Causal Inference

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is widely used for large-scale skeletal assessment, yet learning controllable and interpretable factor-specific anatomical variation remains challenging. We propose a metadata-conditioned causal hierarchical variational autoencoder (CHVAE) for causally consistent generation of anteroposterior (AP) spine DXA images from the UK Biobank (UKB). The model is trained on 3,743 raw AP spine scans from the first imaging visit and conditioned on basic participant attributes and lumbar morphometry. Causal consistency is evaluated in a baseline-to-follow-up setting using abduction--action--prediction (AAP): latent variables are abducted from baseline images, age is intervened to the repeat-imaging value, and the resulting counterfactual follow-up morphometry is compared with observed repeat-imaging measurements. Results show strong absolute-level agreement for key vertebral morphometry variables under age intervention, supporting intervention-aligned synthesis of anatomically plausible DXA images.

Recommender systems often rely on observational user--item interaction data, which is prone to selection bias due to users' selective interactions with items. Inverse propensity weighting and doubly robust estimators effectively mitigate selection bias under observed confounding, but are unreliable in the presence of hidden confounders. Existing approaches relying on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or global sensitivity bounds are constrained in practice: RCTs demand costly experimental data, while global sensitivity bounds presume a uniformly bounded effect of unmeasured confounders on propensities through sensitivity analysis, thereby neglecting heterogeneity across user--item interactions. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel framework, which estimates user--item level sensitivity bounds, thereby substantially relaxing the homogeneity assumption inherent in global sensitivity bounds named Personalized Unobserved-Confounding-aware Interaction Deconfounder (PUID). To ensure both robustness and predictive accuracy, we further develop an adversarial optimization strategy and propose a benchmark-guided variant (BPUID) that incorporates pre-trained models as stabilizing references. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms global methods under hidden confounding, without requiring RCT data.

We study the problem of selecting covariates for unbiased estimation of the total causal effect.Existing approaches typically rely on global causal structure learning over all variables, or on strong assumptions such as causal sufficiency - where observed variables share no latent confounders - or the pretreatment assumption, which limits covariates to those unaffected by the treatment or outcome. These requirements are often unrealistic in practice, and global learning becomes computationally prohibitive in high-dimensional settings.To address these challenges, we propose a novel local learning method for covariate selection in nonparametric causal effect estimation that avoids both the pretreatment and causal sufficiency assumptions. We first characterize a local boundary that contains at least one valid adjustment set whenever one exists for identifying the causal effect, and then develop local identification procedures to efficiently search within this boundary.We prove that the proposed method is sound and complete. Experiments on multiple synthetic datasets and two real-world datasets show that our approach achieves accurate causal effect estimation while substantially improving computational efficiency.

Objective: The growing availability of large-scale observational clinical datasets and challenges in conducting randomized controlled trials have spurred enthusiasm in using causal machine learning (ML) for causal inference in observational data. We present a roadmap for applying causal ML to observational data. Materials and methods: We outline the importance of assessing validity assumptions within available data and applying causal ML responsibly for clinical experts using causal ML and ML practitioners with limited clinical expertise. Observations: Despite advances in causal ML, its limitations remain largely under-appreciated across disciplines. This gap in shared knowledge may impact the validity of findings. Discussion: Causal assumptions must be satisfied and modeling choices justified. Otherwise, these approaches risk producing biased or misleading results, with consequences for clinical research and patient care. Conclusion: Causal ML can be a powerful tool for generating causal hypotheses. We provide a template to strengthen the rigor and interpretability of causal analyses.

Large language models (LLMs) show potential as simulators of human behavior, offering a scalable way to study responses to interventions. However, because LLMs are trained largely on observational data, interventions in experiments with LLM-simulated synthetic users can induce unintended shifts in latent user attributes, causing user drift where the implicit simulated population differs across treatment conditions, potentially distorting effect estimates. We formalize the confounding or selection bias that can arise due to user drift and show how intervention-dependent shifts can inflate or attenuate observed differences in user responses under intervention. To diagnose confounding, we propose using negative control outcomes--attributes that should remain invariant under intervention--to identify distribution shifts across intervention conditions, providing evidence of user drift. To mitigate drift, we study adjusting the persona specification by eliciting additional confounders, finding that targeted, setting-relevant confounders can substantially reduce bias across survey-style and multi-turn agent evaluations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) generate realistic synthetic data but offer no guarantee that their outputs respect the causal mechanisms governing the target domain. We introduce CausalSynth, a framework that decouples causal structure generation from semantic realization, yielding synthetic data that is both causally valid and linguistically rich. The framework operates in three phases. First, a Structural Causal Model (SCM) - a tuple of structural equations defined over a directed acyclic graph (DAG) generates causal skeletons, i.e., variable assignments that satisfy the Global Markov Property of the governing DAG, via ancestral sampling. Second, an LLM acts as a constrained \emph{realizer}, a conditional translator that maps each skeleton to a high-dimensional observation such as a clinical note or a transaction log. Third, an Iterative Consistency Verification module detects structural violations through deterministic extraction and feeds targeted corrections back to the LLM, forming a closed-loop refinement process. We identify the Semantic Backdoor problem the systematic tendency of LLMs to override imposed causal facts with pre-training priors -- and prove that our iterative mechanism reduces the resulting selection bias relative to standard rejection sampling. On three causal benchmarks (ASIA, ALARM, and MIMIC-Struct), CausalSynth preserved conditional independencies with false-positive rates near the nominal $α=0.05$ level and achieved realizability rates above 96% with 70B-parameter LLM backbones. The framework additionally supports principled interventional and counterfactual generation through noise retention and graph mutilation.

Individualized treatment selection with continuous actions requires accurate causal response estimation in decision-relevant regions, rather than uniformly over the entire action space. Estimating a global causal response surface and then choosing the treatment that maximizes it can therefore be suboptimal, since standard estimation objectives allocate modeling effort according to the observed treatment distribution rather than the regions that determine the optimal decision. While decision-aware approaches have been studied in unconfounded settings, this problem remains underexplored in proximal causal inference, where proxy variables and bridge functions enable identification under suitable assumptions even in the presence of hidden confounding. Despite recent progress, proximal methods have primarily focused on treatment-effect and potential-outcome estimation rather than treatment selection and optimal decision-making. To bridge this gap, we introduce a policy-targeted weighted bridge loss that emphasizes decision-relevant treatment regions while retaining global stabilization. We prove a regret bound showing that the proposed weighted bridge loss controls treatment-selection regret through a weighted ill-posedness constant. We instantiate the framework in decision-aware variants of several proximal bridge solvers, yielding practical algorithms that alternate between weighted bridge estimation, response-surface projection, policy update, and weight refinement. Empirically, we find that decision-aware weighting reduces regret across several bridge solvers, suggesting improved treatment selection in proximal settings.

Clinical decision-making is a feedback system where risk estimates influence treatment, which in turn changes disease trajectories, and both shape clinicians' measurement practices. Static prediction often fails clinically: models trained on observational care logs conflate disease biology with clinician behavior, particularly under treatment confounder feedback and irregular or informative observation. This Review focuses on intervention-aware disease trajectory modeling in clinical AI--methods estimating patient-specific longitudinal disease evolution and assessing trajectory changes under alternative treatments. We organize the field around six linked components: three decision tasks (factual forecasting, counterfactual estimation, policy evaluation) and three data-generating mechanisms (disease evolution, treatment assignment, observation process) that determine identifiability. We present the first unified framework bridging forecasting, counterfactual trajectories, and policy evaluation across discrete/continuous time, explicitly addressing treatment assignment, time-varying confounding, and observation bias. We synthesize key method families (multistate/joint models, temporal point-process, deep sequence architectures, longitudinal causal inference), map them to relevant components, and align evaluation with claim strength via overlap diagnostics, uncertainty quantification, off-policy robustness, and target-trial validation. This synthesis advances benchmark prediction to decision-grade clinical evidence, enabling treatment-sensitive individualized futures, pre-deployment policy stress-testing, and safer closed-loop learning health systems that adapt/abstain when evidence is insufficient.

We consider the following two-player game: using observational data, the leader chooses a prediction function for a response variable $Y$ from given covariates. The follower then reacts with an intervention on some covariates in the underlying structural causal model to maximize their own objective. The leader knows the intervention targets, but may have limited knowledge of the follower's objective. We call this setup a prediction-intervention game, a special case of a Stackelberg game. Finding an optimal strategy for the leader is generally difficult. To avoid severe performance loss, the leader may base their prediction on the causal parents of $Y$, or more generally on an invariant subset of covariates. We prove, for two common classes of follower objectives, that predictors based on the stable blanket, a specific invariant subset, are always better or as good as those based on the causal parents. We further upper bound the leader's post-intervention risk by a worst-case risk over allowed interventions and strengthen existing distribution generalization results to analyze this bound: we give sufficient conditions under which stable-blanket predictors are worst-case optimal, and show by examples that these conditions cannot in general be dropped. Finally, we discuss practical strategies for settings with known and unknown graph, and test them on simulated and real-world data.

Comparative evaluation of multiple dynamic treatment policies is essential for healthcare and policy decisions, yet conventional longitudinal causal inference methods estimate each in isolation, preventing information sharing across counterfactuals. We demonstrate that this separate estimation paradigm induces a structurally uncontrolled second-order bias, inflating finite-sample variance even after standard debiasing with longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation(LTMLE). To address this, we propose a policy-aware reparameterization of Iterative Conditional Expectation (ICE) Q-functions that enables joint estimation through shared representations. We implement this approach in the Policy-Encoded Q Network (PEQ-Net), an architecture centered on a shared policy encoder. The encoder is trained using kernel mean embeddings, ensuring that the learned representation space reflects population-level policy dissimilarities. After applying an LTMLE correction step, we prove this design imposes a structural constraint on the second-order remainder, thereby stabilizing finite-sample variance. Experiments on semi-synthetic datasets demonstrate that PEQ-Net consistently outperforms existing ICE-based methods, achieving substantial reductions in root-mean-square error, particularly when evaluating closely related policies.

Causal discovery, the problem of inferring the direction of causality, is generally ill-posed. We use the language of structural causal models (SCM) to show that assuming that the causal relations are acyclic and invariant across multiple environments (e.g., the way minimum wage affects employment rate is stable across different geographical regions), \textit{only} two auxiliary environments are sufficient to infer the causal graph for arbitrary nonlinear mechanisms. Moreover, we demonstrate that this implies identifiability of the SCM functional mechanisms: as a corollary, we show that \textit{two} auxiliary environments are sufficient to guarantee correct counterfactual inference. We empirically support our theoretical results on synthetic data.

The geometry of the retinal vessel is a key biomarker of vascular diseases, yet clinical evidence remains primarily observational. Existing generative counterfactuals intervene only at the image-level disease label, failing to isolate explicit anatomical structure. To address this limitation, we propose the Bézier Tree Encoding Counterfactual Framework (BTECF). By abstracting vascular networks into interconnected cubic-Bézier segments, BTECF establishes a disease-agnostic representation in which structural topology is explicitly preserved and atomically perturbable. Coupling this encoding with a diffusion-based generator enables parameter-level do-interventions on explicit geometric axes (e.g., tortuosity, caliber) while preserving background fundus textures. We validate BTECF on diabetic retinopathy, together with independent cohorts for ischemic stroke and Alzheimer's disease. Isolated counterfactual interventions produce dose-responsive shifts in classifier predictions; a matched pixel-drop control attenuates this response by an order of magnitude or more, ruling out out-of-distribution generation artifacts. By enforcing causal isolation between vessel topology and pixel-level confounders, BTECF provides a unified generative paradigm for hypothesis verification across systemic diseases. To support reproducibility, the code will be publicly released upon acceptance.

The instrumental-variables (IV) setting is standard for partial identification of causal effects when unobserved confounding makes point identification impossible. Existing approaches face methodological bottlenecks: closed-form bound estimands are required -- e.g., Balke-Pearl equations in binary IV -- and even when available, designing accurate estimators requires manual effort tailored to each estimand. While direct Bayesian inference of the causal effects, instead of the bounds, circumvents these challenges, it is often computationally intensive and suffers from high prior sensitivity or under-dispersed posteriors. As a remedy, we introduce IV-ICL, an amortized Bayesian in-context learning method that learns the marginal posterior distribution of the causal effects directly and derives bounds as its quantiles. Unlike standard variational inference that optimizes exclusive KL divergence, amortized Bayesian inference minimizes the expected inclusive KL, a mass-covering objective. We empirically observe that optimizing inclusive KL can recover the entire identified set across diverse data-generating processes, while exclusive-KL (e.g. with variational inference) of the same Bayesian formulation collapses onto a single mode and fails to cover the identified set. We evaluate IV-ICL on synthetic and semi-synthetic IV benchmarks and show it produces intervals that are more reliably valid and more informative compared to efficient semi-parametric, Bayesian, and plug-in baselines, at 20-500x lower inference time. Beyond methodology, we propose a procedure to convert randomized controlled trials into IV benchmarks with provably preserved ground-truth causal effects that enables a more realistic evaluation of partial-identification methods.

Large language models can extract local causal claims from text, but those claims become more useful when organized as persistent, navigable world models rather than as flat summaries. We introduce PROMETHEUS, a framework that turns retrieved literature, filings, reviews, reports, agent traces, source data, code, simulations, and scientific models into causal atlases: sheaf-like families of local causal predictive-state models over an explicit cover of a research substrate. Each local region contains causal episodes, structured claim tables, predictive tests, support statistics, and provenance; restriction maps compare overlapping regions; gluing diagnostics expose agreement, drift, contradiction, and underdetermination. The resulting Topos World Model is not a single universal graph. It is a research instrument for navigating what a corpus says, where it says it, how strongly it is supported, and where local claims fail to assemble into a coherent global view. Three literature-atlas case studies -- ocean-temperature impacts on marine populations, GLP-1 weight-loss evidence, and resveratrol/red-wine health-benefit claims -- illustrate deep causal research from text with explicit locality, evidence, persistent state, and gluing tension. Four grounded-counterfactual case studies -- a Nature Climate Change microplastics forcing paper, an Indus Valley hydrology paper with VIC-derived figure data and model code, the canonical Sachs protein-signaling study with single-cell perturbation data, and a Nature singing-mouse study with MAPseq projection matrices -- show a stronger mode: when a paper ships source data, simulation outputs, or code, PROMETHEUS can evaluate a counterfactual against that scientific substrate and then rebuild the sheaf world model around the

Using offline datasets to evaluate conversational agents often fails to cover rare scenarios or to support testing new policies. This has motivated the use of controllable user simulators for targeted, counterfactual evaluation, typically implemented by prompting or fine-tuning large language models. In this work, we formalize controllable simulation as a causal inference problem. By bridging natural language evaluation with off-policy evaluation methodology, we show that the standard practice of training simulators via supervised fine-tuning on post-hoc trajectory labels yields a structurally biased model. Specifically, these labels are inextricably coupled to the data-generating behavior policy, injecting a look-ahead bias that breaks causal consistency. Furthermore, we prove that under policy shift this failure causes the variance of evaluation metrics to explode geometrically, a phenomenon we term controllability collapse. To restore causal consistency, we establish theoretical conditions for accurate simulation and propose practical training mitigations: a priori controls, step-wise dynamic controls, and direct policy-conditioned learning. Empirical evaluation confirms that while standard global controls distort conversational distributions and collapse behavioral diversity, our causally grounded simulators eliminate look-ahead bias, preserve natural variance, and exhibit robust zero-shot generalization to unseen agent behaviors.

The trustworthiness of AI decision-making systems is increasingly important. A key feature of such systems is the ability to provide recommendations for how an individual may reverse a negative decision, a problem known as algorithmic recourse. Existing approaches treat recourse outcomes as counterfactuals of a fixed unit, ignoring that real-world recourse involves repeated decisions on the same individual under possibly different latent conditions. We develop a causal framework that models recourse as a process over pre- and post-intervention outcomes, allowing for partial stability and resampling of latent variables. We introduce post-recourse stability conditions that enable reasoning about recourse from observational data alone, and develop a copula-based algorithm for inferring the effects of recourse under these conditions. For settings where paired observations of the same individual before and after intervention are available (called recourse data), we develop methods for inferring copula parameters and performing goodness-of-fit testing. When the copula model is rejected, we provide a distribution-free algorithm for learning recourse effects directly from recourse data. We demonstrate the value of the proposed methods on real and semi-synthetic datasets.

Automated systems built on artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly deployed across high-stakes domains, raising critical concerns about fairness and the perpetuation of demographic disparities that exist in the world. In this context, causal inference provides a principled framework for reasoning about fairness, as it links observed disparities to underlying mechanisms and aligns naturally with human intuition and legal notions of discrimination. Prior work on causal fairness primarily focuses on the standard machine learning setting, where a decision-maker constructs a single predictive mechanism $f_{\widehat Y}$ for an outcome variable $Y$, while inheriting the causal mechanisms of all other covariates from the real world. The generative AI setting, however, is markedly more complex: generative models can sample from arbitrary conditionals over any set of variables, implicitly constructing their own beliefs about all causal mechanisms rather than learning a single predictive function. This fundamental difference requires new developments in causal fairness methodology. We formalize the problem of causal fairness in generative AI and unify it with the standard ML setting under a common theoretical framework. We then derive new causal decomposition results that enable granular quantification of fairness impacts along both (a) different causal pathways and (b) the replacement of real-world mechanisms by the generative model's mechanisms. We establish identification conditions and introduce efficient estimators for causal quantities of interest, and demonstrate the value of our methodology by analyzing race and gender bias in large language models across different datasets.

In the data-driven era, large-scale datasets are routinely collected and analyzed using machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to inform decisions in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, employment, and criminal justice, raising concerns about the fairness behavior of these systems. Existing works in fair ML cover tasks such as bias detection, fair prediction, and fair decision-making, but largely focus on static settings. At the same time, fairness in temporal contexts, particularly survival/time-to-event (TTE) analysis, remains relatively underexplored, with current approaches to fair survival analysis adopting statistical fairness definitions, which, even with unlimited data, cannot disentangle the causal mechanisms that generate disparities. To address this gap, we develop a causal framework for fairness in TTE analysis, enabling the decomposition of disparities in survival into contributions from direct, indirect, and spurious pathways. This provides a human-understandable explanation of why disparities arise and how they evolve over time. Our non-parametric approach proceeds in four steps: (1) formalizing the necessary assumptions about censoring and lack of confounding using a graphical model; (2) recovering the conditional survival function given covariates; (3) applying the Causal Reduction Theorem to reframe the problem in a form amenable to causal pathway decomposition; (4) estimating the effects efficiently. Finally, our approach is used to analyze the temporal evolution of racial disparities in outcome after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU).

Grey failures in the computing continuum produce ambiguous overlapping symptoms that existing approaches fail to diagnose reliably, either due to a lack of causal awareness or acting under high epistemic uncertainty, risking destructive interventions. This paper presents an uncertainty-aware resilience micro-agent for causal observability (AURORA), a lightweight framework for diagnosing and mitigating grey failures in edge-tier environments. The framework employs parallel micro-agents that integrate the free-energy principle, causal do-calculus, and localized causal state-graphs to support counterfactual root-cause analysis within each fault's Markov blanket. Restricting inference to causally relevant variables reduces computational overhead while preserving diagnostic fidelity. AURORA further introduces a dual-gated execution mechanism that authorizes remediation only when causal confidence is high and predicted epistemic uncertainty is bounded; otherwise, it abstains from local intervention and escalates the diagnostic payload to the fog tier. Our experiments demonstrate that AURORA outperforms baselines, achieving a 0% destructive action rate, while maintaining 62.0% repair accuracy and a 3ms mean time to repair.

Causal sensitivity analysis aims to provide bounds for causal effect estimates in the presence of unobserved confounding. However, existing methods for causal sensitivity analysis are per-instance procedures, meaning that changes to the dataset, causal query, sensitivity level, or treatment require new computation. Here, we instead present an in-context learning approach. Specifically, we propose an amortized approach to causal sensitivity analysis based on prior-data fitted networks. A key challenge is that the sensitivity bounds are not directly available when sampling training data. To address this, we develop a general prior-data construction that is applicable across the class of generalized treatment sensitivity models. Our construction involves a Lagrangian scalarization of the objective to generate training labels for the bounds through a tradeoff between causal effect min/max-imization and sensitivity model violation, which avoids model-specific analytical derivations. We further show that, under standard convexity and linearity conditions, our objective recovers the full Pareto frontier of solutions. Empirically, we demonstrate our amortized approach across various datasets, causal queries, and sensitivity levels, where our approach achieves a test-time computation that is orders of magnitude faster than per-instance methods. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first foundation model for in-context learning for causal sensitivity analysis.

In causal inference, confounders are variables that influence both treatment decisions and outcomes. However, unlike as in randomized clinical trials, the treatment assignment mechanism in observational studies is not known, and it is thus unclear which covariates act as confounders. Here, we aim to generate insight for causal inference and answer: which of the observed covariates act as confounders? We introduce ConfoundingSHAP, a Shapley-based method for attributing confounding strength to individual covariates. Our contributions are twofold. First, we propose a Shapley game targeted to infer the confounding strength of the covariates. Our resulting Shapley values differ from the standard applications of SHAP explanations on causal targets, such as understanding treatment effect heterogeneity, which are ill-suited for our task. Second, as our task requires evaluating the value function over many adjustment sets, we provide a scalable TabPFN-based estimation that avoids exhaustive refitting. We demonstrate the practical value across various datasets, where ConfoundingSHAP provides informative explanations of which observed covariates drive confounding and thereby helps to provide more insight for causal inference in practice.

Distributional causal inference requires estimating not only average treatment effects but also interventional outcome distributions, including quantiles, tail risks, and policy-dependent uncertainty. As a method for distributional causal inference, generative adversarial network (GAN)-based counterfactual methods are flexible tools for this task. However, these methods have several limitations. First, the objectives of certain techniques do not coincide with the statistical risk of the identifiable causal target, and therefore provide limited theoretical guarantees regarding estimable counterfactual distributions or optimality. Second, they tend to rely on unstable density-based methods, such as density ratio estimation. In this paper, we propose GANICE (GAN for Interventional Conditional Estimation) with several advantages: it (i) clarifies the conditional interventional distribution for each treatment--covariate state as the causal estimation target; (ii) estimates the conditional distribution such that its averaged Wasserstein risk is minimized; (iii) establishes minimax optimality. GANICE achieves these advantages through the introduction of the extended Wasserstein distance, the incorporation of a cellwise critic in its dual, and an optimality proof based on Besov space theory. Our experiments demonstrate that GANICE consistently outperforms existing methods.

Unobserved confounding prevents standard covariate adjustment from identifying causal response functions in observational studies. Proxy causal learning addresses this problem through bridge equations involving treatment- and outcome-inducing proxies, avoiding direct recovery of the latent confounder. Existing doubly robust proxy estimators combine outcome and treatment bridges, but typically rely on fixed kernels, sieves, or low-dimensional semiparametric models; existing neural proxy methods are more flexible, but are largely single-bridge estimators. We develop a neural doubly robust framework for proxy causal learning with continuous and structured treatments. Our method introduces a neural mean-embedding estimator for the treatment bridge, combines it with a neural outcome bridge, and estimates the doubly robust correction through a final regression stage. The framework covers population, heterogeneous, and conditional dose-response functions, yielding full response-curve estimators rather than binary-treatment effects. The algorithms use two stages for each bridge and history-aware updates of the final linear layers to stabilize stochastic multi-stage training. We prove consistency of the algorithms showing that the doubly robust error is controlled by the final averaging and regression errors together with the smaller of the outcome- and treatment-side weak-norm bridge errors. Across synthetic and image-valued benchmarks, the proposed estimators outperform existing baselines and single-bridge neural estimators, showing the benefit of combining learned outcome and treatment bridges in a doubly robust construction. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/BariscanBozkurt/DRPCL-Neural-Mean-Embedding.

We introduce the Sinkhorn treatment effect, an entropic optimal transport measure of divergence between counterfactual distributions. Unlike classical quantities such as the average treatment effect, this measure captures differences across entire distributions. We analyze this divergence as a statistical functional and show it can be written as a smooth transformation of counterfactual mean embeddings with an appropriate kernel. This characterization allows us to establish first-order pathwise differentiability in general, and second-order pathwise differentiability under the null hypothesis of equal counterfactual distributions. Leveraging this smoothness, we construct debiased estimators and use them to obtain asymptotically valid tests for distributional treatment effects with a fixed entropic regularization parameter. Because the power of the test depends on this unknown parameter, we further propose an aggregated test that combines evidence across a grid of regularization choices. Experiments on simulated and image data demonstrate the practical advantages of our estimator and testing procedure.

Distributional treatment effects can be invisible to means: a treatment may preserve average outcomes while changing tails, modes, dispersion, or rare-event probabilities. Kernel tests can detect discrepancies between interventional outcome laws, but global tests do not reveal where the laws differ. We propose DR-ME, to our knowledge the first semiparametrically efficient finite-location test for interpretable distributional treatment effects. DR-ME evaluates an interventional kernel witness at learned outcome locations, returning causal-discrepancy coordinates rather than only a global rejection. From observational data, we derive orthogonal doubly robust kernel features whose centered oracle form is the canonical gradient of this finite witness. For fixed locations, we characterize the local testing limit: DR-ME is chi-square calibrated under the null, has noncentral chi-square local power, and uses the covariance whitening that optimizes local signal-to-noise for discrepancies visible through the selected coordinates. This efficient local-power geometry yields a principled location-learning criterion, with sample splitting preserving post-selection validity. Experiments show near-nominal type-I error, competitive power against global doubly robust kernel tests, and interpretable learned locations that localize distributional effects in a semi-synthetic medical-imaging study.

Causal inference, especially in observational studies, relies on untestable assumptions about the true data-generating process. Sensitivity analysis helps us determine how robust our conclusions are when we alter these underlying assumptions. Existing frameworks for sensitivity analysis are concerned with worst-case changes in assumptions. In this work, we argue that using such pessimistic criteria can often become uninformative or lead to conclusions contradicting our prior knowledge about the world. To demonstrate this claim, we generalize the recent s-value framework (Gupta & Rothenhäusler, 2023) to estimate the sensitivity of three different common assumptions in causal inference. Empirically, we find that, indeed, worst-case conclusions about sensitivity can rely on unrealistic changes in the data-generating process. To overcome this, we extend the s-value framework with a new sensitivity analysis criterion: Bayesian Sensitivity Value (BSV), which computes the expected sensitivity of an estimate to assumption violations under priors constructed from real-world evidence. We use Monte Carlo approximations to estimate this quantity and illustrate its applicability in an observational study on the effect of diabetes treatments on weight loss.

Estimating counterfactual distributions under interventions is central to treatment risk assessment and counterfactual generation tasks. Existing approaches model the counterfactual distribution as a standalone generative target, without exploiting its relationship to the observational data. In this work, we show that under standard assumptions, observational and counterfactual outcome distributions are tightly linked: they have identical support and tail behavior, remain statistically close under weak confounding, and share any features of high-dimensional outcomes which are invariant to confounders. These properties motivate learning counterfactual distributions not from scratch, but via a deconfounding flow from the observational distribution. We formulate this problem via flow-matching and derive a semiparametrically efficient estimator based on a novel efficient influence function correction. We subsequently extend our estimator to target minimal-energy flows in high-dimensions, which we show can be especially simple targets between observational and counterfactual distributions. In experiments, deconfounding flows outperform existing debiased counterfactual distribution estimators, while also mitigating known failure modes of flow-based methods.

Recent methods for improving LLM mathematical reasoning, whether through MCTS-based test-time search or causal graph-guided knowledge injection, cannot identify which concepts causally contribute to a correct answer, as the observed association may be spurious, driven by confounders such as problem difficulty. We propose CIKA (Causal Intervention for Knowledge Activation), a framework that uses the LLM itself as an interventional simulator: a prompt sets the concept state to ``mastered'' and the correctness change estimates the causal effect. We formalize this quantity as an Interventional Capability Probe (ICP), which diagnoses whether the LLM can use a given concept -- distinct from merely possessing knowledge. Because the intervention exogenously sets the concept state independently of problem difficulty, ICP separates confounding that observational methods cannot. On 67 screened problems, the ICP of the top-ranked concept (+0.219) is significantly larger than that of the negative control (+0.039; paired $t$-test, $p < 10^{-6}$, Cohen's $d = 0.86$), confirming that the probe discriminates causally relevant concepts from irrelevant ones. Analysis of 601 Omni-MATH problems further shows that solved problems have 6.1$\times$ higher ATE than unsolved ones (0.338 vs. 0.055), confirming that ICP is predictive of problem-solving success. With a 7B-parameter LLM whose weights are entirely frozen, CIKA achieves 69.7% on the contamination-free Omni-MATH-Rule benchmark and 64.0% overall, compared to 60.5% for o1-mini, and 97.2% on GSM8K, 46--50% on AIME 2024--2026, and 46.2% on MathArena. The Causal Knowledge Activation component contributes 33.8% of correct answers on problems where the base model alone fails, demonstrating that the LLM already possessed but had not activated the requisite knowledge.

Instrumental-variable (IV) regression enables causal estimation under endogeneity, but modern IV problems often involve nonlinear structural effects and high-dimensional covariates. Existing methods typically operate in observed or generic learned feature spaces, and they often yield point estimates without uncertainty quantification. We introduce BGM-IV, a Bayesian generative modeling approach that performs nonlinear IV regression through posterior inference in a causally structured latent space. BGM-IV separates covariate variation by the role in the treatment and outcome mechanism, and accounts for endogeneity through an IV-integrated pseudo-likelihood that averages over instrument-induced treatment variation. The resulting model provides both structural-function estimates and predictive intervals for outcomes under intervention. Across various benchmark datasets, BGM-IV outperforms existing nonlinear IV methods overall, with significant gains in high-dimensional settings, while achieving near-nominal predictive coverage. These results highlight structured latent generative modeling as a flexible approach to uncertainty-aware IV inference with rich covariates. The code of BGM-IV is available at https://github.com/liuq-lab/BGM-IV.

Causal queries are often only partially identifiable from observational data, and experiments that could tighten the resulting bounds are typically costly. We study the problem of selecting, prior to observing experimental outcomes, a cost-constrained subset of experiments that maximally tightens bounds on a target query. We formalize this as the max-potency problem, where epistemic potency measures the worst-case reduction in bound width guaranteed by an experiment, and show that this problem is NP-hard via a reduction from 0-1 knapsack. Building on the polynomial-programming framework of Duarte et al. (2023), we give a general procedure for evaluating epistemic potency in discrete settings. To control the super-exponential search space, we introduce two graphical pruning criteria that depend only on the causal graph and the query: a novel path-interception rule that exploits district structure to certify zero potency in linear time, and an identifiability check based on the ID algorithm. On Erdos-Renyi random graphs and 11 bnlearn benchmark networks, the two criteria together prune 50-88% of candidate experiments on average without solving a single polynomial program. For the general subset search, we show that ID-pruned experiments are combinatorially inert, yielding a super-exponential reduction in the number of subsets evaluated. We close with an end-to-end demonstration on observational NHANES data, selecting optimal experiments for estimating the effect of physical activity on diabetes.