We consider decision problems under uncertainty where the options available to a decision maker and the resulting outcome are related through a causal mechanism which is unknown to the decision maker. We ask how a decision maker can learn about this causal mechanism through sequential decision making as well as using current causal knowledge inside each round in order to make better choices had she not considered causal knowledge and propose a decision making procedure in which an agent holds about her environment which are used to make a choice and are updated using the observed outcome. As proof of concept, we present an implementation of this causal decision making model and apply it in a simple scenario. We show that the model achieves a performance similar to the classic Q-learning while it also acquires a causal model of the environment.
As far as we know @cite_9 is the first paper to consider causal relations between the effects of actions. They consider a decision maker who must choose the best among several possible interventions on a given causal model. The optimality of the action in this context is in terms of the minimal regret. The case where the causal model is not known is left as future work.
@cite_9
2542071751 1486066286 2017479918 1850984366
Motivated by online recommendation and advertising systems, we consider a causal model for stochastic contextual bandits with a latent low-dimensional confounder. In our model, there are @math observed contexts and @math arms of the bandit. The observed context influences the reward obtained through a latent confounder variable with cardinality @math ( @math ). The arm choice and the latent confounder causally determines the reward while the observed context is correlated with the confounder. Under this model, the @math mean reward matrix @math (for each context in @math and each arm in @math ) factorizes into non-negative factors @math ( @math ) and @math ( @math ). This insight enables us to propose an @math -greedy NMF-Bandit algorithm that designs a sequence of interventions (selecting specific arms), that achieves a balance between learning this low-dimensional structure and selecting the best arm to minimize regret. Our algorithm achieves a regret of @math at time @math , as compared to @math for conventional contextual bandits, assuming a constant gap between the best arm and the rest for each context. These guarantees are obtained under mild sufficiency conditions on the factors that are weaker versions of the well-known Statistical RIP condition. We further propose a class of generative models that satisfy our sufficient conditions, and derive a lower bound of @math . These are the first regret guarantees for online matrix completion with bandit feedback, when the rank is greater than one. We further compare the performance of our algorithm with the state of the art, on synthetic and real world data-sets. This paper is concerned with estimating the effects of actions from causal assumptions, represented concisely as a directed graph, and statistical knowledge, given as a probability distribution. We provide a necessary and sufficient graphical condition for the cases when the causal effect of an arbitrary set of variables on another arbitrary set can be determined uniquely from the available information, as well as an algorithm which computes the effect whenever this condition holds. Furthermore, we use our results to prove completeness of do-calculus [Pearl, 1995], and a version of an identification algorithm in [Tian, 2002] for the same identification problem. Finally, we derive a complete characterization of semi-Markovian models in which all causal effects are identifiable. Recent research on reasoning about action has shown that the traditional logic form of domain constraints is problematic to represent ramifications of actions that are related to causality of domains. To handle this problem properly, as proposed by some researchers, it is necessary to describe causal relations of domains explicitly in action theories. In this paper, we address this problem from a new point of view. Specifically, unlike other researchers viewing causal relations as some kind of inference rules, we distinguish causal relations between defeasible and non-defeasible cases. It turns out that a causal theory in our formalism can be specified by using Reiter's default logic. Based on this idea, we propose a causality-based minimal change approach for representing effects of actions, and argue that our approach provides more plausible solutions for the ramification and qualification problems compared with other related work. We also describe a logic programming approximation to compute causal theories of actions which provides an implementational basis for our approach. 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.