe Zhang, and Elias Bareinboim. To- wards safe policy learning under partial identifiability: A causal approach. In Proceedings of the AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 13004- 13012, 2024.
  18. Yonghan Jung, Jin Tian, and Elias Bareinboim. Estimating identifiable causal effects on markov equivalence class through double machine learning. In International Con- ference on Machine Learning, pages 5168-5179. PMLR, 2021.
  19. Steffen L Lauritzen and David J Spiegelhalter. Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 50 (2):157-194, 1988.
  20. Ang Li and Judea Pearl. Bounds on causal effects and ap- plication to high dimensional data. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 5773-5780, 2022.
  21. Charles F Manski. Nonparametric bounds on treatment ef- fects. The American Economic Review, 80(2):319-323, 1990.
  22. Christopher Meek. Strong completeness and faithfulness in bayesian networks. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Con- ference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI'95, page 411-418, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1995.
  23. Kirtan Padh, Jakob Zeitler, David Watson, Matt Kusner, Ri- cardo Silva, and Niki Kilbertus. Stochastic causal pro- gramming for bounding treatment effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.10806, 2022. · arXiv
  24. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988.
  25. Judea Pearl. Causality. Cambridge university press, 2009.
  26. Emilija Perkovic, JC Textor, Markus Kalisch, and Mar- loes H Maathuis. Complete graphical characterization and construction of adjustment sets in markov equiva- lence classes of ancestral graphs. The Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research, 2018.
  27. Thomas Richardson and Peter Spirtes. Ancestral graph markov models. The Annals of Statistics, 30(4):962- 1030, 2002.
  28. James M Robins. The analysis of randomized and non- randomized aids treatment trials using a new approach to causal inference in longitudinal studies. Health service research methodology: a focus on AIDS, pages 113-159, 1989.
  29. James M Robins, Richard Scheines, Peter Spirtes, and Larry Wasserman. Uniform consistency in causal infer- ence. Biometrika, 90(3):491-515, 2003.
  30. Karen Sachs, Omar Perez, Dana Pe'er, Douglas A Lauf- fenburger, and Garry P Nolan. Causal protein-signaling networks derived from multiparameter single-cell data. Science, 308(5721):523-529, 2005.
  31. Marco Scutari. Learning bayesian networks with the bn- learn r package. arXiv preprint arXiv:0908.3817, 2009. · arXiv
  32. Peter Spirtes, Clark N Glymour, Richard Scheines, and David Heckerman. Causation, prediction, and search. MIT press, 2000.
  33. Marcel Wienöbst, Malte Luttermann, Max Bannach, and Maciej Liskiewicz. Efficient enumeration of markov equivalent dags. In Proceedings of the AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, pages 12313- 12320, 2023.
  34. Yongkai Wu, Lu Zhang, Xintao Wu, and Hanghang Tong. Pc-fairness: A unified framework for measuring causality-based fairness. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  35. Jakob Zeitler and Ricardo Silva. The causal marginal polytope for bounding treatment effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.13851, 2022. · arXiv
  36. Jiji Zhang. Causal inference and reasoning in causally in- sufficient systems. PhD thesis, Citeseer, 2006.
  37. Jiji Zhang. Causal reasoning with ancestral graphs. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:1437-1474, 2008a.
  38. Jiji Zhang. On the completeness of orientation rules for causal discovery in the presence of latent confounders and selection bias. Artificial Intelligence, 172(16-17): 1873-1896, 2008b.
  39. Jiji Zhang and Peter L Spirtes. Strong faithfulness and uniform consistency in causal inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.2506, 2012a. · arXiv
  40. Jiji Zhang and Peter L Spirtes. A transformational characterization of markov equivalence for directed acyclic graphs with latent variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.1419, 2012b. Algorithm 4 Derivation of maximally bi-directed causal graphs 1: Input: LEG L 2: Output: The set of maximally bi-directed graphs. 3: For all invisible edges of the form X Ñ Y such that X does not have any parents or spouses not adjacent to Y , add a bi-directed edge X Y to L, creating a causal diagram G 4: Initialize an empty list S and append G to it 5: Initialize an empty list S 1 6: while S is not empty do 7: for each G in S do 8: Let k be the number of invisible edges in G 9: Create graphs G 1 , . . . , G k by adding a bi-directed edge for each invisible edge in L 10: Mark visible edges in G 1 , . . . , G k 11: Append S 1 with the subset of tG 1 , . . . , G k u in which invisible edges do not exist 12: Append S with the subset of tG 1 , . . . , G k u in which invisible edges do exist and remove G 13: end for 14: end while 15: return S 1 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Bellot, A.
Corresponding author
Bellot, Alexis
ORCID
Bellot, Alexis
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2311.07259
arXiv
2311.07259
OpenAlex
W4388685409
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
Keywords
causal effect bounds, Markov equivalence classes, causal discovery, observational data, intervention prediction, causal inference, causal graphs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review