Learning Causal Normalizing Flows from Incomplete Data via Observed-Data Likelihood
Authors: Trung-Dung Hoang, Alceu Bissoto, Tim Flühmann, David Herzig, Christos Nakas, Lia Bally, Lisa M. Koch
Organizations: Department of Digital Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland · Department of Diabetes, Endocrinology, Nutritional Medicine and Metabolism (UDEM), Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland · Graduate School for Cellular and Biomedical Sciences (GCB), University of Bern, Switzerland · Diabetes Center Berne, Switzerland · Department of Clinical Chemistry, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland · Laboratory of Biometry, School of Agriculture, University of Thessaly, 384 46 Volos, Greece
Causal Normalizing Flows (CNFs) enable causal inference from observational data given the causal structure, but they assume fully observed training data. We introduce MissCNF, which trains CNFs directly on incomplete data by maximizing the marginal likelihood of each partially observed sample, without discarding rows or constructing a completed dataset. Thanks to the causal structure encoded in the autoregressive factorization of CNFs, only missing variables in the ancestral closure of the observed set are integrated out, while the others are dropped without computation. We further establish the conditions under which MissCNF recovers the true joint distribution, and introduce causal-family positivity, where identification is possible even when no record in the dataset is ever complete. We compare MissCNF with two common strategies for handling missing data: listwise deletion and impute-then-fit pipelines. Across eight synthetic causal benchmarks, three missingness mechanisms, and missing rates up to 90%, MissCNF achieves the lowest KL divergence in 23 of 24 nonlinear MCAR and MAR settings and in all nonlinear MNAR settings, as well as the lowest counterfactual error in 20 of 24 settings. On linear SCMs, where linear imputation performs best, MissCNF ranks in the top two in 22 of 24 settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) With O={1,2,5} observed, A is {1,2,3,5} . X3 is a missing ancestor and must be integrated out. X4 is barren and is dropped without integration. (b) One MC sample of Algorithm 1 . Nodes in A are processed in topological order. Observed nodes are mapped forward to their noise and added to the log-likelihood. The missing X3 is generated from the noise u3(k) and passed on to its children. X4 is skipped.
Figure 2: Left: the two observed patterns. Right: the causal family {i}∪pa(i) of each node and the patterns that contain it. No pattern observes all of V , but every family is observed by at least one pattern.
Figure 3: Results under MCAR and MAR at 30%, 60%, and 90% missing rates (mean ± std over 5 seeds; lower is better). (a) Symmetric KL divergence to the ground-truth distribution on all SCMs. (b) RMSECF on the nonlinear SCMs. The dashed line marks the model trained on complete data.
Figure 4: KL to the ground-truth distribution on Chain and Fork graphs (linear and nonlinear) under three regimes: Full positivity , Family positivity , and Family positivity violated . The dashed line marks the model trained on complete data.
Method
Chain LIN
Fork LIN
Collider LIN
Triangle LIN
Chain NLIN
Fork NLIN
Collider NLIN
Triangle NLIN
MICE
0.058 ± 0.046
0.030 ± 0.010
0.110 ± 0.080
0.014 ± 0.010
0.931 ± 0.279
19.116 ± 0.236
0.251 ± 0.146
16.060 ± 0.589
KPI
0.685 ± 0.220
0.997 ± 0.158
0.731 ± 0.349
0.650 ± 0.268
0.687 ± 0.301
1.574 ± 0.136
0.785 ± 0.399
5.596 ± 0.778
O-MIRACLE
3.808 ± 4.190
1.011 ± 0.386
0.956 ± 0.399
3.936 ± 4.829
2.749 ± 2.780
1.700 ± 0.423
0.921 ± 0.372
3.839 ± 2.393
MissCNF
0.083 ± 0.052
0.048 ± 0.025
0.117 ± 0.094
0.031 ± 0.016
0.121 ± 0.042
0.066 ± 0.030
0.177 ± 0.127
0.288 ± 0.280
Table 1: KL to the ground-truth distribution under self-masking MNAR at 60% missingness. Mean ± std over 5 seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best per task.
Figure 5: Scaling of MC samples and compute.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Causal graph of the different SCMs considered in Section 4 ( Javaloy et al., 2023 ) .
Method
Chain LIN
Fork LIN
Collider LIN
Triangle LIN
Chain NLIN
Fork NLIN
Collider NLIN
Triangle NLIN
Full data (reference)
0.005 ± 0.003
0.010 ± 0.004
0.003 ± 0.002
0.007 ± 0.005
0.002 ± 0.002
0.013 ± 0.003
0.004 ± 0.001
0.015 ± 0.007
MCAR, 30%
Listwise deletion
0.011 ± 0.005
0.018 ± 0.006
0.003 ± 0.003
0.013 ± 0.007
0.005 ± 0.004
0.029 ± 0.004
0.004 ± 0.003
0.029 ± 0.014
Mean
13.642 ± 0.373
5.750 ± 0.176
0.158 ± 0.011
19.878 ± 0.948
0.963 ± 0.041
4.051 ± 0.132
0.078 ± 0.013
3.793 ± 0.071
MissForest
0.688 ± 0.075
0.582 ± 0.091
0.081 ± 0.008
0.266 ± 0.032
0.166 ± 0.010
1.830 ± 0.127
0.075 ± 0.013
0.845 ± 0.062
MICE
0.006 ± 0.005
0.009 ± 0.002
0.003 ± 0.002
0.010 ± 0.007
0.177 ± 0.018
9.056 ± 0.181
0.016 ± 0.002
8.357 ± 0.287
Appendix
Table 2: KL across all 8 SCMs, both missingness mechanisms and three missingness rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (mechanism × rate); the full-data reference row (model trained with no missingness) is excluded from best/second-best marking.
Method
Chain LIN
Fork LIN
Collider LIN
Triangle LIN
Chain NLIN
Fork NLIN
Collider NLIN
Triangle NLIN
Full data (reference)
0.054 ± 0.014
0.033 ± 0.004
0.011 ± 0.001
0.350 ± 0.074
0.027 ± 0.008
0.063 ± 0.014
0.018 ± 0.006
0.145 ± 0.048
MCAR, 30%
Listwise deletion
0.089 ± 0.035
0.035 ± 0.006
0.013 ± 0.002
0.333 ± 0.052
0.040 ± 0.011
0.083 ± 0.030
0.019 ± 0.007
0.219 ± 0.091
Mean
1.778 ± 0.043
0.299 ± 0.010
0.067 ± 0.004
3.809 ± 0.311
0.599 ± 0.016
0.772 ± 0.048
0.027 ± 0.006
1.354 ± 0.189
MissForest
0.407 ± 0.090
0.057 ± 0.012
0.012 ± 0.002
0.373 ± 0.289
0.077 ± 0.021
0.580 ± 0.172
0.028 ± 0.009
1.130 ± 0.473
MICE
0.070 ± 0.008
0.032 ± 0.004
0.012 ± 0.003
0.372 ± 0.046
0.122 ± 0.005
1.187 ± 0.037
0.026 ± 0.007
2.184 ± 0.062
Appendix
Table 3: RMSE ATE across all 8 SCMs, both missingness mechanisms and three missingness rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (mechanism × rate); the full-data reference row (model trained with no missingness) is excluded from best/second-best marking.
Method
Chain LIN
Fork LIN
Collider LIN
Triangle LIN
Chain NLIN
Fork NLIN
Collider NLIN
Triangle NLIN
Full data (reference)
0.067 ± 0.012
0.022 ± 0.002
0.016 ± 0.001
0.268 ± 0.037
0.036 ± 0.002
0.101 ± 0.011
0.034 ± 0.002
0.198 ± 0.037
MCAR, 30%
Listwise deletion
0.091 ± 0.017
0.028 ± 0.003
0.019 ± 0.001
0.287 ± 0.036
0.049 ± 0.006
0.137 ± 0.013
0.038 ± 0.005
0.287 ± 0.053
Mean
1.372 ± 0.037
0.218 ± 0.011
0.066 ± 0.003
3.381 ± 0.242
0.500 ± 0.011
1.082 ± 0.021
0.071 ± 0.008
1.825 ± 0.064
MissForest
0.390 ± 0.044
0.073 ± 0.006
0.029 ± 0.005
0.456 ± 0.202
0.121 ± 0.014
0.971 ± 0.086
0.050 ± 0.009
1.381 ± 0.307
MICE
0.075 ± 0.010
0.022 ± 0.001
0.018 ± 0.003
0.283 ± 0.027
0.140 ± 0.004
1.526 ± 0.038
0.063 ± 0.010
2.178 ± 0.042
Appendix
Table 4: RMSE CF across all 8 SCMs, both missingness mechanisms and three missingness rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (mechanism × rate); the full-data reference row (model trained with no missingness) is excluded from best/second-best marking.
Task
Setting
MissCNF
MICE
O-MIRACLE
KPI
DiffPuter
Chain LIN
Full pos.
0.023 ± 0.010
0.007 ± 0.005
1.27 ± 1.13
0.345 ± 0.102
5.20 ± 3.81
Cov. hold
0.068 ± 0.023
0.007 ± 0.005
2.70 ± 0.113
0.338 ± 0.026
14.4 ± 0.438
Cov. violated
0.385 ± 0.116
0.005 ± 0.004
439 ± 277
1309 ± 1082
1434 ± 116
Chain NLIN
Full pos.
0.023 ± 0.026
0.610 ± 0.213
0.759 ± 0.284
0.290 ± 0.129
1.30 ± 0.688
Cov. hold
0.024 ± 0.014
0.296 ± 0.021
1.63 ± 0.381
0.345 ± 0.047
4.64 ± 4.71
Cov. violated
0.034 ± 0.017
0.703 ± 0.042
15.9 ± 0.530
14.0 ± 2.70
19.0 ± 1.61
Appendix
Table 5: KL across all 4 SCMs under 3 settings. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, within each row.
Task
Setting
MissCNF
MICE
O-MIRACLE
KPI
DiffPuter
Chain LIN
Full pos.
0.078 ± 0.035
0.072 ± 0.021
0.083 ± 0.029
0.102 ± 0.036
0.504 ± 0.234
Cov. hold
0.117 ± 0.055
0.057 ± 0.030
0.111 ± 0.044
0.148 ± 0.065
1.44 ± 0.196
Cov. violated
0.157 ± 0.057
0.064 ± 0.026
2.01 ± 0.096
29.1 ± 43.7
3.51 ± 0.248
Chain NLIN
Full pos.
0.041 ± 0.011
0.069 ± 0.007
0.034 ± 0.006
0.134 ± 0.019
0.165 ± 0.197
Cov. hold
0.041 ± 0.011
0.062 ± 0.013
0.067 ± 0.014
0.079 ± 0.005
0.537 ± 0.017
Cov. violated
0.042 ± 0.018
0.176 ± 0.017
0.470 ± 0.021
0.468 ± 0.020
0.985 ± 0.028
Appendix
Table 6: RMSE ATE across all 4 SCMs under 3 settings. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, within each row.
Task
Setting
MissCNF
MICE
O-MIRACLE
KPI
DiffPuter
Chain LIN
Full pos.
0.104 ± 0.006
0.075 ± 0.007
0.264 ± 0.058
0.166 ± 0.028
0.569 ± 0.129
Cov. hold
0.133 ± 0.029
0.068 ± 0.010
0.472 ± 0.009
0.277 ± 0.014
1.40 ± 0.071
Cov. violated
0.200 ± 0.030
0.076 ± 0.011
5.69 ± 1.62
33.4 ± 18.8
92.3 ± 71.5
Chain NLIN
Full pos.
0.057 ± 0.004
0.207 ± 0.017
0.163 ± 0.033
0.163 ± 0.008
0.267 ± 0.129
Cov. hold
0.057 ± 0.010
0.204 ± 0.016
0.258 ± 0.012
0.159 ± 0.012
0.707 ± 0.086
Cov. violated
0.058 ± 0.011
0.296 ± 0.033
0.965 ± 0.034
0.813 ± 0.034
1.52 ± 0.135
Appendix
Table 7: RMSE CF across all 4 SCMs under 3 settings. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, within each row.
Figure 7: Local KL error (defined in Appendix B.5.4 ) as a function of the distance to the identification boundary. The dashed line denotes the boundary xrel=0 . Negative values correspond to the revealed side, while positive values lie inside the non-identified region Zo . Curves show mean ± std over seeds.
Method
Chain LIN
Fork LIN
Collider LIN
Triangle LIN
Chain NLIN
Fork NLIN
Collider NLIN
Triangle NLIN
MNAR (self-masking), 30%
MICE
0.020 ± 0.012
0.013 ± 0.004
0.035 ± 0.026
0.008 ± 0.006
0.446 ± 0.204
9.367 ± 0.115
0.087 ± 0.050
9.131 ± 0.391
KPI
0.132 ± 0.026
0.383 ± 0.031
0.131 ± 0.056
0.121 ± 0.024
0.261 ± 0.149
0.678 ± 0.047
0.149 ± 0.070
2.951 ± 0.308
O-MIRACLE
0.210 ± 0.030
0.204 ± 0.063
0.152 ± 0.062
0.168 ± 0.025
0.312 ± 0.167
0.426 ± 0.070
0.171 ± 0.075
0.921 ± 0.212
MissCNF (ours)
0.028 ± 0.014
0.021 ± 0.014
0.037 ± 0.025
0.014 ± 0.008
0.054 ± 0.033
0.022 ± 0.005
0.060 ± 0.040
0.078 ± 0.043
MNAR (self-masking), 60%
Appendix
Table 8: KL across all 8 SCMs under self-masking MNAR at two missing rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (missing rate).
Method
Chain LIN
Fork LIN
Collider LIN
Triangle LIN
Chain NLIN
Fork NLIN
Collider NLIN
Triangle NLIN
MNAR (self-masking), 30%
MICE
0.086 ± 0.033
0.034 ± 0.003
0.014 ± 0.006
0.312 ± 0.076
0.077 ± 0.040
1.385 ± 0.032
0.029 ± 0.006
1.698 ± 0.101
KPI
0.100 ± 0.045
0.046 ± 0.005
0.015 ± 0.005
0.872 ± 0.058
0.113 ± 0.014
0.192 ± 0.081
0.024 ± 0.008
1.304 ± 0.274
O-MIRACLE
0.083 ± 0.045
0.035 ± 0.004
0.014 ± 0.006
0.349 ± 0.097
0.054 ± 0.024
0.163 ± 0.062
0.025 ± 0.004
0.477 ± 0.116
MissCNF (ours)
0.086 ± 0.037
0.035 ± 0.004
0.015 ± 0.006
0.359 ± 0.117
0.049 ± 0.015
0.074 ± 0.032
0.025 ± 0.012
0.216 ± 0.092
MNAR (self-masking), 60%
Appendix
Table 9: RMSE ATE across all 8 SCMs under self-masking MNAR at two missing rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (missing rate).
Method
Chain LIN
Fork LIN
Collider LIN
Triangle LIN
Chain NLIN
Fork NLIN
Collider NLIN
Triangle NLIN
MNAR (self-masking), 30%
MICE
0.090 ± 0.033
0.022 ± 0.001
0.019 ± 0.004
0.268 ± 0.053
0.149 ± 0.009
1.654 ± 0.027
0.091 ± 0.015
1.928 ± 0.057
KPI
0.129 ± 0.040
0.039 ± 0.001
0.031 ± 0.007
0.906 ± 0.082
0.132 ± 0.008
0.414 ± 0.037
0.066 ± 0.020
1.634 ± 0.078
O-MIRACLE
0.146 ± 0.048
0.029 ± 0.004
0.025 ± 0.004
0.330 ± 0.056
0.104 ± 0.019
0.325 ± 0.031
0.053 ± 0.011
0.920 ± 0.190
MissCNF (ours)
0.101 ± 0.034
0.025 ± 0.001
0.023 ± 0.003
0.328 ± 0.096
0.059 ± 0.003
0.113 ± 0.013
0.045 ± 0.009
0.317 ± 0.086
MNAR (self-masking), 60%
Appendix
Table 10: RMSE CF across all 8 SCMs under self-masking MNAR at two missing rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (missing rate).
Fork NLIN
Triangle NLIN
K
KL
RMSE ATE
RMSE CF
Time (s)
KL
RMSE ATE
RMSE CF
Time (s)
32
0.054 ± 0.015
0.078 ± 0.026
0.170 ± 0.012
272 ± 3
0.086 ± 0.028
0.248 ± 0.118
0.433 ± 0.102
272 ± 6
64
0.041 ± 0.015
0.085 ± 0.028
0.157 ± 0.006
273 ± 4
0.066 ± 0.023
0.190 ± 0.086
0.343 ± 0.073
270 ± 4
128
0.036 ± 0.015
0.083 ± 0.024
0.154 ± 0.006
284 ± 4
0.055 ± 0.022
0.251 ± 0.093
0.374 ± 0.116
284 ± 4
256
0.032 ± 0.012
0.076 ± 0.024
0.149 ± 0.005
328 ± 4
0.056 ± 0.023
0.193 ± 0.053
0.322 ± 0.019
329 ± 4
512
0.032 ± 0.011
0.083 ± 0.024
0.147 ± 0.004
416 ± 4
0.052 ± 0.032
0.190 ± 0.043
0.325 ± 0.055
426 ± 13
Appendix
Table 11: Monte Carlo ablation on Fork NLIN and Triangle NLIN . K is the number of Monte Carlo samples used to estimate the observed-data marginal likelihood. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Time is total training time in seconds.
Figure 8: KL to the ground-truth distribution as α increases, on Chainα under MCAR and MAR at 30% and 60% missing rates (mean ± std over seeds). α interpolates the X2→X3 mechanism from purely linear ( α=0 ) to purely quadratic ( α=1 ).
Method
α=0.00
α=0.25
α=0.50
α=0.75
α=1.00
MCAR, 30%
Listwise deletion
0.006 ± 0.002
0.006 ± 0.001
0.008 ± 0.002
0.008 ± 0.003
0.008 ± 0.001
MICE
0.004 ± 0.001
0.029 ± 0.004
0.151 ± 0.013
0.312 ± 0.021
0.345 ± 0.021
KPI
0.118 ± 0.012
0.128 ± 0.014
0.146 ± 0.014
0.140 ± 0.014
0.137 ± 0.016
DiffPuter
0.169 ± 0.007
0.156 ± 0.006
0.129 ± 0.020
0.119 ± 0.015
0.104 ± 0.012
O-MIRACLE
0.082 ± 0.004
0.084 ± 0.006
0.095 ± 0.011
0.097 ± 0.011
0.099 ± 0.008
Appendix
Table 12: KL vs. nonlinearity strength α on the Chainα graph, both missingness mechanisms and two missing rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (mechanism × rate).
Method
α=0.00
α=0.25
α=0.50
α=0.75
α=1.00
MCAR, 30%
Listwise deletion
0.027 ± 0.006
0.027 ± 0.008
0.025 ± 0.011
0.022 ± 0.009
0.023 ± 0.006
MICE
0.021 ± 0.006
0.020 ± 0.003
0.030 ± 0.007
0.041 ± 0.006
0.048 ± 0.007
KPI
0.086 ± 0.016
0.083 ± 0.011
0.064 ± 0.006
0.038 ± 0.008
0.029 ± 0.008
DiffPuter
0.039 ± 0.013
0.038 ± 0.011
0.042 ± 0.015
0.038 ± 0.009
0.037 ± 0.006
O-MIRACLE
0.021 ± 0.005
0.020 ± 0.005
0.019 ± 0.005
0.018 ± 0.005
0.019 ± 0.003
Appendix
Table 13: RMSE ATE vs. nonlinearity strength α on the Chainα graph, both missingness mechanisms and two missing rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (mechanism × rate).
Method
α=0.00
α=0.25
α=0.50
α=0.75
α=1.00
MCAR, 30%
Listwise deletion
0.024 ± 0.002
0.026 ± 0.002
0.027 ± 0.004
0.027 ± 0.004
0.026 ± 0.003
MICE
0.020 ± 0.003
0.041 ± 0.001
0.085 ± 0.002
0.119 ± 0.002
0.124 ± 0.002
KPI
0.085 ± 0.009
0.083 ± 0.005
0.083 ± 0.002
0.080 ± 0.003
0.077 ± 0.006
DiffPuter
0.041 ± 0.010
0.042 ± 0.007
0.046 ± 0.003
0.042 ± 0.007
0.041 ± 0.006
O-MIRACLE
0.023 ± 0.001
0.029 ± 0.002
0.038 ± 0.003
0.033 ± 0.002
0.034 ± 0.006
Appendix
Table 14: RMSE CF vs. nonlinearity strength α on the Chainα graph, both missingness mechanisms and two missing rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (mechanism × rate).
Method
α=0.00
α=0.25
α=0.50
α=0.75
α=1.00
MCAR, 30%
Listwise deletion
0.004 ± 0.004
0.007 ± 0.003
0.009 ± 0.002
0.010 ± 0.001
0.008 ± 0.002
MICE
0.003 ± 0.003
0.029 ± 0.004
0.168 ± 0.010
0.349 ± 0.014
0.398 ± 0.016
KPI
0.055 ± 0.010
0.056 ± 0.012
0.059 ± 0.010
0.061 ± 0.007
0.065 ± 0.010
DiffPuter
0.057 ± 0.007
0.060 ± 0.011
0.068 ± 0.008
0.068 ± 0.010
837.056 ± 1871.559
O-MIRACLE
0.071 ± 0.010
0.073 ± 0.011
0.075 ± 0.010
0.079 ± 0.011
0.079 ± 0.008
Appendix
Table 15: KL vs. nonlinearity strength α on the Colliderα graph, both missingness mechanisms and two missing rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (mechanism × rate).
Method
α=0.00
α=0.25
α=0.50
α=0.75
α=1.00
MCAR, 30%
Listwise deletion
0.017 ± 0.005
0.015 ± 0.004
0.015 ± 0.003
0.015 ± 0.003
0.015 ± 0.003
MICE
0.016 ± 0.003
0.015 ± 0.001
0.020 ± 0.003
0.022 ± 0.005
0.026 ± 0.003
KPI
0.015 ± 0.005
0.014 ± 0.005
0.014 ± 0.005
0.016 ± 0.004
0.014 ± 0.004
DiffPuter
0.017 ± 0.005
0.015 ± 0.006
0.015 ± 0.006
0.020 ± 0.009
0.531 ± 1.153
O-MIRACLE
0.015 ± 0.003
0.013 ± 0.003
0.013 ± 0.003
0.013 ± 0.004
0.013 ± 0.003
Appendix
Table 16: RMSE ATE vs. nonlinearity strength α on the Colliderα graph, both missingness mechanisms and two missing rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (mechanism × rate).
Method
α=0.00
α=0.25
α=0.50
α=0.75
α=1.00
MCAR, 30%
Listwise deletion
0.020 ± 0.003
0.025 ± 0.003
0.028 ± 0.002
0.029 ± 0.002
0.029 ± 0.002
MICE
0.019 ± 0.002
0.033 ± 0.004
0.064 ± 0.005
0.080 ± 0.005
0.086 ± 0.003
KPI
0.026 ± 0.004
0.028 ± 0.004
0.030 ± 0.004
0.031 ± 0.001
0.031 ± 0.006
DiffPuter
0.021 ± 0.003
0.024 ± 0.001
0.028 ± 0.004
0.031 ± 0.003
0.422 ± 0.873
O-MIRACLE
0.020 ± 0.002
0.023 ± 0.003
0.025 ± 0.002
0.026 ± 0.003
0.026 ± 0.003
Appendix
Table 17: RMSE CF vs. nonlinearity strength α on the Colliderα graph, both missingness mechanisms and two missing rates. Values are mean ± std over seeds. Lower is better. Bold = best, underline = second-best, within each row-block (mechanism × rate).
While causal discovery methods have matured for complete data, such algorithms for handling missing values remain limited. We establish general sufficient conditions under which causal graphs remain identifiable (i.e., uniquely determined from the available data distribution) under various missingness categories, including Missing Not At Random, and provide a framework to extend correctness guarantees from causal discovery algorithms for complete data to missing data settings. Our results show that identifiability of causal graphs with no unobserved confounders is preserved when (1) missingness mechanisms do not causally interact, (2) no variable directly causes its own missingness, and (3) either faithfulness holds for missingness mechanisms, or they follow generalized linear models. Guided by these theoretical results, we introduce two asymptotically correct algorithms for Additive Noise Models (ANMs) that recover the underlying causal graph and provide consistent parameter estimates.
Oregon State University, Causal Intelligence and Reasoning Lab, Corvallis, USA · RIKEN Advanced Intelligence Project, Causal Inference Team, Tokyo, Japan · The University of Osaka, Reasoning for Intelligence Department, Osaka, Japan +1
Target trial emulation (TTE) enables causal questions to be studied with observational data when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are infeasible. Yet treatment-effect methods often address causal estimation, missingness, and temporal structure separately, limiting their robustness in electronic health records (EHRs), where time-varying confounding and missing-not-at-random (MNAR) biomarkers can reach 50%--80%. We propose a two-stage pipeline for treatment effect estimation from incomplete longitudinal EHRs. First, CausalFlow-T, a directed acyclic graph (DAG)-constrained normalizing flow with long short-term memory (LSTM)-encoded patient history, performs exact invertible counterfactual inference, avoiding approximation errors from variational inference and separating confounding through explicit causal structure. Ablations on four synthetic and one semi-synthetic benchmark with known counterfactuals show that DAG constraints and exact inference address distinct failure modes: neither compensates for the other. Second, because CausalFlow-T requires completed inputs, we introduce an LLM-driven evolutionary imputer that proposes executable imputation operators rather than individual entries, and evaluate it with three large language model (LLM) backends, including two open-source models. Across 30%--80% MNAR missingness, this imputer achieves the best pooled rank over biomarker and causal metrics, leading in point-wise accuracy and temporal extrapolation while preserving average treatment effect (ATE) recovery as statistical baselines degrade. On Swiss primary-care EHRs from adults with type 2 diabetes initiating a GLP-1 receptor agonist or SGLT-2 inhibitor, the pipeline estimates a per-protocol weight-loss difference of -0.98 kg [95% CI -1.01, -0.96] favoring GLP-1 receptor agonists, consistent with randomized evidence and obtained from realistically incomplete real-world EHRs.
Olivia Jullian Parra, Sara Zoccheddu, David Catalan Cerezo +7
Department of Mathematical Modeling and Machine Learning University of Zürich Winterthurerstrasse 190, Zürich 8057 · Department of Mathematics ETH Zürich Rämistrasse 101, Zürich 8092 · Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Prevention Institute (EBPI), University of Zürich Hirschengraben 84, Zürich 8001 +2
The standard constraint-based paradigm for causal discovery with incomplete data -- impute first, test second -- is frequently miscalibrated: any consistent conditional independence (CI) test rejects a true null with probability approaching 1 when imputation error induces spurious conditional dependence. We introduce PAIR-CI, a nonparametric CI test that restores calibration by integrating multiple imputation directly into the inferential procedure via a paired permutation design. PAIR-CI compares cross-validated models that include and exclude the candidate variable while receiving the same imputed conditioning set, forcing imputation error to cancel in their loss difference rather than contaminate the test statistic. A provably consistent variance estimator jointly accounts for uncertainty arising from cross-validation and multiple imputation -- to our knowledge, the first formal unification of these two inferential frameworks. In simulations, existing imputation-based CI tests exhibit false positive rates of 28--45% when data are missing not at random (MNAR), whereas PAIR-CI averages below the nominal 5% level across data-generating processes and missingness mechanisms. These gains are largest in nonlinear settings and grow with causal graph size: when integrated into the PC algorithm, PAIR-CI reduces structural Hamming distance by 8% on 10-variable nonlinear graphs, 15% on 30-variable equivalents, and up to 44% on the 56-variable HAILFINDER network, with stable performance in all settings.
Thomas S. Robinson, Ranjit Lall
Department of Methodology London School of Economics and Political Science London, UK · Department of Politics and International Relations University of OxfordMay Oxford, UK