Counterfactuals are often described as 'retrospective,' focusing on hypothetical alternatives to a realized past. This description relates to an often implicit assumption about the structure and stability of exogenous variables in the system being modeled -- an assumption that is reasonable in many settings where counterfactuals are used. In this work, we consider cases where we might reasonably make a different assumption about exogenous variables, namely, that the exogenous noise terms of each unit do exhibit some unit-specific structure and/or stability. This leads us to a different use of counterfactuals -- a 'forward-looking' rather than 'retrospective' counterfactual. We introduce "counterfactual treatment choice," a type of treatment choice problem that motivates using forward-looking counterfactuals. We then explore how mismatches between interventional versus forward-looking counterfactual approaches to treatment choice, consistent with different assumptions about exogenous noise, can lead to counterintuitive results.

A significant body of research in the data sciences considers unfair discrimination against social categories such as race or gender that could occur or be amplified as a result of algorithmic decisions. Simultaneously, real-world disparities continue to exist, even before algorithmic decisions are made. In this work, we draw on insights from the social sciences brought into the realm of causal modeling and constrained optimization, and develop a novel algorithmic framework for tackling pre-existing real-world disparities. The purpose of our framework, which we call the "impact remediation framework," is to measure real-world disparities and discover the optimal intervention policies that could help improve equity or access to opportunity for those who are underserved with respect to an outcome of interest. We develop a disaggregated approach to tackling pre-existing disparities that relaxes the typical set of assumptions required for the use of social categories in structural causal models. Our approach flexibly incorporates counterfactuals and is compatible with various ontological assumptions about the nature of social categories. We demonstrate impact remediation with a hypothetical case study and compare our disaggregated approach to an existing state-of-the-art approach, comparing its structure and resulting policy recommendations. In contrast to most work on optimal policy learning, we explore disparity reduction itself as an objective, explicitly focusing the power of algorithms on reducing inequality.

解决公平问题对于安全使用机器学习算法来支持对人们的生活产生关键影响的决策，例如雇用工作，儿童虐待，疾病诊断，贷款授予等。过去十年，例如统计奇偶校验和均衡的赔率。然而，最新的公平概念是基于因果关系的，反映了现在广泛接受的想法，即使用因果关系对于适当解决公平问题是必要的。本文研究了基于因果关系的公平概念的详尽清单，并研究了其在现实情况下的适用性。由于大多数基于因果关系的公平概念都是根据不可观察的数量（例如干预措施和反事实）来定义的，因此它们在实践中的部署需要使用观察数据来计算或估计这些数量。本文提供了有关从观察数据（包括可识别性（Pearl的SCM框架））和估计（潜在结果框架）中推断出因果量的不同方法的全面报告。该调查论文的主要贡献是（1）指南，旨在在特定的现实情况下帮助选择合适的公平概念，以及（2）根据Pearl的因果关系阶梯的公平概念的排名，表明它很难部署。实践中的每个概念。

Machine learning can impact people with legal or ethical consequences when it is used to automate decisions in areas such as insurance, lending, hiring, and predictive policing. In many of these scenarios, previous decisions have been made that are unfairly biased against certain subpopulations, for example those of a particular race, gender, or sexual orientation. Since this past data may be biased, machine learning predictors must account for this to avoid perpetuating or creating discriminatory practices. In this paper, we develop a framework for modeling fairness using tools from causal inference. Our definition of counterfactual fairness captures the intuition that a decision is fair towards an individual if it is the same in (a) the actual world and (b) a counterfactual world where the individual belonged to a different demographic group. We demonstrate our framework on a real-world problem of fair prediction of success in law school. * Equal contribution. This work was done while JL was a Research Fellow at the Alan Turing Institute. 2 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/04/big-risks-big-opportunities-intersection-big-dataand-civil-rights 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017),

基于AI和机器学习的决策系统已在各种现实世界中都使用，包括医疗保健，执法，教育和金融。不再是牵强的，即设想一个未来，自治系统将推动整个业务决策，并且更广泛地支持大规模决策基础设施以解决社会最具挑战性的问题。当人类做出决定时，不公平和歧视的问题普遍存在，并且当使用几乎没有透明度，问责制和公平性的机器做出决定时（或可能会放大）。在本文中，我们介绍了\ textit {Causal公平分析}的框架，目的是填补此差距，即理解，建模，并可能解决决策设置中的公平性问题。我们方法的主要见解是将观察到数据中存在的差异的量化与基本且通常是未观察到的因果机制收集的因果机制的收集，这些机制首先会产生差异，挑战我们称之为因果公平的基本问题分析（FPCFA）。为了解决FPCFA，我们研究了分解差异和公平性的经验度量的问题，将这种变化归因于结构机制和人群的不同单位。我们的努力最终达到了公平地图，这是组织和解释文献中不同标准之间关系的首次系统尝试。最后，我们研究了进行因果公平分析并提出一本公平食谱的最低因果假设，该假设使数据科学家能够评估不同影响和不同治疗的存在。

估计平均因果效应的理想回归（如果有）是什么？我们在离散协变量的设置中研究了这个问题，从而得出了各种分层估计器的有限样本方差的表达式。这种方法阐明了许多广泛引用的结果的基本统计现象。我们的博览会结合了研究因果效应估计的三种不同的方法论传统的见解：潜在结果，因果图和具有加性误差的结构模型。

This review presents empirical researchers with recent advances in causal inference, and stresses the paradigmatic shifts that must be undertaken in moving from traditional statistical analysis to causal analysis of multivariate data. Special emphasis is placed on the assumptions that underly all causal inferences, the languages used in formulating those assumptions, the conditional nature of all causal and counterfactual claims, and the methods that have been developed for the assessment of such claims. These advances are illustrated using a general theory of causation based on the Structural Causal Model (SCM) described in Pearl (2000a), which subsumes and unifies other approaches to causation, and provides a coherent mathematical foundation for the analysis of causes and counterfactuals. In particular, the paper surveys the development of mathematical tools for inferring (from a combination of data and assumptions) answers to three types of causal queries: (1) queries about the effects of potential interventions, (also called "causal effects" or "policy evaluation") (2) queries about probabilities of counterfactuals, (including assessment of "regret," "attribution" or "causes of effects") and (3) queries about direct and indirect effects (also known as "mediation"). Finally, the paper defines the formal and conceptual relationships between the structural and potential-outcome frameworks and presents tools for a symbiotic analysis that uses the strong features of both.

算法公平吸引了机器学习社区越来越多的关注。文献中提出了各种定义，但是它们之间的差异和联系并未清楚地解决。在本文中，我们回顾并反思了机器学习文献中先前提出的各种公平概念，并试图与道德和政治哲学，尤其是正义理论的论点建立联系。我们还从动态的角度考虑了公平的询问，并进一步考虑了当前预测和决策引起的长期影响。鉴于特征公平性的差异，我们提出了一个流程图，该流程图包括对数据生成过程，预测结果和诱导的影响的不同类型的公平询问的隐式假设和预期结果。本文展示了与任务相匹配的重要性（人们希望执行哪种公平性）和实现预期目的的手段（公平分析的范围是什么，什么是适当的分析计划）。

决策者需要在采用新的治疗政策之前预测结果的发展，该政策定义了何时以及如何连续地影响结果的治疗序列。通常，预测介入的未来结果轨迹的算法将未来治疗的固定顺序作为输入。这要么忽略了未来治疗对结果之前的结果的依赖性，要么隐含地假设已知治疗政策，因此排除了该政策未知或需要反事实分析的情况。为了应对这些局限性，我们开发了一种用于治疗和结果的联合模型，该模型允许估计处理策略和顺序治疗（OUT COMECTION数据）的影响。它可以回答有关治疗政策干预措施的介入和反事实查询，因为我们使用有关血糖进展的现实数据显示，并在此基础上进行了模拟研究。

最近的工作突出了因果关系在设计公平决策算法中的作用。但是，尚不清楚现有的公平因果概念如何相互关系，或者将这些定义作为设计原则的后果是什么。在这里，我们首先将算法公平性的流行因果定义组装成两个广泛的家庭：（1）那些限制决策对反事实差异的影响的家庭； （2）那些限制了法律保护特征（如种族和性别）对决策的影响。然后，我们在分析和经验上表明，两个定义的家庭\ emph {几乎总是总是} - 从一种理论意义上讲 - 导致帕累托占主导地位的决策政策，这意味着每个利益相关者都有一个偏爱的替代性，不受限制的政策从大型自然级别中绘制。例如，在大学录取决定的情况下，每位利益相关者都不支持任何对学术准备和多样性的中立或积极偏好的利益相关者，将不利于因果公平定义的政策。的确，在因果公平的明显定义下，我们证明了由此产生的政策要求承认所有具有相同概率的学生，无论学术资格或小组成员身份如何。我们的结果突出了正式的局限性和因果公平的常见数学观念的潜在不利后果。

为了在结构因果模型（SCM）中执行反事实推理，需要了解因果机制，它提供条件分布的因子，并将噪声映射到样本的确定性函数。遗憾的是，因象无法通过观察和与世界互动收集的数据唯一确定的因果机制，因此仍然存在如何选择因果机制的问题。最近的工作中，Oberst＆Sontag（2019）提出了Gumbel-Max SCM，它由于直观上吸引的反事实稳定性而导致Gumbel-Max Reparameterizations作为因果机制。在这项工作中，我们认为选择在估算反事实治疗效果时最小化的定量标准的因果机制，例如最小化方差。我们提出了一个参数化的因果机制，概括了Gumbel-Max。我们表明他们可以接受培训，以最大限度地减少对感兴趣查询的分布的反事实效果方差和其他损失，从而产生比固定替代方案的反复治疗效果的较低方差估计，也推广到在培训时间未见的查询。

Causal inference is the process of using assumptions, study designs, and estimation strategies to draw conclusions about the causal relationships between variables based on data. This allows researchers to better understand the underlying mechanisms at work in complex systems and make more informed decisions. In many settings, we may not fully observe all the confounders that affect both the treatment and outcome variables, complicating the estimation of causal effects. To address this problem, a growing literature in both causal inference and machine learning proposes to use Instrumental Variables (IV). This paper serves as the first effort to systematically and comprehensively introduce and discuss the IV methods and their applications in both causal inference and machine learning. First, we provide the formal definition of IVs and discuss the identification problem of IV regression methods under different assumptions. Second, we categorize the existing work on IV methods into three streams according to the focus on the proposed methods, including two-stage least squares with IVs, control function with IVs, and evaluation of IVs. For each stream, we present both the classical causal inference methods, and recent developments in the machine learning literature. Then, we introduce a variety of applications of IV methods in real-world scenarios and provide a summary of the available datasets and algorithms. Finally, we summarize the literature, discuss the open problems and suggest promising future research directions for IV methods and their applications. We also develop a toolkit of IVs methods reviewed in this survey at https://github.com/causal-machine-learning-lab/mliv.

因果推断能够估计治疗效果（即，治疗结果的因果效果），使各个领域的决策受益。本研究中的一个基本挑战是观察数据的治疗偏见。为了提高对因果推断的观察研究的有效性，基于代表的方法作为最先进的方法表明了治疗效果估计的卓越性能。基于大多数基于表示的方法假设所有观察到的协变量都是预处理的（即，不受治疗影响的影响），并学习这些观察到的协变量的平衡表示，以估算治疗效果。不幸的是，这种假设往往在实践中往往是太严格的要求，因为一些协调因子是通过对治疗的干预进行改变（即，后治疗）来改变。相比之下，从不变的协变量中学到的平衡表示因此偏置治疗效果估计。

本文提出了秤，这是一个一般框架，将公平原则转化为基于约束马尔可夫决策过程（CMDP）的共同表示。借助因果语言，我们的框架可以在决策过程（程序公平）以及决策（结果公平）产生的结果上构成限制。具体而言，我们表明可以将众所周知的公平原理编码为实用程序组件，非毒性组件或鳞片中心中的因果分量。我们使用涉及模拟医疗方案和现实世界中Compas数据集的一组案例研究来说明量表。实验表明，我们的框架产生了公平的政策，这些政策在单步和顺序决策方案中体现了替代公平原则。

The intersection of causal inference and machine learning for decision-making is rapidly expanding, but the default decision criterion remains an \textit{average} of individual causal outcomes across a population. In practice, various operational restrictions ensure that a decision-maker's utility is not realized as an \textit{average} but rather as an \textit{output} of a downstream decision-making problem (such as matching, assignment, network flow, minimizing predictive risk). In this work, we develop a new framework for off-policy evaluation with \textit{policy-dependent} linear optimization responses: causal outcomes introduce stochasticity in objective function coefficients. Under this framework, a decision-maker's utility depends on the policy-dependent optimization, which introduces a fundamental challenge of \textit{optimization} bias even for the case of policy evaluation. We construct unbiased estimators for the policy-dependent estimand by a perturbation method, and discuss asymptotic variance properties for a set of adjusted plug-in estimators. Lastly, attaining unbiased policy evaluation allows for policy optimization: we provide a general algorithm for optimizing causal interventions. We corroborate our theoretical results with numerical simulations.

在当今的社会中，算法建议和决策已经变得普遍存在。其中许多和其他数据驱动的政策，特别是在公共政策领域，基于已知的确定性规则，以确保其透明度和可解释性。例如，算法预审风险评估，即作为我们的激励申请，提供相对简单，确定性的分类分数和建议，以帮助法官发出释放决策。我们如何根据现有的确定性政策使用数据，并学习新的和更好的策略？不幸的是，策略学习的先前方法不适用，因为它们需要现有的政策是随机而非确定性的。我们开发了一种强大的优化方法，部分地识别策略的预期效用，然后通过最小化最坏情况后悔找到最佳策略。由此产生的政策是保守的，但具有统计安全保障，允许政策制定者限制产生比现有政策更糟糕的结果的可能性。我们将这种方法扩展到人类借助算法建议作出决策的共同和重要的环境。最后，我们将提议的方法应用于预审风险评估工具的独特现场实验。我们推出了新的分类和推荐规则，以保留现有仪器的透明度和可解释性，同时可能以较低的成本导致更好的整体结果。

Causal learning has attracted much attention in recent years because causality reveals the essential relationship between things and indicates how the world progresses. However, there are many problems and bottlenecks in traditional causal learning methods, such as high-dimensional unstructured variables, combinatorial optimization problems, unknown intervention, unobserved confounders, selection bias and estimation bias. Deep causal learning, that is, causal learning based on deep neural networks, brings new insights for addressing these problems. While many deep learning-based causal discovery and causal inference methods have been proposed, there is a lack of reviews exploring the internal mechanism of deep learning to improve causal learning. In this article, we comprehensively review how deep learning can contribute to causal learning by addressing conventional challenges from three aspects: representation, discovery, and inference. We point out that deep causal learning is important for the theoretical extension and application expansion of causal science and is also an indispensable part of general artificial intelligence. We conclude the article with a summary of open issues and potential directions for future work.

关于人们的预测，例如他们预期的教育成就或信用风险，可以表现出色，并塑造他们旨在预测的结果。了解这些预测对最终结果的因果影响对于预测未来预测模型的含义并选择要部署哪些模型至关重要。但是，该因果估计任务带来了独特的挑战：模型预测通常是输入特征的确定性功能，并且与结果高度相关，这可能使预测的因果效应不可能从协变量的直接效应中解散。我们通过因果可识别性的角度研究了这个问题，尽管该问题完全普遍，但我们突出了三种自然情况，在这些情况下，可以从观察数据中确定预测对结果的因果影响：基于预测或基于预测的决策中的随机化。 ，在数据收集过程中部署的预测模型和离散预测输出的过度参数化。我们从经验上表明，在适当的可识别性条件下，从预测中预测的监督学习的标准变体可以找到特征，预测和结果之间的可转移功能关系，从而得出有关新部署的预测模型的结论。我们的积极结果从根本上依赖于在数据收集期间记录的模型预测，从而提出了重新思考标准数据收集实践的重要性，以使进步能够更好地理解社会成果和表现性反馈循环。

因果关系的概念在人类认知中起着重要作用。在过去的几十年中，在许多领域（例如计算机科学，医学，经济学和教育）中，因果推论已经得到很好的发展。随着深度学习技术的发展，它越来越多地用于针对反事实数据的因果推断。通常，深层因果模型将协变量的特征映射到表示空间，然后设计各种客观优化函数，以根据不同的优化方法公正地估算反事实数据。本文重点介绍了深层因果模型的调查，其核心贡献如下：1）我们在多种疗法和连续剂量治疗下提供相关指标； 2）我们从时间开发和方法分类的角度综合了深层因果模型的全面概述； 3）我们协助有关相关数据集和源代码的详细且全面的分类和分析。

反事实推断是一种强大的工具，能够解决备受瞩目的领域中具有挑战性的问题。要进行反事实推断，需要了解潜在的因果机制。但是，仅凭观察和干预措施就不能独特地确定因果机制。这就提出了一个问题，即如何选择因果机制，以便在给定领域中值得信赖。在具有二进制变量的因果模型中已经解决了这个问题，但是分类变量的情况仍未得到解答。我们通过为具有分类变量的因果模型引入反事实排序的概念来应对这一挑战。为了学习满足这些约束的因果机制，并对它们进行反事实推断，我们引入了深层双胞胎网络。这些是深层神经网络，在受过训练的情况下，可以进行双网络反事实推断 - 一种替代绑架，动作和预测方法的替代方法。我们从经验上测试了来自医学，流行病学和金融的多种现实世界和半合成数据的方法，并报告了反事实概率的准确估算，同时证明了反事实订购时不执行反事实的问题。