Causal Inference

Estimating conditional distributional potential outcomes (CDPOs) over time is important in medicine (e.g., to estimate patient-specific risks under different treatment sequences). However, this task is challenging because of time-varying confounding, yet existing adjustment strategies for this task are limited. In this paper, we aim to learn CDPOs under time-varying treatments using flexible generative models. Our contributions are two-fold. (1) We introduce a tailored adjustment strategy for our setting, namely, generative recursive g-computation. Our adjustment strategy recursively propagates full conditional outcome distributions rather than conditional means, modeling the variables of interest directly rather than full trajectories. Building on our adjustment strategy, we formulate simple generative learners for CDPO estimation. However, these learners can be sensitive to nuisance estimation errors, which motivates an orthogonal learner. (2) We thus introduce OrthoGen, a Neyman-orthogonal and doubly robust generative learner. Importantly, we show that OrthoGen further achieves rate double robustness and quasi-oracle efficiency under suitable conditions. Our learners are flexible and can be instantiated with different generative backbones (e.g., normalizing flows and diffusion models). Across experiments with synthetic, semi-synthetic and real-world datasets, we find that OrthoGen is highly effective. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to propose a generative orthogonal learner for estimating CDPOs under time-varying treatments.

Partial identification (PI) entails estimating bounds on causal effects by encoding different assumptions on data generation as a constrained optimization problem. Such bounds can suffice to inform policy decisions even if the causal effect itself is not identifiable. Often vacuous in practice, practitioners seek to exhaustively encode domain knowledge as additional constraints to make the PI bounds more informative. We introduce known data symmetries -- invariance of the causal effect under certain data transformations -- as a new source of constraints to inform PI. We operationalize this as a shape constraint on the causal function, and via a change of measure against which PI is posed using simple data pre-processing. Both approaches are shown to sharpen bounds under two canonical PI models. This is shown both theoretically for the population case, and via experiments in the finite-sample case. More broadly, our framework establishes data symmetries as a natural, underutilized source of background knowledge for robust causal inference.

Counterfactual inference in Gaussian-process structural causal models (GP-SCMs) has been developed primarily for continuous endogenous variables, limiting applicability to causal graphs that contain discrete child nodes with continuous parents. We introduce a unified probabilistic framework for counterfactual inference with heterogeneous variable types by pairing GP predictors with explicit exogenous noise mechanisms. For discrete outcomes, we derive exact conditional noise-abduction procedures using a uniform threshold for binary variables, a Gumbel-max race for nominal categories, and a latent Gaussian cut-point model for ordinal ones. In each case, we propagate abducted noise through interventions while accounting for posterior uncertainty in the GP latent functions, and prove that the resulting mechanisms reproduce the fitted model's observational and interventional distributions. On synthetic SCMs with known ground-truth counterfactuals, we evaluate estimation accuracy, consistency, and robustness to coupling misspecification. A key finding is that applying a categorical coupling to ordinal data inflates counterfactual error roughly threefold even when observational fit remains comparable, and that this error does not diminish with more data. As the training set grows, the fitted structural equation converges to the truth while the counterfactual error flattens onto a floor. In the reverse direction, forcing a false order onto nominal data instead degrades the fitted equation itself. The choice of coupling must therefore be justified on structural grounds rather than read off the fit.

Standard causal identification methods often assume no unmeasured confounding and can fail when relevant confounders are unobserved. Proximal causal inference instead uses proxy variables to identify effects under hidden confounding. However, nonparametric proximal estimation can be challenging in practice: recovering causal estimands such as the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) requires solving an ill-posed integral equation that is data-hungry, hyperparameter-sensitive, and optimization-unstable. Bayesian inference for such models provides a desirable alternative, mitigating these difficulties by regularizing through the prior. However, computing a posterior is itself challenging, as a typical likelihood function will include latent variables. Following the recent success of tabular foundation models in backdoor, instrumental variable, and frontdoor settings, we propose that prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) are uniquely suited to resolve this bottleneck. Indeed, by training on synthetic data sampled from compliant structural causal models with access to oracle counterfactuals, we simplify the task substantially, amortizing the implied Bayesian operator inversion into a single transformer forward pass. Compared to prior literature that focuses primarily on point estimation, our model, ProximalFM, explicitly targets the Bayesian posterior distribution of the CATE. One unique aspect of this problem is that we need to provide Monte Carlo estimates of the oracle CATEs, leading to a novel variation of PFNs that accounts for the added stochastic error. Across a diverse suite of proximal regimes, ProximalFM achieves consistently strong CATE-estimation performance without dataset-specific tuning, with its largest advantage when latent confounding is substantial and the proxies are weakly informative; it also provides fast inference through a single amortized forward pass.

Memory-augmented large language models must decide which memories to retain, and recent systems do so by estimating each memory's effect on task performance. However, these estimates rely entirely on retrieved memories. When a memory is never retrieved, store-level interventions produce identical outcomes, leaving its utility unidentified. This is a retrieval-level positivity violation, invisible to diagnostics that examine only memory operations. We introduce Causal Memory Policy (CMP), a causal framework that restores identification by intervening on retrieval itself, reserving a fixed number of context slots for memories sampled with known propensities. CMP estimates memory utility by self-normalized inverse propensity weighting under a balanced assignment design. We prove the causal factorization of memory utility through retrieval, the unbiasedness and exact variance of the estimator, and the optimal decision rule under irreversible operations. Empirically, identification fails for 54% of required memories on LongMemEval and 67% on LoCoMo, and the failure persists in a deployed memory system. CMP improves discrimination between required and non-required memories from 0.54 to 0.66 AUC. Finally, we show that identified memory utility alone is insufficient for retention decisions: per-query utility reaches 0.78 AUC on the query for which it is estimated, yet no aggregation available to a retention policy predicts a memory's value on unseen queries. Code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/cmp-release-D0C3/.

Estimating causal effects from observational data is central to science and policy, but the effects are not identified when confounders are unmeasured. Proximal causal inference addresses this problem with proxies of the unmeasured confounders. However, existing proxy-based approaches either designate proxy roles and solve an inverse problem, which is ill-posed and hard to estimate with high-dimensional proxies, or use a latent-variable model, which assumes that the learned latent variable matches the hidden confounder and leaves bias when it does not. To address these challenges, we introduce proximal balancing. It carries the classical idea of covariate balancing to confounders that are observed only through proxies: it learns a low-dimensional summary of the covariates and proxies that makes the treatment groups comparable, and then adjusts for this summary. It needs no designated proxy roles, inverse problem, or latent model. We give identification theory, finite-sample guarantees, and a practical algorithm, PROBE. We demonstrate the method on low-dimensional, high-dimensional, and image proxies and on real-world data.

Knowing how much a causal predictor could improve need not reveal the gain of the repair actually learned. We quantify this gap in a scalar Gaussian causal experiment with known intervention geometry: auxiliary data identify effect magnitude up to bounded contamination, while diagnostics identify direction. The target is the squared-loss gain of the realized trained repair relative to a fitted reference. Jointly optimizing the learner and assessor under uniform learning MSE $η$ avoids the trivial solution of making no repair. At the usual $1/k$ learning scale, every feasible learner incurs a $k^{-2}$ assessment floor, even when oracle potential is estimable at a faster rate. In the magnitude-rich regime, we characterize a sharp leading-log frontier: the assessment exponent is $\min{\ell_k,2kη_k/U}$ to first relative order, where $\ell_k=\log(1/(k^2E_k))$ and $E_k$ is auxiliary precision. A diagnostic-abstention rule attains this exponent with unknown nuisance parameters. We also bound the critical allowance window and transfer the frontier to adaptive sampling by exact Gaussian simulation. Finite-grid experiments distinguish sign-tail suppression from total MSE and expose conservative finite-budget behavior. The result isolates how the assessment target changes information requirements in this experiment; it is not a general causal identifiability claim.

Causal foundation models (CFMs) amortise causal inference over priors of synthetic structural causal models (SCMs), predicting the effect of an experiment on a specific variable. However, observational data alone may leave multiple causal models compatible with available evidence, while experimental data with interventions on exactly the variable of interest might be unavailable. This work studies CFMs as a method to combine finite observational and surrogate-interventional datasets in order to predict a target conditional interventional distribution (CID) more accurately than with observational data alone. We first formalise the conceptual benefits of surrogate experiments. Building on this analysis, we introduce \textsc{Foundation Models for Causal Inference from Diverse Experimental Regimes} (\emph{CIDER-FM}), a causal foundation model that uses an intervention-aware representation and hierarchical three-axis attention to exchange information across variables, samples, and experimental regimes. We evaluate CIDER-FM against a wide range of baselines across diverse synthetic graph and mechanism families, as well as on both simulated and real-world data from Causal Chambers. Our results demonstrate strong CID prediction performance and show that incorporating experimental context can improve predictions over observational data alone.

Root cause analysis (RCA) is a critical problem in many real-world scenarios. RCA enables the identification of faulty or failing mechanisms in a system by comparing anomalous observations with corresponding reference (i.e., regular) observations. However, existing approaches rely either on heuristic methods or on conditional independence tests with a strong unconfoundedness assumption, and thus fail to exploit other complicated distributional constraints in the presence of latent variables. To relax these assumptions, we model the underlying system as a causal model and the anomalous system as a change in the structural functions of the same causal model. Specifically, to handle unobserved confounders, we establish an implicit connection between distributional constraint testing and root cause analysis. To adapt our approach to data generated from arbitrary causal models, we employ the deep causal model (DCM) framework, in which we design the causal model using neural networks. Finally, we illustrate how our method, RCA-DCM, can utilize different levels of partial graphical knowledge to perform RCA. We evaluate RCA-DCM against state-of-the-art baselines on simulated datasets, a physics-based causal chamber and two micro-service applications. RCA-DCM improves top-1 accuracy over the strongest baseline on both Sock Shop (0.880 vs. 0.752) and Online Boutique (0.776 vs. 0.712), and when the true root cause in the causal chamber is unobserved and acts as a latent confounder, it recovers the exact root-cause set more often than any competing method (perfect recovery rate (PRR) 0.846 vs. 0.731).

We present an in-depth investigation of how a form of Bayesian reasoning about common causes can emerge as a cross-contextual generalization in small, tractable transformers. Incrementing on recent work, our set-up (i) disentangles causal mechanisms in the model from the causal structure of the true data-generating process, (ii) orients more towards natural language prediction by considering inference of latent common causes, and (iii) considers whether and how Bayesian evidence accumulation for latent common causes can be implemented in representations and mechanisms that allow for cross-context generalization to novel test cases.

Generating a plausible clinical trajectory does not establish what would happen under a different treatment. We present ADMIT, a framework combining irregular multimodal representations, treatment-conditioned latent diffusion and explicit constraints on generated states or actions. We formulate its interventional target through sequential g-computation and distinguish causal assumptions from constraint satisfaction. Its admissibility mechanism translates physiological prior knowledge into explicit constraints on generated states and proposed actions. Treatment-exposure dynamics condition latent transitions, while state projection or action gating applies the constraints during rollout so that they influence subsequent trajectory generation. In our preliminary experiments, multimodal inputs improved supervised hidden-state recovery and reduced treatment-contrast error. In a simulated dosing-schedule experiment with leak-free history encoding, ADMIT predicted most of the tumor-volume change caused by redistributing a fixed total dose. An exposure input improved these predictions around a temporary dose reduction whether or not the assumed clearance rate was correct, but reduced the predicted size of a dose effect, and a deterministic recurrent baseline matched ADMIT's average predictions. Exposure projection reduced constraint violations, although enforcement remained incomplete. Semi-synthetic experiments using eICU context illustrated treatment-response generation under fixed and adaptive policies. Observational examples further characterize model treatment sensitivity. ADMIT provides a framework for testing whether complementary observations and physiological restrictions improve intervention trajectories, with representation recovery, effect accuracy and rule enforcement assessed separately.

Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects from observational data is difficult because the most appropriate inductive bias varies with overlap, treatment imbalance, prognostic structure, and sample size. We introduce the Geometry-Diverse Anchor-Correction Expert Ensemble (GeoACE), a five-expert framework that combines a common anchor-correction estimator with complementary overlap-aware and outcome-guided geometries. Its task-level ensemble weights are learned only from internal validation predictions, frozen before test evaluation, and then applied to experts refitted on the complete development sample. The fifth expert, O-Phi-ACE, constructs an outcome-free, overlap-aware statistical projection from covariates and treatment assignment and replaces the anchor input with this lower-dimensional geometry. We evaluate GeoACE against 11 comparators on eight benchmark protocols. Adding O-Phi-ACE reduced mean sqrt(PEHE) relative to the four-expert ensemble on all seven benchmarks with individual-effect truth, winning 998 of 1,225 paired tasks; the change on JOBS policy risk was negligible. The five-expert ensemble ranked first on IHDP100, IHDPA, and IHDPB and second on NEWS, differing from the NEWS leader by 0.13%. Across the seven sqrt(PEHE) benchmarks it obtained the lowest observed average rank (3.714), although the omnibus Friedman and Iman-Davenport tests were not significant (p=0.328 and p=0.330). Using the same five frozen experts, inverse-DR weighting was consistently better than winner-take-all selection, convex DR fitting, R-stacking, and causal Q-aggregation in benchmark-balanced analyses, but was statistically indistinguishable from equal weighting and DR ridge shrinkage. The evidence therefore supports geometry-diverse expert libraries and leakage-free aggregation as a robustness strategy, not universal superiority of either GeoACE or one weighting rule.

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

Information systems (IS) researchers increasingly use quasi-experimental methods such as difference-in-differences (DiD) and instrumental variables (IV) to recover causal effects from observational panel data. Power calculations that justify these designs assume i.i.d. errors, but the deeper problem is what even a cluster-robust calculator cannot see. We report a Monte Carlo study over 9837 parameter conditions (approx 9.8 million datasets) and decompose the planned-versus-achieved power gap. The serial-correlation component is recoverable by an AR(1)-aware calculator when rho is known, and partially when rho must be estimated from short pre-periods, but panel attrition, staggered-adoption bias, and parallel-trends pretesting are captured by no closed-form formula; exogenous attrition alone costs approx 8 to 11 percentage points at the few-hundred-to-thousand sample sizes IS studies use. Treatment-correlated, outcome-dependent attrition instead induces bias, not just power loss. For IV, holding first-stage F fixed, larger N neither raises power nor curbs exclusion bias, though with a fixed instrument more data does sharpen the first stage, so identification rests on instrument strength, not sample size.

Evidence that evaluation material entered training does not reveal how much it affected evaluation. This distinction leaves a contaminated benchmark score difficult to interpret: provenance can establish contact, but only a counterfactual can quantify the performance attributable to that contact. We present LeakScale, an interventional framework for estimating this missing quantity. LeakScale creates fresh executable tasks that require private, family-specific information absent from and non-derivable from the public task, controls access to that information, and estimates the resulting control-adjusted change in executable accuracy. Across 2,048 unique families, two model families, two executable domains, and 262,144 generations, exposure improves accuracy in every model-by-domain combination, with gains ranging from +7.17 to +27.31 percentage points. These findings separate two empirical questions that are often conflated: whether benchmark contact occurred and how strongly a reported score depends on it. LeakScale makes the latter directly measurable.

We consider the problem of learning risk scores to prioritize individuals for scarce resources or interventions, from historical observational data affected by unobserved confounding. Decisions about who receives scarce resources are often guided by risk scores based on recorded characteristics, such as responses to a survey. These risk scores are increasingly being learned directly from observational data: historical records of individuals' characteristics, allocation decisions, and outcomes. Standard methods such as inverse propensity weighting (IPW), which corrects for the bias introduced by the historical allocation policy, can be used to learn accurate risk scores if the historical decision process is fully explained by the recorded characteristics. In practice, however, historical decisions often depend on unrecorded information, causing learned risk scores to systematically under-prioritize exactly the individuals whose unrecorded circumstances drove past prioritization. We propose a method for learning risk scores that are robust to this kind of unobserved confounding, building on IPW. Since propensity weights cannot be reliably estimated under unobserved confounding, we instead treat them as belonging to an uncertainty set determined by the observable data and domain-informed estimates of the degree of confounding, combining sensitivity analysis from causal inference with Wasserstein distributionally robust optimization. The resulting robust risk score learning problem admits a sample-based approximation that we reformulate as an exponential cone program compatible with off-the-shelf solvers. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on semi-synthetic data derived from datasets in the UCI Machine Learning Repository. Our method improves calibration by up to 29.2% over traditional benchmarks and up to 11.1% over the state of the art, without compromising other metrics.

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.

Observational decision-support systems often expose one causal estimate as a recommendation even when plausible estimators disagree. The inherent engine of the proposed system is causal machine learning: a conditional-average-treatment-effect estimand identified by backdoor adjustment, estimated by an EconML DML causal forest and DoWhy linear regression, checked by two-way fixed effects, and converted into candidate levers by constrained optimisation. F-DACE is the decision layer on that engine. It represents precision, propensity overlap, placebo-refutation stability, interval overlap, and directional agreement as fuzzy memberships. Hard vetoes force abstention after estimand mismatch, failed diagnostics, informative sign conflict, or weak evidence. In 180 panel simulations spanning six identification conditions, F-DACE made a decision in 67.2% of runs and limited false recommendations to 17.2%; the corresponding rates were 33.3% for the causal forest and 35.6% for backdoor regression, matching deterministic unanimity rather than dominating it. Nearly all (30 of 31) false recommendations occurred under shared unmeasured confounding, which no fusion rule can diagnose when every component shares the omitted variable. The retail application aggregates a public Walmart panel to 6,435 store-weeks across 45 stores. F-DACE abstains for all five markdown indicators: some estimates are imprecise, one refutation fails, and MarkDown5 has a direct sign conflict. A LangGraph conversational agent exposes impact, what-if, and lever-optimization tools while a deterministic verifier preserves causal-layer status. On 24 live questions it achieved 100.0% tool-routing accuracy, 100.0% status fidelity, and 0.983 mean groundedness. On ten adversarial questions it resisted all injected instructions.

Model explainability is essential for understanding and trusting machine learning models. Existing explainable AI methods often explain predictions through feature importance, counterfactual explanations, or rules. However, a region-level characterization of when and only when a prediction behavior arises remains less explored. This paper proposes Causal Sufficient and Necessary Regional Explanations (SNRE), a framework that learns an input region $A$ and output region $B$ such that membership in $A$ is both sufficient and necessary for the model output to fall in $B$. Motivated by the classical Probability of Necessity and Sufficiency (PNS), we formulate a region-level PNS measure through stochastic interventions and derive a differentiable finite-sample estimator for optimization. SNRE parameterizes the input-output region pair with explicit and interpretable algebraic region families, together with a learnable feature mask, balancing expressiveness and interpretability. Experiments demonstrate that SNRE learns region pairs with strong sufficiency-necessity performance, robust explanation behavior, and practical utility for model analysis.

AI and large language models can recover clinically meaningful features from electronic health records (EHRs), but predictive usefulness does not establish admissibility for causal inference. We introduce information set emulation: an AI typed lift attaches source evidence, clinical and recording times, decision-time availability, representation version, proposed causal roles, and unresolved ambiguity to extracted features under a locked target trial. Causal certificates record auditable evidence for those roles. Features with unresolved downstream roles are routed to compatible reporting or separate analyses. Typed evidence defines an observational fiber of causal worlds consistent with the observed law. The locked scalar estimand maps this fiber to a compatible image whose squared Chebyshev radius equals the residual minimax mean squared error when the image is nonempty and compact. This classical identity provides a target-specific measure of information ambiguity. The contribution is its integration with a joint EHR observation map and an auditable certificate architecture. Under explicit exchangeability, positivity, and nuisance-consistency conditions, we give identification and cross-fitted augmented inverse probability weighted estimation, distinguishing empirical and population targets. An EHR compression-drift identity separates the roles of frame presence, treatment assignment, and outcome observation. Artificial simulations and a common-law finite-world example illustrate estimation failures and information-radius reduction. Synthetic Phase 0 notes demonstrate audit diagnostics; a separate role-specific analysis spread illustrates routing and is not an exact fiber radius. All experiments are synthetic. The framework specifies when reconstructed information can support a point claim and when compatible reporting is required.

AI-generated covariates from notes, conversations, images, and wearable streams can change the causal question when their roles are left unspecified. A generated feature may represent a treatment version, pre-action state, history, design variable, mediator, outcome proxy, observation process, or intercurrent event; these roles are not interchangeable. We formulate a causal type discipline for sequential experiments: a versioned representation map, a causal role classifier, a claim-status filter, and an estimand lock. The lock fixes a standardized proximal effect before generated covariates enter the analysis. Under audit correctness and standard identification assumptions, admissible role assignments preserve this estimand. We apply the established conditional-covariance characterization of compression bias to substitution of generated representations for design-relevant states. A standardized decomposition separates compression, conditional-law, and standardization drift. Further results cover mediator adjustment, post-action leakage, marker-intervention conflation, outcome-guided discovery, and state-measurement error. Cluster-level orthogonal estimators distinguish empirical and superpopulation targets under repeated sessions and missing outcomes. Simulations show that refinement helps when it retains design-relevant information, whereas design erasure, leakage, and same-data marker selection can produce bias or undercoverage. The framework places causal semantics and claim status before confirmatory inference with generated representations.

Policy learning aims to determine who should be treated based on individual characteristics. In high-stakes settings such as medicine and public policy where safety is a central concern, improving the average outcomes alone may not be sufficient: decision makers may also seek to protect individuals from harm, in line with the Hippocratic principle of ``do no harm.'' In this paper, we propose \textit{conformal policy learning} (CPL), a policy learning procedure with a new distribution-free safety guarantee that controls the probability of assigning treatment to an individual who would be harmed relative to control. CPL views each treatment decision as testing a hypothesis of counterfactual harm and assigns treatment by thresholding conformal p-values. These p-values use observable proxies and selective calibration to address the challenge that the potential outcomes under comparison are never simultaneously observed. For randomized experiments, under standard exchangeability conditions, CPL provides finite-sample safety guarantee at a user-specified level, without imposing any outcome modeling assumptions. Moreover, when the outcome model is consistently estimated, CPL achieves asymptotically optimal welfare subject to the safety constraint. In observational studies, CPL with learn-then-balance weights achieves doubly robust safety guarantees. We evaluate CPL through extensive simulations and apply it to an empirical study of AI-powered interventions designed to reduce conspiracy beliefs.

Conformal counterfactual prediction constructs prediction sets with finite-sample coverage guarantees for counterfactual outcomes and individual treatment effects under the no-interference assumption. In this work, we relax this assumption by allowing each unit's potential outcomes to depend on other units' treatments and covariates. In this setting, propensity-score reweighting does not restore weighted exchangeability, and existing methods may fail to achieve valid coverage. To address this issue, we develop interference-adjusted weighted conformal prediction that accounts for interference by constructing an observable upper bound on the ideal and unobserved conformal $p$-value under the target intervention. The resulting prediction sets provide finite-sample marginal coverage guarantees for counterfactual outcomes and individual treatment effects in both transductive and inductive settings. We also derive a sharper construction when intervention-induced changes in nonconformity scores are bounded. Numerical experiments show that our methods preserve nominal coverage, whereas existing methods may not.

Generative artificial intelligence changes how firms reach customers, but standard marketing data do not record how often users see and notice a firm's name in generated answers. We develop Generative Marketing Mix Modeling (GMMM) to estimate the causal effects of Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) and Generative Engine Marketing (GEM). For GEO, GMMM combines repeated generated answers with question counts, shares of use across generative systems, and notice probabilities. For GEM, it combines records of sponsored placements with notice probabilities. GMMM compares expected business responses under alternative treatment sequences and establishes sufficient conditions for identifying the resulting effects. We investigate the empirical performance of the proposed method using simulated answers to product recommendation in English and Japanese.

Existing causal-inference benchmarks for LLMs mostly score method descriptions or whether generated code runs, not whether the executed workflow recovers the target causal estimate. CausalVerify studies this verification problem for structured econometric causal-estimation workflows by separating realistic interpretation from verifiable computation. It pairs 259 published economics papers (reconstructed research question, data description, institutional context) with 100 fixed-seed synthetic scenarios that realise CSV datasets for difference-in-differences, event study, instrumental variables, and regression discontinuity designs. Experiment A (real-paper text agreement) scores method-family and direction agreement against four-LLM consensus labels. Experiment B (synthetic execution) runs model-written R code and checks whether the extracted treatment-effect estimate matches a canonical estimator on the same realised dataset; this execution-grounded correctness layer is L2b+, distinct from L2b, which records only whether the code executes. A calibration arm asks whether self-reported confidence separates correct from incorrect workflows. On Experiment B, seven LLMs reach L2b+ pass rates of 10% to 88% at the default 50% tolerance, and 66 of the 426 workflows that execute (15.5%) return a wrong estimate. Execution ranking (L2b) agrees with L2b+ far better than text-direction scoring (L4): Kendall $τ=0.81$ and Spearman $ρ=0.93$, versus Kendall $τ$ between $-0.20$ and $0.10$ for L4. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct shows the same qualitative gap, and reported confidence does not reliably separate correct from incorrect workflows. The claims are confined to standardized single-shot workflows in these four design families under the evaluated R backend and model panel; the benchmark does not measure general causal-inference ability. Code, data, cached outputs, and a datasheet are released.

Explaining why a specific outcome occurred, and which inputs deserve the blame or credit, is central to philosophical, scientific, and policy analysis. Existing tools split into two camps. The theory of actual causality (AC) gives principled verdicts, but only for toy-sized models, because computing them requires enumerating counterfactual scenarios. Scalable attribution methods like SHAP (or even causal SHAP) at least partially ignore the causal structure that generated the data, and can give answers that conflict with a careful causal analysis. We close this gap with Probabilistic Causal Impact (PCI). PCI builds on actual causality and on Pearl's notions of probability of necessity and sufficiency, but recasts the question of explainability as an estimation problem on a probabilistic causal model that is easily approximated via Monte Carlo. By specifying a distribution over "candidate explanations," a distribution over counterfactual values, and a scoring function, PCI provides tractable, causally grounded, graded explanations, generalizing AC and Pearl's probability of causation as degenerate cases. We evaluate PCI in synthetic and real-world examples, spanning consistency checks with AC, scaling experiments, complex continuous-valued dynamical systems, and a real-world deployed causal machine learning model trained on millions of datapoints.

An image editor may satisfy every regional plausibility constraint separately even when no single latent explanation fits the complete output. We formalize this local-to-global failure using a common witness grade and witness nerve. The framework separates auditing from causal identification: shared exogeneity alone allows every coupling of the regime marginals, whereas an externally justified witness relation yields sharp partial-identification bounds for prespecified image features. Helly-type arguments provide short incompatibility certificates for quasiconvex losses, heterogeneous action strata, and finite witness atlases; a blocker-hypergraph formula gives exact repair counts. Simultaneous confidence regions for the regime marginals give finite-sample outer coverage of the complete identified interval. Controlled MNIST, Morpho-MNIST, and smallNORB studies demonstrate the predicted local-global separation, while synthetic experiments test sharp bounds, certificate recovery, and structured computation. The method audits a declared feature relation and does not identify unrestricted pixel-level counterfactuals.

In the natural sciences, symmetries and cause-effect relationships are ubiquitous. Yet for complex machine-learning tasks, like world-modeling in reinforcement learning, they appear difficult to harness. We propose a formal description of statistical systems based on symmetries in data leaving causal mechanisms invariant. The result is an abstract, simple and general mathematical language for causal reasoning. This paper provides formal descriptions of models and queries, setting up this language, and the formal infrastructure and strategies for their mathematically rigorous identification from data within this formalism. This approach reproduces and matches standard theoretical results on IID data and transport of experimental and non-experimental data. But its main purpose is to unify and substantially extend the scope of causal reasoning, in going beyond IID data and in approaching complex causal queries not captured by do- or soft-interventions. This new perspective on causally relevant aspects of data-modeling additionally sheds new light on well-known structures like c-components or hedges but also includes aspects of missing data and is inherently well-suited for the description of transfer and robustness properties.

Causal inference is the practice of estimating the effect of a treatment or intervention from data. It traditionally requires a bespoke pipeline for every new problem: first proposing a causal mechanism, selecting a compatible estimator, and finally training it. Meanwhile, across diverse settings and modalities, much of machine learning has shifted to the paradigm of foundation models: networks pretrained once at scale and applied to new tasks without fine-tuning. Causal foundation models (CFMs) bring this paradigm to causal inference. CFMs are pretrained neural networks that estimate causal quantities, such as the average treatment effect, on entirely new datasets using in-context learning without requiring model updates. This work provides a practical introduction to this emerging area. We summarize the necessary background in causal inference and machine learning before discussing CFMs. Throughout, we include example code and Jupyter notebooks.

In many settings, studying causal questions based on text data requires adjusting for confounding information within texts. Yet there is a tradeoff in constructing text representations for adjustment: they must be sufficiently large and/or dense to preserve the confounding variables necessary for unbiased effect estimation, but sufficiently small and/or sparse to satisfy finite-sample overlap and yield low-variance estimates. To address this tradeoff, we turn to sparse autoencoders (SAEs), and propose a novel causal adjustment pipeline that iteratively selects a minimal set of SAE features via conditional independence tests. We find that SAE representations achieve better adjustments (lower bias and and higher coverage) than alternative representations in standard semi-synthetic evaluations with binary confounders, and their interpretability offers opportunities for falsification. We also introduce a more realistic semi-synthetic evaluation that uses multi-label data as the unobserved confounders and find off-the-shelf adjustment methods require increased investigation for these more complex settings. Code: https://github.com/mianzg/sae-text-confounder