ML Beyond Curve Fitting: An Intro to Causal Inference and Do-Calculus
I am interested in a companion phenomenon with the recent interest in causal models in machine learning. Namely, the fact that at least in computer vision, it is not new at all and has been an important idea for at least many decades.<p>One of the original sources that took this approach is &quot;The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception&quot; (1979) [0], by James Gibson, discussed at length the idea of &quot;affordances&quot; of an algorithmic model, similar in some respects to topics in reinforcement learning as well. Affordances represented the information about outcomes you gained by varying your degrees of observational freedom (i.e. you learn how to generalize beyond occluded objects by moving your head a little to the left or right and seeing how the visual input varies. This lets you get food, or hide from a predator that&#x27;s partially blocked by a tree, etc., so over time generalizing past occlusions become better and better -- this is much more interesting than a naive approach, like using data augmentation to augment a labeled data set with synthetically occluded variations, for example as is often done to improve rotational invariance).<p>Then this idea was extended with a lot of formality in the mid-to-late 00&#x27;s by Stefano Soatto in his papers on &quot;Actionable Information&quot; [1].<p>I wish more effort had been made by e.g. Pearl to look into this and unify his approach with what had already been thought of, especially because it turns me off a lot when someone tries to create a &quot;whole new paradigm&quot; and it starts to feel like they want to generate sexy marketing hype about it, rather than to say hey, this is an extension or connection or alternative of this older idea <i>already in the topic of machine learning</i> rather than appearing like one is saying, &quot;Us over hear in causal inference world already know so much more about what to do ... so now let&#x27;s apply it to your domain where you never thought of this&quot;. Pearl has a history of doing this stuff too, like with his previous debates with Gelman about Bayesian models. It almost feels to me like he is shopping around for some sexy application area where his one-upsmanship approach will catch on too give him a chance at the hype gravy train or something.<p>[0]: &lt; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;James_J._Gibson#Major_works" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;James_J._Gibson#Major_works</a> &gt;<p>[1]: &lt; <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.vision.cs.ucla.edu&#x2F;papers&#x2F;soatto09.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.vision.cs.ucla.edu&#x2F;papers&#x2F;soatto09.pdf</a> &gt;