Bounding Counterfactuals under Selection Bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01417v1
• Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 10:33:10 GMT
• Title: Bounding Counterfactuals under Selection Bias
• Authors: Marco Zaffalon and Alessandro Antonucci and Rafael Caba\~nas and David Huber and Dario Azzimonti
• Abstract summary: We propose a first algorithm to address both identifiable and unidentifiable queries. We prove that, in spite of the missingness induced by the selection bias, the likelihood of the available data is unimodal.
• Score: 60.55840896782637
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Causal analysis may be affected by selection bias, which is defined as the systematic exclusion of data from a certain subpopulation. Previous work in this area focused on the derivation of identifiability conditions. We propose instead a first algorithm to address both identifiable and unidentifiable queries. We prove that, in spite of the missingness induced by the selection bias, the likelihood of the available data is unimodal. This enables us to use the causal expectation-maximisation scheme to obtain the values of causal queries in the identifiable case, and to compute bounds otherwise. Experiments demonstrate the approach to be practically viable. Theoretical convergence characterisations are provided.

Related papers

• Detecting and Identifying Selection Structure in Sequential Data [53.24493902162797]
  We argue that the selective inclusion of data points based on latent objectives is common in practical situations, such as music sequences. We show that selection structure is identifiable without any parametric assumptions or interventional experiments. We also propose a provably correct algorithm to detect and identify selection structures as well as other types of dependencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-29T20:56:34Z)
• Identifiable Latent Neural Causal Models [82.14087963690561]
  Causal representation learning seeks to uncover latent, high-level causal representations from low-level observed data. We determine the types of distribution shifts that do contribute to the identifiability of causal representations. We translate our findings into a practical algorithm, allowing for the acquisition of reliable latent causal representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-23T04:13:55Z)
• Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models [4.968566004977497]
  We show that we can learn useful information about consideration probabilities despite not being able to identify them precisely. We demonstrate our methods on a ranking dataset from a psychology experiment with two different ranking tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-19T20:27:29Z)
• Approximating Counterfactual Bounds while Fusing Observational, Biased and Randomised Data Sources [64.96984404868411]
  We address the problem of integrating data from multiple, possibly biased, observational and interventional studies. We show that the likelihood of the available data has no local maxima. We then show how the same approach can address the general case of multiple datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T11:28:24Z)
• LUCID-GAN: Conditional Generative Models to Locate Unfairness [1.5257247496416746]
  We present LUCID-GAN, which generates canonical inputs via a conditional generative model instead of gradient-based inverse design. We empirically evaluate LUCID-GAN on the UCI Adult and COMPAS data sets and show that it allows for detecting unethical biases in black-box models without requiring access to the training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T10:37:49Z)
• Black-box Selective Inference via Bootstrapping [5.960626580825523]
  Conditional selective inference requires an exact characterization of the selection event, which is often unavailable except for a few examples like the lasso. This work addresses this challenge by introducing a generic approach to estimate the selection event, facilitating feasible inference conditioned on the selection event.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T05:18:21Z)
• Typing assumptions improve identification in causal discovery [123.06886784834471]
  Causal discovery from observational data is a challenging task to which an exact solution cannot always be identified. We propose a new set of assumptions that constrain possible causal relationships based on the nature of the variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-22T14:23:08Z)
• Invariant Rationalization [84.1861516092232]
  A typical rationalization criterion, i.e. maximum mutual information (MMI), finds the rationale that maximizes the prediction performance based only on the rationale. We introduce a game-theoretic invariant rationalization criterion where the rationales are constrained to enable the same predictor to be optimal across different environments. We show both theoretically and empirically that the proposed rationales can rule out spurious correlations, generalize better to different test scenarios, and align better with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-22T00:50:27Z)
• Causality and Robust Optimization [2.690502103971798]
  Cofounding bias is a problem when applying machine learning prediction. We propose a meta-algorithm that can remedy existing feature selection algorithms in terms of cofounding bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-28T10:02:59Z)

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

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.