Structure-agnostic Causal Representation Learning

Causal representation learning (CRL) and traditional representation learning have largely developed along different trajectories. Traditional representation learning has been driven mainly by applications and empirical objectives, whereas CRL has focused more on theoretical questions, particularly identifiability. This difference in emphasis has created a gap between the two fields in terminology, problem formulation, and evaluation, limiting communication and sometimes leading to disconnected or redundant efforts. In this paper, we argue that these two fields should be brought into dialogue rather than treated as separate paradigms. To this end, we introduce a unified formulation in which the representation learning is characterized by two components: a task component, which specifies what information the learned representation is required to preserve, and a constraint component, which specifies what structure is imposed on the latent space. Under this formulation, the benefits run in both directions. CRL provides theoretical tools for understanding when structured latent constraints are useful or necessary, while traditional representation learning offers practical insights on task design and objective choice that can improve the development of CRL methods. To illustrate this interaction, we experimentally study how different task components affect the behavior of CRL methods under different structured constraints. Results on CausalVerse show that the effectiveness of causal constraints depends strongly on the tasks with which they are paired.

We evaluate methods for causal representation learning (CRL) on a simple, real-world system that satisfies the basic problem setup of CRL. The system consists of a controlled optical experiment producing a variety of measurements where the underlying causal factors---the control inputs to the experiment---are known, providing a ground truth. We select methods representative of different approaches to CRL and find that they all fail to consistently recover the underlying causal factors. To understand the failure modes of the evaluated algorithms, we perform an ablation on the data by substituting the real data-generating process with a simpler synthetic equivalent. The results reveal a reproducibility problem, as most methods already fail on this synthetic ablation despite its simple data-generating process. Additionally, we observe that common assumptions on the mixing function are crucial for the performance of some of the methods but do not hold in the real data. Our efforts highlight the contrast between the theoretical promise of the state of the art and the challenges in its application. We hope the benchmark serves as a simple, real-world sanity check to further develop and validate methodol- ogy, bridging the gap towards CRL methods that work in practice.

We consider learning from labeled data collected across multiple environments, where the data distribution may vary across these environments. This problem is commonly approached from a causal perspective, seeking invariant representations that retain causal factors while discarding spurious ones. However, this framework assumes that the environment has no direct effect on the target. In contrast, we consider settings in which this assumption fails, but still aim to learn representations that support robust prediction on average across previously unseen environments. To this end, we study representations learned by explicitly modeling variation across environments and then marginalizing that variation out. We analyze the resulting representations and characterize when they are preferable to those learned by causal invariant-representation methods. We propose a concrete method based on generalized random-intercept models, a class of predictors in which such marginalization is possible, and study their generalization properties. Empirically, we show that these models outperform invariant-learning methods across a range of challenging settings.