Causal Density Functions

Let $p(x)$ be the joint density of variables $X$, and let $ψ(x)=\nabla_x\log p(x)$ be its score field. Geometry constructed from $p$ and $ψ$ alone cannot identify causal direction: structural models with the same observational distribution have the same score geometry. I develop an interventional analogue. A hard intervention $\operatorname{do}(X_k=ξ)$ does not merely reweight the joint law; it restricts the distribution to the submanifold ${x_k=ξ}$. Its score should therefore be defined on the remaining $d-1$ free coordinates. I define causal influence $X_k\rightsquigarrow X_j$ as variation of the interventional marginal distribution of $X_j$ with $ξ$, and show that the corresponding derivative of the marginal interventional score gives a local sufficient condition for influence. Projecting the observational score onto admissible intervention directions does not generally recover causal response: two models may share the same observational score and admissible set yet respond differently. I therefore introduce an interventional response field supplied by structural information. A causal metric is defined as the Fisher information metric on a family of interventions with a common target, avoiding ill-posed comparisons across targets. The framework yields a geometric dictionary for randomized trials, instrumental variables, and conditional-independence designs, clarifying what each does and does not identify. A bivariate Gaussian example gives two models with the same observational score but different interventional score derivatives. The framework organizes relations among designs, interventions, and score fields, but adds no identification beyond the underlying assumptions. In Pearl's Ladder of Causation, observational score geometry belongs to association, intervention-indexed score fields to intervention, and unit-level counterfactual geometry is left for future work.

The do-calculus defines a general system of inference for interventional queries, allowing causal quantities to be transformed through successive applications of its rules. This process induces a rich space of equivalent interventional expressions, but combining and ordering these rules remains challenging. In this work, we introduce derivation graphs, which represent how do-calculus rules are applied and combined, and characterize the full space of observational and interventional probabilities which are equivalent under the do-calculus. The structure of these graphs yields a simple procedure that uses at most four applications of do-calculus rules. Finally, we show how applying identification algorithms to equivalent causal queries produces multiple valid estimands for the same causal quantity, eventually yielding more efficient estimators.

There is a precise sense in which drawing causal inferences from observational data is hard, even when identifiability is assumed. In particular, Robins and Ritov (1997) and Robins et al. (2003) showed that causal effects can be discontinuous as a function of the data distribution: two arbitrarily close data distributions might correspond to different causal effects. This is a fact independent of the choice of estimator; however, not all estimators are equally unstable. Our contribution is to surface a second layer of instability that depends on the choice of estimator. We show that many standard point estimates can be read as point summaries of multimodal distributions over the space of structural causal models. As such, estimators can jump discontinuously in the data distribution. This defines a taxonomy of estimators that admits a decision-theoretic reading: stability depends on whether the implicit loss function an estimator optimizes is aligned with the causal effect itself. Specifically, inverse propensity weighted estimators and regression estimators are examples of discontinuous summaries, while explicit posterior means and medians are shown to be continuous.