Tightening Bounds on Probabilities of Causation By Merging Datasets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08406v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 15:19:15 GMT
• Title: Tightening Bounds on Probabilities of Causation By Merging Datasets
• Authors: Numair Sani, Atalanti A. Mastakouri
• Abstract summary: Probabilities of Causation (PoC) play a fundamental role in decision-making in law, health care and public policy. Existing work to further tighten these bounds by leveraging extra information either provides numerical bounds, symbolic bounds for fixed dimensionality, or requires access to multiple datasets that contain the same treatment and outcome variables. Here, we provide symbolic bounds on the PoC for a challenging scenario.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Probabilities of Causation (PoC) play a fundamental role in decision-making in law, health care and public policy. Nevertheless, their point identification is challenging, requiring strong assumptions, in the absence of which only bounds can be derived. Existing work to further tighten these bounds by leveraging extra information either provides numerical bounds, symbolic bounds for fixed dimensionality, or requires access to multiple datasets that contain the same treatment and outcome variables. However, in many clinical, epidemiological and public policy applications, there exist external datasets that examine the effect of different treatments on the same outcome variable, or study the association between covariates and the outcome variable. These external datasets cannot be used in conjunction with the aforementioned bounds, since the former may entail different treatment assignment mechanisms, or even obey different causal structures. Here, we provide symbolic bounds on the PoC for this challenging scenario. We focus on combining either two randomized experiments studying different treatments, or a randomized experiment and an observational study, assuming causal sufficiency. Our symbolic bounds work for arbitrary dimensionality of covariates and treatment, and we discuss the conditions under which these bounds are tighter than existing bounds in literature. Finally, our bounds parameterize the difference in treatment assignment mechanism across datasets, allowing the mechanisms to vary across datasets while still allowing causal information to be transferred from the external dataset to the target dataset.

Related papers

• Meta-Learners for Partially-Identified Treatment Effects Across Multiple Environments [67.80453452949303]
  Estimating the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) from observational data is relevant for many applications such as personalized medicine. Here, we focus on the widespread setting where the observational data come from multiple environments. We propose different model-agnostic learners (so-called meta-learners) to estimate the bounds that can be used in combination with arbitrary machine learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T16:31:43Z)
• Seeing Unseen: Discover Novel Biomedical Concepts via Geometry-Constrained Probabilistic Modeling [53.7117640028211]
  We present a geometry-constrained probabilistic modeling treatment to resolve the identified issues. We incorporate a suite of critical geometric properties to impose proper constraints on the layout of constructed embedding space. A spectral graph-theoretic method is devised to estimate the number of potential novel classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-02T00:56:05Z)
• 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)
• Identifiability Guarantees for Causal Disentanglement from Soft Interventions [26.435199501882806]
  Causal disentanglement aims to uncover a representation of data using latent variables that are interrelated through a causal model. In this paper, we focus on the scenario where unpaired observational and interventional data are available, with each intervention changing the mechanism of a latent variable. When the causal variables are fully observed, statistically consistent algorithms have been developed to identify the causal model under faithfulness assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-12T15:39:39Z)
• Nonparametric Identifiability of Causal Representations from Unknown Interventions [63.1354734978244]
  We study causal representation learning, the task of inferring latent causal variables and their causal relations from mixtures of the variables. Our goal is to identify both the ground truth latents and their causal graph up to a set of ambiguities which we show to be irresolvable from interventional data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T10:51:58Z)
• Bounding probabilities of causation through the causal marginal problem [12.542533707005092]
  Probabilities of causation play a fundamental role in decision making in law, health care and public policy. In many clinical trials and public policy evaluation cases, there exist independent datasets that examine the effect of a different treatment each on the same outcome variable. Here, we outline how to significantly tighten existing bounds on the probabilities of causation, by imposing counterfactual consistency between SCMs constructed from such independent datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-04T12:16:38Z)
• BaCaDI: Bayesian Causal Discovery with Unknown Interventions [118.93754590721173]
  BaCaDI operates in the continuous space of latent probabilistic representations of both causal structures and interventions. In experiments on synthetic causal discovery tasks and simulated gene-expression data, BaCaDI outperforms related methods in identifying causal structures and intervention targets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-03T16:25:48Z)
• Generalization bounds and algorithms for estimating conditional average treatment effect of dosage [13.867315751451494]
  We investigate the task of estimating the conditional average causal effect of treatment-dosage pairs from a combination of observational data and assumptions on the causal relationships in the underlying system. This has been a longstanding challenge for fields of study such as epidemiology or economics that require a treatment-dosage pair to make decisions. We show empirically new state-of-the-art performance results across several benchmark datasets for this problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-29T15:26:59Z)
• The interventional Bayesian Gaussian equivalent score for Bayesian causal inference with unknown soft interventions [0.0]
  In certain settings, such as genomics, we may have data from heterogeneous study conditions, with soft (partial) interventions only pertaining to a subset of the study variables. We define the interventional BGe score for a mixture of observational and interventional data, where the targets and effects of intervention may be unknown.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-05T12:32:08Z)
• Obtaining Causal Information by Merging Datasets with MAXENT [12.64433334351049]
  We discuss how causal knowledge can be obtained without having observed all variables jointly. We derive bounds on the interventional distribution and the average causal effect of a treatment on a target variable in the presence of confounders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-15T23:16:36Z)
• Multi-Source Causal Inference Using Control Variates [81.57072928775509]
  We propose a general algorithm to estimate causal effects from emphmultiple data sources. We show theoretically that this reduces the variance of the ATE estimate. We apply this framework to inference from observational data under an outcome selection bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-30T21:20:51Z)

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.