Recent critiques of Physics Education Research (PER) studies have revoiced the critical issues when drawing causal inferences from observational data where no intervention is present. In response to a call for a "causal reasoning primer", this paper discusses some of the fundamental issues underlying statistical causal inference. In reviewing these issues, we discuss well-established causal inference methods commonly applied in other fields and discuss their application to PER. Using simulated data sets, we illustrate (i) why analysis for causal inference should control for confounders but not control for mediators and colliders and (ii) that multiple proposed causal models can fit a highly correlated data set. Finally, we discuss how these causal inference methods can be used to represent and explain existing issues in quantitative PER. Throughout, we discuss a central issue: quantitative results from observational studies cannot support a researcher's proposed causal model over other alternative models. To address this issue, we propose an explicit role for observational studies in PER that draw statistical causal inferences: proposing future intervention studies and predicting their outcomes. Mirroring a broader connection between theoretical motivating experiments in physics, observational studies in PER can make quantitative predictions of the causal effects of interventions, and future intervention studies can test those predictions directly.
相關內容
In this paper, we provide a novel framework for the analysis of generalization error of first-order optimization algorithms for statistical learning when the gradient can only be accessed through partial observations given by an oracle. Our analysis relies on the regularity of the gradient w.r.t. the data samples, and allows to derive near matching upper and lower bounds for the generalization error of multiple learning problems, including supervised learning, transfer learning, robust learning, distributed learning and communication efficient learning using gradient quantization. These results hold for smooth and strongly-convex optimization problems, as well as smooth non-convex optimization problems verifying a Polyak-Lojasiewicz assumption. In particular, our upper and lower bounds depend on a novel quantity that extends the notion of conditional standard deviation, and is a measure of the extent to which the gradient can be approximated by having access to the oracle. As a consequence, our analysis provides a precise meaning to the intuition that optimization of the statistical learning objective is as hard as the estimation of its gradient. Finally, we show that, in the case of standard supervised learning, mini-batch gradient descent with increasing batch sizes and a warm start can reach a generalization error that is optimal up to a multiplicative factor, thus motivating the use of this optimization scheme in practical applications.
Matching and weighting methods for observational studies involve the choice of an estimand, the causal effect with reference to a specific target population. Commonly used estimands include the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT), the average treatment effect in the untreated (ATU), the average treatment effect in the population (ATE), and the average treatment effect in the overlap (i.e., equipoise population; ATO). Each estimand has its own assumptions, interpretation, and statistical methods that can be used to estimate it. This article provides guidance on selecting and interpreting an estimand to help medical researchers correctly implement statistical methods used to estimate causal effects in observational studies and to help audiences correctly interpret the results and limitations of these studies. The interpretations of the estimands resulting from regression and instrumental variable analyses are also discussed. Choosing an estimand carefully is essential for making valid inferences from the analysis of observational data and ensuring results are replicable and useful for practitioners.
The practical utility of causality in decision-making is widely recognized, with causal discovery and inference being inherently intertwined. Nevertheless, a notable gap exists in the evaluation of causal discovery methods, where insufficient emphasis is placed on downstream inference. To address this gap, we evaluate six established baseline causal discovery methods and a newly proposed method based on GFlowNets, on the downstream task of treatment effect estimation. Through the implementation of a robust evaluation procedure, we offer valuable insights into the efficacy of these causal discovery methods for treatment effect estimation, considering both synthetic and real-world scenarios, as well as low-data scenarios. Furthermore, the results of our study demonstrate that GFlowNets possess the capability to effectively capture a wide range of useful and diverse ATE modes.
Causal discovery and causal reasoning are classically treated as separate and consecutive tasks: one first infers the causal graph, and then uses it to estimate causal effects of interventions. However, such a two-stage approach is uneconomical, especially in terms of actively collected interventional data, since the causal query of interest may not require a fully-specified causal model. From a Bayesian perspective, it is also unnatural, since a causal query (e.g., the causal graph or some causal effect) can be viewed as a latent quantity subject to posterior inference -- other unobserved quantities that are not of direct interest (e.g., the full causal model) ought to be marginalized out in this process and contribute to our epistemic uncertainty. In this work, we propose Active Bayesian Causal Inference (ABCI), a fully-Bayesian active learning framework for integrated causal discovery and reasoning, which jointly infers a posterior over causal models and queries of interest. In our approach to ABCI, we focus on the class of causally-sufficient, nonlinear additive noise models, which we model using Gaussian processes. We sequentially design experiments that are maximally informative about our target causal query, collect the corresponding interventional data, and update our beliefs to choose the next experiment. Through simulations, we demonstrate that our approach is more data-efficient than several baselines that only focus on learning the full causal graph. This allows us to accurately learn downstream causal queries from fewer samples while providing well-calibrated uncertainty estimates for the quantities of interest.
Understanding causality helps to structure interventions to achieve specific goals and enables predictions under interventions. With the growing importance of learning causal relationships, causal discovery tasks have transitioned from using traditional methods to infer potential causal structures from observational data to the field of pattern recognition involved in deep learning. The rapid accumulation of massive data promotes the emergence of causal search methods with brilliant scalability. Existing summaries of causal discovery methods mainly focus on traditional methods based on constraints, scores and FCMs, there is a lack of perfect sorting and elaboration for deep learning-based methods, also lacking some considers and exploration of causal discovery methods from the perspective of variable paradigms. Therefore, we divide the possible causal discovery tasks into three types according to the variable paradigm and give the definitions of the three tasks respectively, define and instantiate the relevant datasets for each task and the final causal model constructed at the same time, then reviews the main existing causal discovery methods for different tasks. Finally, we propose some roadmaps from different perspectives for the current research gaps in the field of causal discovery and point out future research directions.
Existing recommender systems extract the user preference based on learning the correlation in data, such as behavioral correlation in collaborative filtering, feature-feature, or feature-behavior correlation in click-through rate prediction. However, regretfully, the real world is driven by causality rather than correlation, and correlation does not imply causation. For example, the recommender systems can recommend a battery charger to a user after buying a phone, in which the latter can serve as the cause of the former, and such a causal relation cannot be reversed. Recently, to address it, researchers in recommender systems have begun to utilize causal inference to extract causality, enhancing the recommender system. In this survey, we comprehensively review the literature on causal inference-based recommendation. At first, we present the fundamental concepts of both recommendation and causal inference as the basis of later content. We raise the typical issues that the non-causality recommendation is faced. Afterward, we comprehensively review the existing work of causal inference-based recommendation, based on a taxonomy of what kind of problem causal inference addresses. Last, we discuss the open problems in this important research area, along with interesting future works.
A fundamental goal of scientific research is to learn about causal relationships. However, despite its critical role in the life and social sciences, causality has not had the same importance in Natural Language Processing (NLP), which has traditionally placed more emphasis on predictive tasks. This distinction is beginning to fade, with an emerging area of interdisciplinary research at the convergence of causal inference and language processing. Still, research on causality in NLP remains scattered across domains without unified definitions, benchmark datasets and clear articulations of the remaining challenges. In this survey, we consolidate research across academic areas and situate it in the broader NLP landscape. We introduce the statistical challenge of estimating causal effects, encompassing settings where text is used as an outcome, treatment, or as a means to address confounding. In addition, we explore potential uses of causal inference to improve the performance, robustness, fairness, and interpretability of NLP models. We thus provide a unified overview of causal inference for the computational linguistics community.
Analyzing observational data from multiple sources can be useful for increasing statistical power to detect a treatment effect; however, practical constraints such as privacy considerations may restrict individual-level information sharing across data sets. This paper develops federated methods that only utilize summary-level information from heterogeneous data sets. Our federated methods provide doubly-robust point estimates of treatment effects as well as variance estimates. We derive the asymptotic distributions of our federated estimators, which are shown to be asymptotically equivalent to the corresponding estimators from the combined, individual-level data. We show that to achieve these properties, federated methods should be adjusted based on conditions such as whether models are correctly specified and stable across heterogeneous data sets.
This work considers the question of how convenient access to copious data impacts our ability to learn causal effects and relations. In what ways is learning causality in the era of big data different from -- or the same as -- the traditional one? To answer this question, this survey provides a comprehensive and structured review of both traditional and frontier methods in learning causality and relations along with the connections between causality and machine learning. This work points out on a case-by-case basis how big data facilitates, complicates, or motivates each approach.
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.
小貼士
登錄享
相關主題
注冊地址： 北京市海淀區羊坊店路18號2幢3層301-191