Causal Triplet: An Open Challenge for Intervention-centric Causal Representation Learning

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in learning high-level causal representations from low-level image pairs under interventions. Yet, existing efforts are largely limited to simple synthetic settings that are far away from real-world problems. In this paper, we present Causal Triplet, a causal representation learning benchmark featuring not only visually more complex scenes, but also two crucial desiderata commonly overlooked in previous works: (i) an actionable counterfactual setting, where only certain object-level variables allow for counterfactual observations whereas others do not; (ii) an interventional downstream task with an emphasis on out-of-distribution robustness from the independent causal mechanisms principle. Through extensive experiments, we find that models built with the knowledge of disentangled or object-centric representations significantly outperform their distributed counterparts. However, recent causal representation learning methods still struggle to identify such latent structures, indicating substantial challenges and opportunities for future work. Our code and datasets will be available at https://sites.google.com/view/causaltriplet.Comment: Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning (CLeaR) 202

Causality in concurrent systems

Concurrent systems identify systems, either software, hardware or even biological systems, that are characterized by sets of independent actions that can be executed in any order or simultaneously. Computer scientists resort to a causal terminology to describe and analyse the relations between the actions in these systems. However, a thorough discussion about the meaning of causality in such a context has not been developed yet. This paper aims to fill the gap. First, the paper analyses the notion of causation in concurrent systems and attempts to build bridges with the existing philosophical literature, highlighting similarities and divergences between them. Second, the paper analyses the use of counterfactual reasoning in ex-post analysis in concurrent systems (i.e. execution trace analysis).Comment: This is an interdisciplinary paper. It addresses a class of causal models developed in computer science from an epistemic perspective, namely in terms of philosophy of causalit

Causal Responsibility and Counterfactuals.

How do people attribute responsibility in situations where the contributions of multiple agents combine to produce a joint outcome? The prevalence of over-determination in such cases makes this a difficult problem for counterfactual theories of causal responsibility. In this article, we explore a general framework for assigning responsibility in multiple agent contexts. We draw on the structural model account of actual causation (e.g., Halpern & Pearl, 2005) and its extension to responsibility judgments (Chockler & Halpern, 2004). We review the main theoretical and empirical issues that arise from this literature and propose a novel model of intuitive judgments of responsibility. This model is a function of both pivotality (whether an agent made a difference to the outcome) and criticality (how important the agent is perceived to be for the outcome, before any actions are taken). The model explains empirical results from previous studies and is supported by a new experiment that manipulates both pivotality and criticality. We also discuss possible extensions of this model to deal with a broader range of causal situations. Overall, our approach emphasizes the close interrelations between causality, counterfactuals, and responsibility attributions

Finding fault: causality and counterfactuals in group attributions.

Attributions of responsibility play a critical role in many group interactions. This paper explores the role of causal and counterfactual reasoning in blame attributions in groups. We develop a general framework that builds on the notion of pivotality: an agent is pivotal if she could have changed the group outcome by acting differently. In three experiments we test successive refinements of this notion - whether an agent is pivotal in close possible situations and the number of paths to achieve pivotality. In order to discriminate between potential models, we introduced group tasks with asymmetric structures. Some group members were complements (for the two to contribute to the group outcome it was necessary that both succeed) whereas others were substitutes (for the two to contribute to the group outcome it was sufficient that one succeeds). Across all three experiments we found that people's attributions were sensitive to the number of paths to pivotality. In particular, an agent incurred more blame for a team loss in the presence of a successful complementary peer than in the presence of a successful substitute