Causal Confusion in Imitation Learning

Behavioral cloning reduces policy learning to supervised learning by training a discriminative model to predict expert actions given observations. Such discriminative models are non-causal: the training procedure is unaware of the causal structure of the interaction between the expert and the environment. We point out that ignoring causality is particularly damaging because of the distributional shift in imitation learning. In particular, it leads to a counter-intuitive "causal misidentification" phenomenon: access to more information can yield worse performance. We investigate how this problem arises, and propose a solution to combat it through targeted interventions---either environment interaction or expert queries---to determine the correct causal model. We show that causal misidentification occurs in several benchmark control domains as well as realistic driving settings, and validate our solution against DAgger and other baselines and ablations.Comment: Published at NeurIPS 2019 9 pages, plus references and appendice

Discovering Cyclic Causal Models with Latent Variables: A General SAT-Based Procedure

We present a very general approach to learning the structure of causal models based on d-separation constraints, obtained from any given set of overlapping passive observational or experimental data sets. The procedure allows for both directed cycles (feedback loops) and the presence of latent variables. Our approach is based on a logical representation of causal pathways, which permits the integration of quite general background knowledge, and inference is performed using a Boolean satisfiability (SAT) solver. The procedure is complete in that it exhausts the available information on whether any given edge can be determined to be present or absent, and returns "unknown" otherwise. Many existing constraint-based causal discovery algorithms can be seen as special cases, tailored to circumstances in which one or more restricting assumptions apply. Simulations illustrate the effect of these assumptions on discovery and how the present algorithm scales.Comment: Appears in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI2013

Joint Causal Inference from Multiple Contexts

The gold standard for discovering causal relations is by means of experimentation. Over the last decades, alternative methods have been proposed that can infer causal relations between variables from certain statistical patterns in purely observational data. We introduce Joint Causal Inference (JCI), a novel approach to causal discovery from multiple data sets from different contexts that elegantly unifies both approaches. JCI is a causal modeling framework rather than a specific algorithm, and it can be implemented using any causal discovery algorithm that can take into account certain background knowledge. JCI can deal with different types of interventions (e.g., perfect, imperfect, stochastic, etc.) in a unified fashion, and does not require knowledge of intervention targets or types in case of interventional data. We explain how several well-known causal discovery algorithms can be seen as addressing special cases of the JCI framework, and we also propose novel implementations that extend existing causal discovery methods for purely observational data to the JCI setting. We evaluate different JCI implementations on synthetic data and on flow cytometry protein expression data and conclude that JCI implementations can considerably outperform state-of-the-art causal discovery algorithms.Comment: Final version, as published by JML