Position: Causal Machine Learning Requires Rigorous Synthetic Experiments for Broader Adoption

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.08883v1
• Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 12:13:13 GMT
• Title: Position: Causal Machine Learning Requires Rigorous Synthetic Experiments for Broader Adoption
• Authors: Audrey Poinsot, Panayiotis Panayiotou, Alessandro Leite, Nicolas Chesneau, Özgür Şimşek, Marc Schoenauer,
• Abstract summary: Causal machine learning has the potential to revolutionize decision-making.<n>Current empirical evaluations do not permit assessment of causal machine learning methods.<n>We propose a set of principles for conducting rigorous empirical analyses with synthetic data.
• Score: 40.20066466333953
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Causal machine learning has the potential to revolutionize decision-making by combining the predictive power of machine learning algorithms with the theory of causal inference. However, these methods remain underutilized by the broader machine learning community, in part because current empirical evaluations do not permit assessment of their reliability and robustness, undermining their practical utility. Specifically, one of the principal criticisms made by the community is the extensive use of synthetic experiments. We argue, on the contrary, that synthetic experiments are essential and necessary to precisely assess and understand the capabilities of causal machine learning methods. To substantiate our position, we critically review the current evaluation practices, spotlight their shortcomings, and propose a set of principles for conducting rigorous empirical analyses with synthetic data. Adopting the proposed principles will enable comprehensive evaluations that build trust in causal machine learning methods, driving their broader adoption and impactful real-world use.

Related papers

• The Benchmarking Epistemology: Construct Validity for Evaluating Machine Learning Models [1.1315617886931963]
  We develop conditions of construct validity inspired by psychological measurement theory.<n>We examine these assumptions in practice through three case studies.<n>Our framework clarifies conditions under which benchmark scores can support diverse scientific claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T10:30:30Z)
• Option Pricing Using Ensemble Learning [0.0]
  Ensemble learning is characterized by flexibility, high precision, and refined structure.<n>This paper investigates the application of ensemble learning to option pricing, and conducts a comparative analysis with classical machine learning models.<n>A novel experimental strategy is introduced, leveraging parameter transfer across experiments to improve robustness and realism in financial simulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T06:55:49Z)
• MOOSE-Chem3: Toward Experiment-Guided Hypothesis Ranking via Simulated Experimental Feedback [136.27567671480156]
  We introduce experiment-guided ranking, which prioritizes hypotheses based on feedback from prior tests.<n>We frame experiment-guided ranking as a sequential decision-making problem.<n>Our approach significantly outperforms pre-experiment baselines and strong ablations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T13:24:50Z)
• Unveiling the Role of Expert Guidance: A Comparative Analysis of User-centered Imitation Learning and Traditional Reinforcement Learning [0.0]
  This study explores the performance, robustness, and limitations of imitation learning compared to traditional reinforcement learning methods. The insights gained from this study contribute to the advancement of human-centered artificial intelligence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T18:07:44Z)
• Information-Theoretic Foundations for Machine Learning [20.617552198581024]
  We propose a theoretical framework which attempts to provide rigor to existing practices in machine learning.<n>We provide a framework rooted in Bayesian statistics and Shannon's information theory which is general enough to unify the analysis of many phenomena in machine learning.<n>Unlike existing analyses that weaken with increasing data complexity, our theoretical tools provide accurate insights across diverse machine learning settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T03:18:40Z)
• Design Principles for Falsifiable, Replicable and Reproducible Empirical ML Research [2.3265565167163906]
  Empirical research plays a fundamental role in the machine learning domain. We propose a model for the empirical research process, accompanied by guidelines to uphold the validity of empirical research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T11:37:59Z)
• RLIF: Interactive Imitation Learning as Reinforcement Learning [56.997263135104504]
  We show how off-policy reinforcement learning can enable improved performance under assumptions that are similar but potentially even more practical than those of interactive imitation learning. Our proposed method uses reinforcement learning with user intervention signals themselves as rewards. This relaxes the assumption that intervening experts in interactive imitation learning should be near-optimal and enables the algorithm to learn behaviors that improve over the potential suboptimal human expert.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-21T21:05:21Z)
• A Double Machine Learning Approach to Combining Experimental and Observational Data [59.29868677652324]
  We propose a double machine learning approach to combine experimental and observational studies. Our framework tests for violations of external validity and ignorability under milder assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-04T02:53:11Z)
• The role of prior information and computational power in Machine Learning [0.0]
  We discuss how prior information and computational power can be employed to solve a learning problem. We argue that employing high computational power has the advantage of a higher performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T20:39:53Z)
• 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)
• Benchopt: Reproducible, efficient and collaborative optimization benchmarks [67.29240500171532]
  Benchopt is a framework to automate, reproduce and publish optimization benchmarks in machine learning. Benchopt simplifies benchmarking for the community by providing an off-the-shelf tool for running, sharing and extending experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-27T16:19:24Z)
• Nonparametric Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects: From Theory to Learning Algorithms [91.3755431537592]
  We analyze four broad meta-learning strategies which rely on plug-in estimation and pseudo-outcome regression. We highlight how this theoretical reasoning can be used to guide principled algorithm design and translate our analyses into practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-26T17:11:40Z)

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.