Confounding Equivalence in Causal Inference

The paper provides a simple test for deciding, from a given causal diagram, whether two sets of variables have the same bias-reducing potential under adjustment. The test requires that one of the following two conditions holds: either (1) both sets are admissible (i.e., satisfy the back-door criterion) or (2) the Markov boundaries surrounding the manipulated variable(s) are identical in both sets. Applications to covariate selection and model testing are discussed.Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI2010

Learning Joint Nonlinear Effects from Single-variable Interventions in the Presence of Hidden Confounders

We propose an approach to estimate the effect of multiple simultaneous interventions in the presence of hidden confounders. To overcome the problem of hidden confounding, we consider the setting where we have access to not only the observational data but also sets of single-variable interventions in which each of the treatment variables is intervened on separately. We prove identifiability under the assumption that the data is generated from a nonlinear continuous structural causal model with additive Gaussian noise. In addition, we propose a simple parameter estimation method by pooling all the data from different regimes and jointly maximizing the combined likelihood. We also conduct comprehensive experiments to verify the identifiability result as well as to compare the performance of our approach against a baseline on both synthetic and real-world data.Comment: Accepted to The Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) 202

Robust causal structure learning with some hidden variables

We introduce a new method to estimate the Markov equivalence class of a directed acyclic graph (DAG) in the presence of hidden variables, in settings where the underlying DAG among the observed variables is sparse, and there are a few hidden variables that have a direct effect on many of the observed ones. Building on the so-called low rank plus sparse framework, we suggest a two-stage approach which first removes the effect of the hidden variables, and then estimates the Markov equivalence class of the underlying DAG under the assumption that there are no remaining hidden variables. This approach is consistent in certain high-dimensional regimes and performs favourably when compared to the state of the art, both in terms of graphical structure recovery and total causal effect estimation

We Are Not Your Real Parents: Telling Causal from Confounded using MDL

Given data over variables $(X_1,...,X_m, Y)$ we consider the problem of finding out whether $X$ jointly causes $Y$ or whether they are all confounded by an unobserved latent variable $Z$. To do so, we take an information-theoretic approach based on Kolmogorov complexity. In a nutshell, we follow the postulate that first encoding the true cause, and then the effects given that cause, results in a shorter description than any other encoding of the observed variables. The ideal score is not computable, and hence we have to approximate it. We propose to do so using the Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle. We compare the MDL scores under the models where $X$ causes $Y$ and where there exists a latent variables $Z$ confounding both $X$ and $Y$ and show our scores are consistent. To find potential confounders we propose using latent factor modeling, in particular, probabilistic PCA (PPCA). Empirical evaluation on both synthetic and real-world data shows that our method, CoCa, performs very well -- even when the true generating process of the data is far from the assumptions made by the models we use. Moreover, it is robust as its accuracy goes hand in hand with its confidence

Learning Adjustment Sets from Observational and Limited Experimental Data

Estimating causal effects from observational data is not always possible due to confounding. Identifying a set of appropriate covariates (adjustment set) and adjusting for their influence can remove confounding bias; however, such a set is typically not identifiable from observational data alone. Experimental data do not have confounding bias, but are typically limited in sample size and can therefore yield imprecise estimates. Furthermore, experimental data often include a limited set of covariates, and therefore provide limited insight into the causal structure of the underlying system. In this work we introduce a method that combines large observational and limited experimental data to identify adjustment sets and improve the estimation of causal effects. The method identifies an adjustment set (if possible) by calculating the marginal likelihood for the experimental data given observationally-derived prior probabilities of potential adjustmen sets. In this way, the method can make inferences that are not possible using only the conditional dependencies and independencies in all the observational and experimental data. We show that the method successfully identifies adjustment sets and improves causal effect estimation in simulated data, and it can sometimes make additional inferences when compared to state-of-the-art methods for combining experimental and observational data.Comment: 10 pages, 5 figure