Online Causal Configuration for Networked Systems via Doubly Robust Steady-State Learning

Causal Bayesian Optimization (CBO) combines causal inference with Bayesian optimization to enable sample-efficient intervention selection in systems with causal structure. This survey provides a systematic review of CBO through a unified BO-loop perspective, showing how causal assumptions shape intervention search spaces, surrogate models, acquisition functions, and decision policies. We organize existing methods by graph and system-knowledge assumptions, environment, intervention representation, surrogate architecture, and decision rule, and connect CBO to causal bandits, Bayesian experimental design, safe optimization, policy search, and causal abstraction. We also introduce a reproducibility-oriented benchmark spanning hard- and soft-intervention settings, with standardized GAP and a new trajectory-aware Path-Aware GAP (PA-GAP), evaluating seven CBO methods and a non-causal BO baseline across thirteen datasets, three budgets, and two metrics. Results show that no method dominates uniformly: rankings depend on dataset, budget, metric, and how causal information is used, while strong non-causal baselines remain competitive in several settings. Controlled graph-misspecification and omitted-variable stress tests further show that rankings can change substantially when learner-side causal information is perturbed. We conclude by identifying key open challenges, including robustness to causal-assumption violations, scalable unknown-graph optimization, mixed intervention types, realistic cost models, stronger theoretical guarantees, and integration with modern representation learning and causal abstractions.

Causal inference from observational data can provide strong evidence for finding the best action in a decision-making scenario without having to perform expensive randomized trials. The causal effect of an action is often not pointwise identifiable even with infinite data due to unobserved confounding factors. Furthermore, having only finitely many samples adds another layer of uncertainty to causal effect estimation. Several existing methods can be used to obtain upper and lower bounds to the causal effect, ranging from symbolic methods to the more recent neural network-based approaches, which implicitly incorporate both sources of uncertainty. However, these methods do not inform whether collecting more samples may or may not help identify the best action from observational data, leaving experts in the dark about their data collection strategies. We address this problem with a novel framework that can distinguish the range of causal effect values that might be eliminated by collecting more samples from the range of values that, with high probability, cannot be eliminated with more observational samples. We show that this partitioning can be obtained by solving max-min and min-max optimization problems. We leverage neural causal models to approximately recover this decomposition in practice. We demonstrate via experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets that our algorithm can determine when collecting more samples will not help determine the best action. Our framework can help practitioners decide when to resort to non-observational studies or seek to measure some of the unmeasured confounders for optimal decision-making.

Critical sequential decisions are rarely single-timescale: a strategic decision causally shapes the context in which every subsequent tactical choice is made; standard bandit and reinforcement-learning theory does not capture this causal coupling between timescales. We formalise the problem class as Nested Contextual Causal Bandits (NCCBs), a hierarchical SCM where each level's action sets the next level's context distribution, and propose Nested Causal Thompson Sampling (NCTS), which draws one mechanism-factorised belief per episode and acts recursively under it. Our main theoretical result is a causal PAC-Bayesian excess-risk bound that certifies any candidate deployment policy from historic data alone, off-policy and anytime, answering the deployment question: can we trust this agent here, and at what risk? Experiments on a hierarchical SCM show that, against a matched RFF-GP joint regression on the same function class, the factorised SCM-mechanism posterior transfers significantly better zero-shot under exogenous distribution shifts, the recursive meta-to-inner commit significantly dominates the joint-commit alternative in distribution, and the certificate significantly contracts as offline data accumulates. Combining these results, we establish progressive certified handover, a safe-deployment method: each timescale flips from a legacy controller to NCTS when gains can be certified, independently of the others.