Related papers: A Survey on Causal Inference

A Survey on Causal Inference

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.02770v1
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 21:35:29 GMT
Title: A Survey on Causal Inference
Authors: Liuyi Yao, Zhixuan Chu, Sheng Li, Yaliang Li, Jing Gao, Aidong Zhang
Abstract summary: Causal inference is a critical research topic across many domains, such as statistics, computer science, education, public policy and economics. Various causal effect estimation methods for observational data have sprung up.
Score: 64.45536158710014
License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Abstract: Causal inference is a critical research topic across many domains, such as statistics, computer science, education, public policy and economics, for decades. Nowadays, estimating causal effect from observational data has become an appealing research direction owing to the large amount of available data and low budget requirement, compared with randomized controlled trials. Embraced with the rapidly developed machine learning area, various causal effect estimation methods for observational data have sprung up. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive review of causal inference methods under the potential outcome framework, one of the well known causal inference framework. The methods are divided into two categories depending on whether they require all three assumptions of the potential outcome framework or not. For each category, both the traditional statistical methods and the recent machine learning enhanced methods are discussed and compared. The plausible applications of these methods are also presented, including the applications in advertising, recommendation, medicine and so on. Moreover, the commonly used benchmark datasets as well as the open-source codes are also summarized, which facilitate researchers and practitioners to explore, evaluate and apply the causal inference methods.

Related papers

Bayesian Intervention Optimization for Causal Discovery [23.51328013481865]
Causal discovery is crucial for understanding complex systems and informing decisions. Current methods, such as Bayesian and graph-theoretical approaches, do not prioritize decision-making. We propose a novel Bayesian optimization-based method inspired by Bayes factors.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-16T12:45:44Z)
Benchmarking Bayesian Causal Discovery Methods for Downstream Treatment Effect Estimation [137.3520153445413]
A notable gap exists in the evaluation of causal discovery methods, where insufficient emphasis is placed on downstream inference. We evaluate seven established baseline causal discovery methods including a newly proposed method based on GFlowNets. The results of our study demonstrate that some of the algorithms studied are able to effectively capture a wide range of useful and diverse ATE modes.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-11T02:58:10Z)
A Survey on Causal Discovery Methods for I.I.D. and Time Series Data [4.57769506869942]
Causal Discovery (CD) algorithms can identify the cause-effect relationships among the variables of a system from related observational data. We present an extensive discussion on the methods designed to perform causal discovery from both independent and identically distributed (I.I.D.) data and time series data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-27T09:21:41Z)
CausalBench: A Large-scale Benchmark for Network Inference from Single-cell Perturbation Data [61.088705993848606]
We introduce CausalBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating causal inference methods on real-world interventional data. CaulBench incorporates biologically-motivated performance metrics, including new distribution-based interventional metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-10-31T13:04:07Z)
Valid Inference After Causal Discovery [73.87055989355737]
We develop tools for valid post-causal-discovery inference. We show that a naive combination of causal discovery and subsequent inference algorithms leads to highly inflated miscoverage rates.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-08-11T17:40:45Z)
Evaluating Causal Inference Methods [0.4588028371034407]
We introduce a deep generative model-based framework, Credence, to validate causal inference methods. Our work introduces a deep generative model-based framework, Credence, to validate causal inference methods.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-02-09T00:21:22Z)
Through the Data Management Lens: Experimental Analysis and Evaluation of Fair Classification [75.49600684537117]
Data management research is showing an increasing presence and interest in topics related to data and algorithmic fairness. We contribute a broad analysis of 13 fair classification approaches and additional variants, over their correctness, fairness, efficiency, scalability, and stability. Our analysis highlights novel insights on the impact of different metrics and high-level approach characteristics on different aspects of performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-01-18T22:55:40Z)
Estimating Individual Treatment Effects using Non-Parametric Regression Models: a Review [0.0]
We introduce the setup and the issues related to conducting causal inference with observational or non-fully randomized data. We develop a unifying taxonomy of the existing state-of-the-art frameworks that allow for individual treatment effects estimation. We conclude by demonstrating the use of some of the methods on an empirical analysis of the school meal program data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-09-14T14:26:55Z)
Marginal likelihood computation for model selection and hypothesis testing: an extensive review [66.37504201165159]
This article provides a comprehensive study of the state-of-the-art of the topic. We highlight limitations, benefits, connections and differences among the different techniques. Problems and possible solutions with the use of improper priors are also described.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-05-17T18:31:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.