Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Targeted Reduction of Causal Models

Armin Kekić, Bernhard Schölkopf, Michel Besserve

TL;DR

The paper addresses the challenge of explaining complex, high-dimensional simulations by learning concise, high-level causal explanations for a chosen target variable $Y$. It introduces Targeted Causal Reduction (TCR), which casts a low-level simulator as a causal model and learns a constructive, low-to-high-level transformation that yields a small set of high-level causes $\mathbf{Z}$ and a simple mechanism for $Y$, optimized via a KL-based consistency loss over shift interventions: $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{cons}}$. Under linear-Gaussian assumptions, the authors derive analytic identifiability results showing when a 1-cause (and up to $n_{\max}$-cause) TCR is unique, including explicit formulae for $\tau$ and $\omega$ mappings. They provide a scalable Linear TCR (LTCR) algorithm with Gaussian-consistency loss and regularizers to prevent collapse, and demonstrate the method on toy linear models, a double-well ODE system, and a spring-mass system, revealing interpretable, physically meaningful high-level drivers of the target. The work offers a principled, intervention-driven path to interpretability in scientific simulations, enabling domain experts to extract compact, causally meaningful explanations without requiring fully specified high-level models upfront.

Abstract

Why does a phenomenon occur? Addressing this question is central to most scientific inquiries and often relies on simulations of scientific models. As models become more intricate, deciphering the causes behind phenomena in high-dimensional spaces of interconnected variables becomes increasingly challenging. Causal Representation Learning (CRL) offers a promising avenue to uncover interpretable causal patterns within these simulations through an interventional lens. However, developing general CRL frameworks suitable for practical applications remains an open challenge. We introduce Targeted Causal Reduction (TCR), a method for condensing complex intervenable models into a concise set of causal factors that explain a specific target phenomenon. We propose an information theoretic objective to learn TCR from interventional data of simulations, establish identifiability for continuous variables under shift interventions and present a practical algorithm for learning TCRs. Its ability to generate interpretable high-level explanations from complex models is demonstrated on toy and mechanical systems, illustrating its potential to assist scientists in the study of complex phenomena in a broad range of disciplines.

Targeted Reduction of Causal Models

TL;DR

The paper addresses the challenge of explaining complex, high-dimensional simulations by learning concise, high-level causal explanations for a chosen target variable . It introduces Targeted Causal Reduction (TCR), which casts a low-level simulator as a causal model and learns a constructive, low-to-high-level transformation that yields a small set of high-level causes and a simple mechanism for , optimized via a KL-based consistency loss over shift interventions: . Under linear-Gaussian assumptions, the authors derive analytic identifiability results showing when a 1-cause (and up to -cause) TCR is unique, including explicit formulae for and mappings. They provide a scalable Linear TCR (LTCR) algorithm with Gaussian-consistency loss and regularizers to prevent collapse, and demonstrate the method on toy linear models, a double-well ODE system, and a spring-mass system, revealing interpretable, physically meaningful high-level drivers of the target. The work offers a principled, intervention-driven path to interpretability in scientific simulations, enabling domain experts to extract compact, causally meaningful explanations without requiring fully specified high-level models upfront.

Abstract

Why does a phenomenon occur? Addressing this question is central to most scientific inquiries and often relies on simulations of scientific models. As models become more intricate, deciphering the causes behind phenomena in high-dimensional spaces of interconnected variables becomes increasingly challenging. Causal Representation Learning (CRL) offers a promising avenue to uncover interpretable causal patterns within these simulations through an interventional lens. However, developing general CRL frameworks suitable for practical applications remains an open challenge. We introduce Targeted Causal Reduction (TCR), a method for condensing complex intervenable models into a concise set of causal factors that explain a specific target phenomenon. We propose an information theoretic objective to learn TCR from interventional data of simulations, establish identifiability for continuous variables under shift interventions and present a practical algorithm for learning TCRs. Its ability to generate interpretable high-level explanations from complex models is demonstrated on toy and mechanical systems, illustrating its potential to assist scientists in the study of complex phenomena in a broad range of disciplines.
Paper Structure (59 sections, 6 theorems, 116 equations, 7 figures, 3 tables, 1 algorithm)

This paper contains 59 sections, 6 theorems, 116 equations, 7 figures, 3 tables, 1 algorithm.

Key Result

Proposition 3.0

The consistency loss is positive, invariant to invertible reparametrizations (see Def. def:reparam), and vanishes if and only if the transformation is exact for almost all interventions. It decomposes as and is an upper bound of the causal relevance loss

Figures (7)

  • Figure 1: Targeted Causal Reduction. (a) Example targeted model reduction: a model of the dynamics of a system of point masses connected by springs can be reduced to the trajectory of its center of mass. (b) Overview of TCR. Low-level variables ${\bm{X}}$ (simulation) are mapped to high-level variables $({\bm{Z}}, Y)$ with a fixed causal structure. The target $Y$ is known, while the causes ${\bm{Z}}$ and the high-level causal mechanism are learned. Additionally, we learn a mapping from low-level shift interventions ${\bm{i}}$ to high-level shift interventions ${\bm{\omega}}({\bm{i}})$.
  • Figure 2: Toy example experiments.
  • Figure 3: Double well experiment. (a) Experimental setup with a ball moving in a double well potential subject to linear friction. (b) Pushforward density of the high-level cause for the two settings: one where no intervention is applied (unintervened), and the other with an applied shift intervention. (c, d) Learned parameters, $\tau$ and $\omega$, respectively. The learned high-level mechanism is $f(Z_1) \approx 1.37 Z_1 + 0.45$ (e) Samples in phase space (position vs. velocity) for the first 20 time points. The color indicates whether the high-level model predicts the ball to end up in the right (pink) or right well (turquoise). (f, g) Samples from the unintervened setting and the corresponding estimated density. (h) Estimated density for one intervened setting.
  • Figure 4: Spring-mass system experiment. (a) Simulated system of four point masses with different weights connected by springs and with random initial velocity (blue arrows). The target of the simulation is the center of mass speed in $(1, 1)$-direction. (b-e) Learned $\bm{\tau}$- and ${\bm{\omega}}$-weights corresponding to velocity components in $x$- and $y$-direction for a TCR with two high-level variables. The learned high-level mechanism is $f({\bm{Z}}) \approx -0.226 Z_1 + 0.220 Z_2$. (f) Comparison between masses and learned omega weights. For the first high-level variable the mean omega weights corresponding to the $x$-direction are shown and for the second variable those for the $y$-direction. (g-j) Example trajectory for an unintervened system.
  • Figure 5: 1-cause TCR solutions on a chain graph. Arrows indicate non-zero coefficients of each map. (a) Unique solution $\bm{\tau}_1$ when interventions are performed on all nodes except the target. (b) Two solutions $\bm{\tau}_1$ and $\bm{\tau}'_1$ when only the first two nodes are intervened on.
  • ...and 2 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (12)

  • Definition 2.1: SCM
  • Definition 2.2: Exact transformation rubenstein2017causal
  • Definition 2.3
  • Proposition 3.0: Consistency loss
  • Proposition 3.2
  • Example 3.2: Linear chain
  • Definition B.1
  • Proposition C.1
  • Proposition C.1
  • Definition D.1
  • ...and 2 more