arXiv subjects

Thijs van Ommen

Publications and source records attributed to Thijs van Ommen.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Minimal Search Space for Conditional Causal Bandits

Causal knowledge can be used to support decision-making problems. This has been recognized in the causal bandits literature, where a causal (multi-armed) bandit is characterized by a causal graphical model and a target variable. The arms are then interventions on the causal model, and rewards are samples of the target variable. Causal bandits were originally studied with a focus on hard interventions. We focus instead on cases where the arms are conditional interventions, which more accurately model many real-world decision-making problems by allowing the value of the intervened variable to be chosen based on the observed values of other variables. This paper presents a graphical characterization of the minimal set of nodes guaranteed to contain the optimal conditional intervention, which maximizes the expected reward. We then propose an efficient algorithm with a time complexity of $O(|V| + |E|)$ to identify this minimal set of nodes. We prove that the graphical characterization and the proposed algorithm are correct. Finally, we empirically demonstrate that our algorithm significantly prunes the search space and substantially accelerates convergence rates when integrated into standard multi-armed bandit algorithms.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

The risks of risk assessment: causal blind spots when using prediction models for treatment decisions

Clinicians increasingly rely on prediction models to guide treatment choices. Most prediction models, however, are developed using observational data that include some patients who have already received the treatment the prediction model is meant to inform. Special attention to the causal role of those earlier treatments is required when interpreting the resulting predictions. We identify 'causal blind spots' in three common approaches to handling treatment when developing a prediction model: including treatment as a predictor, restricting to individuals taking a certain treatment, and ignoring treatment. Through several real examples, we illustrate how the risks obtained from models developed using such approaches may be misinterpreted and can lead to misinformed decision-making. Our discussion covers issues attributable to confounding, selection, mediation and changes in treatment protocols over time. We advocate for an extension of guidelines for the development, reporting and evaluation of prediction models to avoid such misinterpretations. Developers must ensure that the intended target population for the model, and the treatment conditions under which predictions hold, are clearly communicated. When prediction models are intended to inform treatment decisions, they need to provide estimates of risk under the specific treatment (or intervention) options being considered, known as 'prediction under interventions'. Next to suitable data, this requires causal reasoning and causal inference techniques during model development and evaluation. Being clear about what a given prediction model can and cannot be used for prevents misinformed treatment decisions and thereby prevents potential harm to patients.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

The Causal Information Bottleneck and Optimal Causal Variable Abstractions

To effectively study complex causal systems, it is often useful to construct abstractions of parts of the system by discarding irrelevant details while preserving key features. The Information Bottleneck (IB) method is a widely used approach to construct variable abstractions by compressing random variables while retaining predictive power over a target variable. Traditional methods like IB are purely statistical and ignore underlying causal structures, making them ill-suited for causal tasks. We propose the Causal Information Bottleneck (CIB), a causal extension of the IB, which compresses a set of chosen variables while maintaining causal control over a target variable. This method produces abstractions of (sets of) variables which are causally interpretable, give us insight about the interactions between the abstracted variables and the target variable, and can be used when reasoning about interventions. We present experimental results demonstrating that the learned abstractions accurately capture causal relations as intended.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Efficiently Deciding Algebraic Equivalence of Bow-Free Acyclic Path Diagrams

For causal discovery in the presence of latent confounders, constraints beyond conditional independences exist that can enable causal discovery algorithms to distinguish more pairs of graphs. Such constraints are not well-understood yet. In the setting of linear structural equation models without bows, we study algebraic constraints and argue that these provide the most fine-grained resolution achievable. We propose efficient algorithms that decide whether two graphs impose the same algebraic constraints, or whether the constraints imposed by one graph are a subset of those imposed by another graph.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Fundamental Properties of Causal Entropy and Information Gain

Recent developments enable the quantification of causal control given a structural causal model (SCM). This has been accomplished by introducing quantities which encode changes in the entropy of one variable when intervening on another. These measures, named causal entropy and causal information gain, aim to address limitations in existing information theoretical approaches for machine learning tasks where causality plays a crucial role. They have not yet been properly mathematically studied. Our research contributes to the formal understanding of the notions of causal entropy and causal information gain by establishing and analyzing fundamental properties of these concepts, including bounds and chain rules. Furthermore, we elucidate the relationship between causal entropy and stochastic interventions. We also propose definitions for causal conditional entropy and causal conditional information gain. Overall, this exploration paves the way for enhancing causal machine learning tasks through the study of recently-proposed information theoretic quantities grounded in considerations about causality.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Causal Entropy and Information Gain for Measuring Causal Control

Artificial intelligence models and methods commonly lack causal interpretability. Despite the advancements in interpretable machine learning (IML) methods, they frequently assign importance to features which lack causal influence on the outcome variable. Selecting causally relevant features among those identified as relevant by these methods, or even before model training, would offer a solution. Feature selection methods utilizing information theoretical quantities have been successful in identifying statistically relevant features. However, the information theoretical quantities they are based on do not incorporate causality, rendering them unsuitable for such scenarios. To address this challenge, this article proposes information theoretical quantities that incorporate the causal structure of the system, which can be used to evaluate causal importance of features for some given outcome variable. Specifically, we introduce causal versions of entropy and mutual information, termed causal entropy and causal information gain, which are designed to assess how much control a feature provides over the outcome variable. These newly defined quantities capture changes in the entropy of a variable resulting from interventions on other variables. Fundamental results connecting these quantities to the existence of causal effects are derived. The use of causal information gain in feature selection is demonstrated, highlighting its superiority over standard mutual information in revealing which features provide control over a chosen outcome variable. Our investigation paves the way for the development of methods with improved interpretability in domains involving causation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Risk-based decision making: estimands for sequential prediction under interventions

Prediction models are used amongst others to inform medical decisions on interventions. Typically, individuals with high risks of adverse outcomes are advised to undergo an intervention while those at low risk are advised to refrain from it. Standard prediction models do not always provide risks that are relevant to inform such decisions: e.g., an individual may be estimated to be at low risk because similar individuals in the past received an intervention which lowered their risk. Therefore, prediction models supporting decisions should target risks belonging to defined intervention strategies. Previous works on prediction under interventions assumed that the prediction model was used only at one time point to make an intervention decision. In clinical practice, intervention decisions are rarely made only once: they might be repeated, deferred and re-evaluated. This requires estimated risks under interventions that can be reconsidered at several potential decision moments. In the current work, we highlight key considerations for formulating estimands in sequential prediction under interventions that can inform such intervention decisions. We illustrate these considerations by giving examples of estimands for a case study about choosing between vaginal delivery and cesarean section for women giving birth. Our formalization of prediction tasks in a sequential, causal, and estimand context provides guidance for future studies to ensure that the right question is answered and appropriate causal estimation approaches are chosen to develop sequential prediction models that can inform intervention decisions.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

Graphical Representations for Algebraic Constraints of Linear Structural Equations Models

The observational characteristics of a linear structural equation model can be effectively described by polynomial constraints on the observed covariance matrix. However, these polynomials can be exponentially large, making them impractical for many purposes. In this paper, we present a graphical notation for many of these polynomial constraints. The expressive power of this notation is investigated both theoretically and empirically.

math.ST↗

arXiv2018

Inconsistency of Bayesian Inference for Misspecified Linear Models, and a Proposal for Repairing It

We empirically show that Bayesian inference can be inconsistent under misspecification in simple linear regression problems, both in a model averaging/selection and in a Bayesian ridge regression setting. We use the standard linear model, which assumes homoskedasticity, whereas the data are heteroskedastic, and observe that the posterior puts its mass on ever more high-dimensional models as the sample size increases. To remedy the problem, we equip the likelihood in Bayes' theorem with an exponent called the learning rate, and we propose the Safe Bayesian method to learn the learning rate from the data. SafeBayes tends to select small learning rates as soon the standard posterior is not `cumulatively concentrated', and its results on our data are quite encouraging.

math.ST↗

arXiv2018

Domain Adaptation by Using Causal Inference to Predict Invariant Conditional Distributions

An important goal common to domain adaptation and causal inference is to make accurate predictions when the distributions for the source (or training) domain(s) and target (or test) domain(s) differ. In many cases, these different distributions can be modeled as different contexts of a single underlying system, in which each distribution corresponds to a different perturbation of the system, or in causal terms, an intervention. We focus on a class of such causal domain adaptation problems, where data for one or more source domains are given, and the task is to predict the distribution of a certain target variable from measurements of other variables in one or more target domains. We propose an approach for solving these problems that exploits causal inference and does not rely on prior knowledge of the causal graph, the type of interventions or the intervention targets. We demonstrate our approach by evaluating a possible implementation on simulated and real world data.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2018

Algebraic Equivalence of Linear Structural Equation Models

Despite their popularity, many questions about the algebraic constraints imposed by linear structural equation models remain open problems. For causal discovery, two of these problems are especially important: the enumeration of the constraints imposed by a model, and deciding whether two graphs define the same statistical model. We show how the half-trek criterion can be used to make progress in both of these problems. We apply our theoretical results to a small-scale model selection problem, and find that taking the additional algebraic constraints into account may lead to significant improvements in model selection accuracy.

math.ST↗

arXiv2016

Robust Probability Updating

This paper discusses an alternative to conditioning that may be used when the probability distribution is not fully specified. It does not require any assumptions (such as CAR: coarsening at random) on the unknown distribution. The well-known Monty Hall problem is the simplest scenario where neither naive conditioning nor the CAR assumption suffice to determine an updated probability distribution. This paper thus addresses a generalization of that problem to arbitrary distributions on finite outcome spaces, arbitrary sets of `messages', and (almost) arbitrary loss functions, and provides existence and characterization theorems for robust probability updating strategies. We find that for logarithmic loss, optimality is characterized by an elegant condition, which we call RCAR (reverse coarsening at random). Under certain conditions, the same condition also characterizes optimality for a much larger class of loss functions, and we obtain an objective and general answer to how one should update probabilities in the light of new information.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2014

Combining predictions from linear models when training and test inputs differ

Methods for combining predictions from different models in a supervised learning setting must somehow estimate/predict the quality of a model's predictions at unknown future inputs. Many of these methods (often implicitly) make the assumption that the test inputs are identical to the training inputs, which is seldom reasonable. By failing to take into account that prediction will generally be harder for test inputs that did not occur in the training set, this leads to the selection of too complex models. Based on a novel, unbiased expression for KL divergence, we propose XAIC and its special case FAIC as versions of AIC intended for prediction that use different degrees of knowledge of the test inputs. Both methods substantially differ from and may outperform all the known versions of AIC even when the training and test inputs are iid, and are especially useful for deterministic inputs and under covariate shift. Our experiments on linear models suggest that if the test and training inputs differ substantially, then XAIC and FAIC predictively outperform AIC, BIC and several other methods including Bayesian model averaging.

stat.ME↗