-
Manifold Restricted Interventional Shapley Values
Authors:
Muhammad Faaiz Taufiq,
Patrick Blöbaum,
Lenon Minorics
Abstract:
Shapley values are model-agnostic methods for explaining model predictions. Many commonly used methods of computing Shapley values, known as off-manifold methods, rely on model evaluations on out-of-distribution input samples. Consequently, explanations obtained are sensitive to model behaviour outside the data distribution, which may be irrelevant for all practical purposes. While on-manifold met…
▽ More
Shapley values are model-agnostic methods for explaining model predictions. Many commonly used methods of computing Shapley values, known as off-manifold methods, rely on model evaluations on out-of-distribution input samples. Consequently, explanations obtained are sensitive to model behaviour outside the data distribution, which may be irrelevant for all practical purposes. While on-manifold methods have been proposed which do not suffer from this problem, we show that such methods are overly dependent on the input data distribution, and therefore result in unintuitive and misleading explanations. To circumvent these problems, we propose ManifoldShap, which respects the model's domain of validity by restricting model evaluations to the data manifold. We show, theoretically and empirically, that ManifoldShap is robust to off-manifold perturbations of the model and leads to more accurate and intuitive explanations than existing state-of-the-art Shapley methods.
△ Less
Submitted 25 February, 2023; v1 submitted 10 January, 2023;
originally announced January 2023.
-
Testing Granger Non-Causality in Panels with Cross-Sectional Dependencies
Authors:
Lenon Minorics,
Caner Turkmen,
David Kernert,
Patrick Bloebaum,
Laurent Callot,
Dominik Janzing
Abstract:
This paper proposes a new approach for testing Granger non-causality on panel data. Instead of aggregating panel member statistics, we aggregate their corresponding p-values and show that the resulting p-value approximately bounds the type I error by the chosen significance level even if the panel members are dependent. We compare our approach against the most widely used Granger causality algorit…
▽ More
This paper proposes a new approach for testing Granger non-causality on panel data. Instead of aggregating panel member statistics, we aggregate their corresponding p-values and show that the resulting p-value approximately bounds the type I error by the chosen significance level even if the panel members are dependent. We compare our approach against the most widely used Granger causality algorithm on panel data and show that our approach yields lower FDR at the same power for large sample sizes and panels with cross-sectional dependencies. Finally, we examine COVID-19 data about confirmed cases and deaths measured in countries/regions worldwide and show that our approach is able to discover the true causal relation between confirmed cases and deaths while state-of-the-art approaches fail.
△ Less
Submitted 23 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Correcting Confounding via Random Selection of Background Variables
Authors:
You-Lin Chen,
Lenon Minorics,
Dominik Janzing
Abstract:
We propose a method to distinguish causal influence from hidden confounding in the following scenario: given a target variable Y, potential causal drivers X, and a large number of background features, we propose a novel criterion for identifying causal relationship based on the stability of regression coefficients of X on Y with respect to selecting different background features. To this end, we p…
▽ More
We propose a method to distinguish causal influence from hidden confounding in the following scenario: given a target variable Y, potential causal drivers X, and a large number of background features, we propose a novel criterion for identifying causal relationship based on the stability of regression coefficients of X on Y with respect to selecting different background features. To this end, we propose a statistic V measuring the coefficient's variability. We prove, subject to a symmetry assumption for the background influence, that V converges to zero if and only if X contains no causal drivers. In experiments with simulated data, the method outperforms state of the art algorithms. Further, we report encouraging results for real-world data. Our approach aligns with the general belief that causal insights admit better generalization of statistical associations across environments, and justifies similar existing heuristic approaches from the literature.
△ Less
Submitted 4 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
-
Causal Forecasting:Generalization Bounds for Autoregressive Models
Authors:
Leena Chennuru Vankadara,
Philipp Michael Faller,
Michaela Hardt,
Lenon Minorics,
Debarghya Ghoshdastidar,
Dominik Janzing
Abstract:
Despite the increasing relevance of forecasting methods, causal implications of these algorithms remain largely unexplored. This is concerning considering that, even under simplifying assumptions such as causal sufficiency, the statistical risk of a model can differ significantly from its \textit{causal risk}. Here, we study the problem of \textit{causal generalization} -- generalizing from the ob…
▽ More
Despite the increasing relevance of forecasting methods, causal implications of these algorithms remain largely unexplored. This is concerning considering that, even under simplifying assumptions such as causal sufficiency, the statistical risk of a model can differ significantly from its \textit{causal risk}. Here, we study the problem of \textit{causal generalization} -- generalizing from the observational to interventional distributions -- in forecasting. Our goal is to find answers to the question: How does the efficacy of an autoregressive (VAR) model in predicting statistical associations compare with its ability to predict under interventions?
To this end, we introduce the framework of \textit{causal learning theory} for forecasting. Using this framework, we obtain a characterization of the difference between statistical and causal risks, which helps identify sources of divergence between them. Under causal sufficiency, the problem of causal generalization amounts to learning under covariate shifts, albeit with additional structure (restriction to interventional distributions under the VAR model). This structure allows us to obtain uniform convergence bounds on causal generalizability for the class of VAR models. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that provides theoretical guarantees for causal generalization in the time-series setting.
△ Less
Submitted 8 September, 2022; v1 submitted 18 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
-
Quantifying intrinsic causal contributions via structure preserving interventions
Authors:
Dominik Janzing,
Patrick Blöbaum,
Atalanti A. Mastakouri,
Philipp M. Faller,
Lenon Minorics,
Kailash Budhathoki
Abstract:
We propose a notion of causal influence that describes the `intrinsic' part of the contribution of a node on a target node in a DAG. By recursively writing each node as a function of the upstream noise terms, we separate the intrinsic information added by each node from the one obtained from its ancestors. To interpret the intrinsic information as a {\it causal} contribution, we consider `structur…
▽ More
We propose a notion of causal influence that describes the `intrinsic' part of the contribution of a node on a target node in a DAG. By recursively writing each node as a function of the upstream noise terms, we separate the intrinsic information added by each node from the one obtained from its ancestors. To interpret the intrinsic information as a {\it causal} contribution, we consider `structure-preserving interventions' that randomize each node in a way that mimics the usual dependence on the parents and does not perturb the observed joint distribution. To get a measure that is invariant with respect to relabelling nodes we use Shapley based symmetrization and show that it reduces in the linear case to simple ANOVA after resolving the target node into noise variables. We describe our contribution analysis for variance and entropy, but contributions for other target metrics can be defined analogously. The code is available in the package gcm of the open source library DoWhy.
△ Less
Submitted 8 March, 2024; v1 submitted 1 July, 2020;
originally announced July 2020.
-
Causal structure based root cause analysis of outliers
Authors:
Dominik Janzing,
Kailash Budhathoki,
Lenon Minorics,
Patrick Blöbaum
Abstract:
We describe a formal approach to identify 'root causes' of outliers observed in $n$ variables $X_1,\dots,X_n$ in a scenario where the causal relation between the variables is a known directed acyclic graph (DAG). To this end, we first introduce a systematic way to define outlier scores. Further, we introduce the concept of 'conditional outlier score' which measures whether a value of some variable…
▽ More
We describe a formal approach to identify 'root causes' of outliers observed in $n$ variables $X_1,\dots,X_n$ in a scenario where the causal relation between the variables is a known directed acyclic graph (DAG). To this end, we first introduce a systematic way to define outlier scores. Further, we introduce the concept of 'conditional outlier score' which measures whether a value of some variable is unexpected *given the value of its parents* in the DAG, if one were to assume that the causal structure and the corresponding conditional distributions are also valid for the anomaly. Finally, we quantify to what extent the high outlier score of some target variable can be attributed to outliers of its ancestors. This quantification is defined via Shapley values from cooperative game theory.
△ Less
Submitted 5 December, 2019;
originally announced December 2019.
-
Feature relevance quantification in explainable AI: A causal problem
Authors:
Dominik Janzing,
Lenon Minorics,
Patrick Blöbaum
Abstract:
We discuss promising recent contributions on quantifying feature relevance using Shapley values, where we observed some confusion on which probability distribution is the right one for dropped features. We argue that the confusion is based on not carefully distinguishing between observational and interventional conditional probabilities and try a clarification based on Pearl's seminal work on caus…
▽ More
We discuss promising recent contributions on quantifying feature relevance using Shapley values, where we observed some confusion on which probability distribution is the right one for dropped features. We argue that the confusion is based on not carefully distinguishing between observational and interventional conditional probabilities and try a clarification based on Pearl's seminal work on causality. We conclude that unconditional rather than conditional expectations provide the right notion of dropping features in contradiction to the theoretical justification of the software package SHAP. Parts of SHAP are unaffected because unconditional expectations (which we argue to be conceptually right) are used as approximation for the conditional ones, which encouraged others to `improve' SHAP in a way that we believe to be flawed.
△ Less
Submitted 27 November, 2019; v1 submitted 29 October, 2019;
originally announced October 2019.
