Here we consider, in the context of causal inference, the basic question: 'what can be estimated from data?'. We call this the question of estimability. We consider the usual definition adopted in the causal inference literature -- identifiability -- in a general mathematical setting and show why it is an inadequate formal translation of the concept of estimability. Despite showing that identifiability implies the existence of a Fisher-consistent estimator, we show that this estimator may be discontinuous, and hence unstable, in general. The difficulty arises because the causal inference problem is in general an ill-posed inverse problem. Inverse problems have three conditions which must be satisfied in order to be considered well-posed: existence, uniqueness, and stability of solutions. We illustrate how identifiability corresponds to the question of uniqueness; in contrast, we take estimability to mean satisfaction of all three conditions, i.e. well-posedness. It follows that mere identifiability does not guarantee well-posedness of a causal inference procedure, i.e. estimability, and apparent solutions to causal inference problems can be essentially useless with even the smallest amount of imperfection. These concerns apply, in particular, to causal inference approaches that focus on identifiability while ignoring the additional stability requirements needed for estimability.
As mentioned, we largely take an inverse problems approach in the present work, but relate these ideas back to the statistical and causal inference literature. Importantly, while the inverse problems, statistical, and econometrics communities have long focused on stability and well-posedness results, it appears that the (graphical) causal inference literature is much more lacking in such results. One exception that we are aware of is the recent article by @cite_1 , which in fact provides a realistic example of the stability issues raised in the present work.
@cite_1
1961009203 1963643305 1850984366 2949984162
Mining for association rules in market basket data has proved a fruitful area of research. Measures such as conditional probability (confidence) and correlation have been used to infer rules of the form “the existence of item A implies the existence of item B.” However, such rules indicate only a statistical relationship between A and B. They do not specify the nature of the relationship: whether the presence of A causes the presence of B, or the converse, or some other attribute or phenomenon causes both to appear together. In applications, knowing such causal relationships is extremely useful for enhancing understanding and effecting change. While distinguishing causality from correlation is a truly difficult problem, recent work in statistics and Bayesian learning provide some avenues of attack. In these fields, the goal has generally been to learn complete causal models, which are essentially impossible to learn in large-scale data mining applications with a large number of variables. In this paper, we consider the problem of determining casual relationships, instead of mere associations, when mining market basket data. We identify some problems with the direct application of Bayesian learning ideas to mining large databases, concerning both the scalability of algorithms and the appropriateness of the statistical techniques, and introduce some initial ideas for dealing with these problems. We present experimental results from applying our algorithms on several large, real-world data sets. The results indicate that the approach proposed here is both computationally feasible and successful in identifying interesting causal structures. An interesting outcome is that it is perhaps easier to infer the lack of causality than to infer causality, information that is useful in preventing erroneous decision making. In this paper we study statistical inference for certain inverse problems. We go beyond mere estimation purposes and review and develop the construction of confidence intervals and confidence bands in some inverse problems, including deconvolution and the backward heat equation. Further, we discuss the construction of certain hypothesis tests, in particular concerning the number of local maxima of the unknown function. The methods are illustrated in a case study, where we analyze the distribution of heliocentric escape velocities of galaxies in the Centaurus galaxy cluster, and provide statistical evidence for its bimodality. The discovery of causal relationships from purely observational data is a fundamental problem in science. The most elementary form of such a causal discovery problem is to decide whether X causes Y or, alternatively, Y causes X, given joint observations of two variables X,Y. An example is to decide whether altitude causes temperature, or vice versa, given only joint measurements of both variables. Even under the simplifying assumptions of no confounding, no feedback loops, and no selection bias, such bivariate causal discovery problems are challenging. Nevertheless, several approaches for addressing those problems have been proposed in recent years. We review two families of such methods: methods based on Additive Noise Models (ANMs) and Information Geometric Causal Inference (IGCI). We present the benchmark CAUSEEFFECTPAIRS that consists of data for 100 different causee ffect pairs selected from 37 data sets from various domains (e.g., meteorology, biology, medicine, engineering, economy, etc.) and motivate our decisions regarding the "ground truth" causal directions of all pairs. We evaluate the performance of several bivariate causal discovery methods on these real-world benchmark data and in addition on artificially simulated data. Our empirical results on real-world data indicate that certain methods are indeed able to distinguish cause from effect using only purely observational data, although more benchmark data would be needed to obtain statistically significant conclusions. One of the best performing methods overall is the method based on Additive Noise Models that has originally been proposed by (2009), which obtains an accuracy of 63 ± 10 and an AUC of 0.74 ± 0.05 on the real-world benchmark. As the main theoretical contribution of this work we prove the consistency of that method. This paper addresses the problem of measurement errors in causal inference and highlights several algebraic and graphical methods for eliminating systematic bias induced by such errors. In particulars, the paper discusses the control of partially observable confounders in parametric and non parametric models and the computational problem of obtaining bias-free effect estimates in such models.