Nov 2025· arXiv.org· Vol abs/2511.22842· 0 citations
Computer Science
TL;DR
This work offers the first random generator of synthetic causal benchmarks with coverage guarantees and transparent assumptions operating on the three levels of causal reasoning: observation, intervention, and counterfactual, and demonstrates its utility by evaluating several state-of-the-art methods under diverse conditions and assumptions.
Abstract
Causal machine learning (Causal ML) aims to answer"what if"questions using machine learning algorithms, making it a promising tool for high-stakes decision-making. Yet, empirical evaluation practices in Causal ML remain limited. Existing benchmarks often rely on a handful of hand-crafted or semi-synthetic datasets, leading to brittle, non-generalizable conclusions. To bridge this gap, we introduce CausalProfiler, a synthetic benchmark generator for Causal ML methods. Based on a set of explicit design choices about the class of causal models, queries, and data considered, the CausalProfiler randomly samples causal models, data, queries, and ground truths constituting the synthetic causal benchmarks. In this way, Causal ML methods can be rigorously and transparently evaluated under a variety of conditions. This work offers the first random generator of synthetic causal benchmarks with coverage guarantees and transparent assumptions operating on the three levels of causal reasoning: observation, intervention, and counterfactual. We demonstrate its utility by evaluating several state-of-the-art methods under diverse conditions and assumptions, both in and out of the identification regime, illustrating the types of analyses and insights the CausalProfiler enables.
CausalDS, a benchmark for evaluating causal reasoning in agentic data-science workflows, is introduced, which jointly evaluates symbolic causal reasoning, data science, uncertainty quantification, abstention, and tool use/coding.
The methodological bridge connecting causal reasoning with modern supervised learning is reviewed and why correlation-driven models give biased answers to questions about actions is explained.
R. M.· Eduschool International Jour...· 0 citations
It is suggested that validity-first automated science systems should be evaluated not only by answer accuracy, but also by whether they indicate when causal claims are unwarranted.
Irena Girshovitz, Dan Zeltzer, Ran Gilad-Bachrach· arXiv.org· 0 citations
A framework for automated theoretical research in causal inference built on the Lean proof assistant, where a proof is checked by a program rather than read by a referee is presented, where a proof is checked by a program rather than read by a referee.
Participants will learn to apply the Causal Roadmap and implement state-of-the-art tools in R and Python and leave with reproducible artifacts to support transparent, peer‑reviewable causal claims.
An open-source Python workflow that records each decision, derives defaults from an extended causal-audit module, and admits domain-informed overrides, AutoCause converts inconsistent expert practice into an auditable, repeatable analysis.
M. Ruiz, Miguel Arana-Catania, D. Ardila et al.· 0 citations
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 13, 2026
Machine-learning networks can learn without detailed instructions from a designer. Those that do may offer insight into how the brain reorganizes itself during learning.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 29, 2026
Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.