aiqbench analysis
This research introduces a novel framework for uncertainty-aware causal decision making by decomposing effect bounds to distinguish between reducible and irreducible uncertainty in observational data. By leveraging neural causal models and optimization techniques, the method helps practitioners determine when additional sampling will not improve action selection, thereby guiding efficient data collection strategies or the need for non-observational studies.
Uncertainty-aware Causal Decision Making via Effect Bound Decomposition
arXiv:2601.22736v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Causal inference from observational data can provide strong evidence for finding the best action in a decision-making scenario without having to perform expensive randomized trials. The causal effect of an action is often not pointwise identifiable even with infinite data due to unobserved confounding factors. Furthermore, having only finitely many samples adds another layer of uncertainty to causal effect estimation. Several existing methods can be used to obtain upper and lower bounds to the causal effect, ranging from symbolic methods to the more recent neural network-based approaches, which implicitly incorporate both sources of uncertainty. However, these methods do not inform whether collecting more samples may or may not help identify the best action from observational data, leaving experts in the dark about their data collection strategies. We address this problem with a novel framework that can distinguish the range of causal effect values that might be eliminated by collecting more samples from the range of values that, with high probability, cannot be eliminated with more observational samples. We show that this partitioning can be obtained by solving max-min and min-max optimization problems. We leverage neural causal models to approximately recover this decomposition in practice. We demonstrate via experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets that our algorithm can determine when collecting more samples will not help determine the best action. Our framework can help practitioners decide when to resort to non-observational studies or seek to measure some of the unmeasured confounders for optimal decision-making.
Abstract:Causal inference from observational data can provide strong evidence for finding the best action in a decision-making scenario without having to perform expensive randomized trials. The causal effect of an action is often not pointwise identifiable even with infinite data due to unobserved confounding factors. Furthermore, having only finitely many samples adds another layer of uncertainty to causal effect estimation. Several existing methods can be used to obtain upper and lower bounds to the causal effect, ranging from symbolic methods to the more recent neural network-based approaches, which implicitly incorporate both sources of uncertainty. However, these methods do not inform whether collecting more samples may or may not help identify the best action from observational data, leaving experts in the dark about their data collection strategies. We address this problem with a novel framework that can distinguish the range of causal effect values that might be eliminated by collecting more samples from the range of values that, with high probability, cannot be eliminated with more observational samples. We show that this partitioning can be obtained by solving max-min and min-max optimization problems. We leverage neural causal models to approximately recover this decomposition in practice. We demonstrate via experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets that our algorithm can determine when collecting more samples will not help determine the best action. Our framework can help practitioners decide when to resort to non-observational studies or seek to measure some of the unmeasured confounders for optimal decision-making.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2601.22736 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2601.22736v3 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.22736 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 338 words
Related coverage
UA-DCM: Uncertainty-aware Causal Decision Making via Effect Bound Decomposition
arXiv · Jun 9, 2026
Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026
Capability Minimization as a Safety Primitive: Risk-Aware Causal Gating for Least-Privilege LLM Agents
arXiv · Jun 15, 2026
Stop doing decision theory without metaphysics
LessWrong · Jul 20, 2026