Distinguishing cause from effect using observational data: methods and benchmarks

The discovery of causal relationships from purely observational data is a fundamental problem in science. The most elementary form of such a causal discovery problem is to decide whether X causes Y or, alternatively, Y causes X, given joint observations of two variables X, Y. An example is to decide whether altitude causes temperature, or vice versa, given only joint measurements of both variables. Even under the simplifying assumptions of no confounding, no feedback loops, and no selection bias, such bivariate causal discovery problems are challenging. Nevertheless, several approaches for addressing those problems have been proposed in recent years. We review two families of such methods: Additive Noise Methods (ANM) and Information Geometric Causal Inference (IGCI). We present the benchmark CauseEffectPairs that consists of data for 100 different cause-effect pairs selected from 37 datasets from various domains (e.g., meteorology, biology, medicine, engineering, economy, etc.) and motivate our decisions regarding the "ground truth" causal directions of all pairs. We evaluate the performance of several bivariate causal discovery methods on these real-world benchmark data and in addition on artificially simulated data. Our empirical results on real-world data indicate that certain methods are indeed able to distinguish cause from effect using only purely observational data, although more benchmark data would be needed to obtain statistically significant conclusions. One of the best performing methods overall is the additive-noise method originally proposed by Hoyer et al. (2009), which obtains an accuracy of 63+-10 % and an AUC of 0.74+-0.05 on the real-world benchmark. As the main theoretical contribution of this work we prove the consistency of that method.Comment: 101 pages, second revision submitted to Journal of Machine Learning Researc

Auditing Search Engines for Differential Satisfaction Across Demographics

Many online services, such as search engines, social media platforms, and digital marketplaces, are advertised as being available to any user, regardless of their age, gender, or other demographic factors. However, there are growing concerns that these services may systematically underserve some groups of users. In this paper, we present a framework for internally auditing such services for differences in user satisfaction across demographic groups, using search engines as a case study. We first explain the pitfalls of na\"ively comparing the behavioral metrics that are commonly used to evaluate search engines. We then propose three methods for measuring latent differences in user satisfaction from observed differences in evaluation metrics. To develop these methods, we drew on ideas from the causal inference literature and the multilevel modeling literature. Our framework is broadly applicable to other online services, and provides general insight into interpreting their evaluation metrics.Comment: 8 pages Accepted at WWW 201

SimLex-999: Evaluating Semantic Models with (Genuine) Similarity Estimation

We present SimLex-999, a gold standard resource for evaluating distributional semantic models that improves on existing resources in several important ways. First, in contrast to gold standards such as WordSim-353 and MEN, it explicitly quantifies similarity rather than association or relatedness, so that pairs of entities that are associated but not actually similar [Freud, psychology] have a low rating. We show that, via this focus on similarity, SimLex-999 incentivizes the development of models with a different, and arguably wider range of applications than those which reflect conceptual association. Second, SimLex-999 contains a range of concrete and abstract adjective, noun and verb pairs, together with an independent rating of concreteness and (free) association strength for each pair. This diversity enables fine-grained analyses of the performance of models on concepts of different types, and consequently greater insight into how architectures can be improved. Further, unlike existing gold standard evaluations, for which automatic approaches have reached or surpassed the inter-annotator agreement ceiling, state-of-the-art models perform well below this ceiling on SimLex-999. There is therefore plenty of scope for SimLex-999 to quantify future improvements to distributional semantic models, guiding the development of the next generation of representation-learning architectures

Design and initial validation of the Raster method for telecom service availability risk assessment

Crisis organisations depend on telecommunication services; unavailability of these services reduces the effectiveness of crisis response. Crisis organisations should therefore be aware of availability risks, and need a suitable risk assessment method. Such a method needs to be aware of the exceptional circumstances in which crisis organisations operate, and of the commercial structure of modern telecom services. We found that existing risk assessment methods are unsuitable for this problem domain. Hence, crisis organisations do not perform any risk assessment, trust their supplier, or rely on service level agreements, which are not meaningful during crisis situations. We have therefore developed a new risk assessment method, which we call RASTER. We have tested RASTER using a case study at the crisis organisation of a government agency, and improved the method based on the analysis of case results. Our initial validation suggests that the method can yield practical results