Experiment Selection in Meta-Analytic Piecemeal Causal Discovery

Scientists try to design experiments that will yield maximal information. For instance, given the available evidence and a limitation on the number of variables that can be observed simultaneously, it may be more informative to intervene on variable <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$X$ </tex-math></inline-formula> and observe the response of variable <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$Y$ </tex-math></inline-formula> than to intervene on <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$X$ </tex-math></inline-formula> and observe <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">$Z$ </tex-math></inline-formula>; in other situations, the opposite may be true. Scientists must often make these decisions without primary data. To address this problem, in previous work, we created software for annotating aggregate statistics in the literature and deriving consistent causal explanations, expressed as causal graphs. This meta-analytic pipeline is useful not only for synthesizing evidence but also for planning experiments: one can use it strategically to select experiments that could further eliminate causal graphs from consideration. In this paper, we introduce interpretable policies for selecting experiments in the context of piecemeal causal discovery, a common setting in biological sciences in which each experiment can measure not an entire system but rather a strict subset of its variables. The limits of this piecemeal approach are only beginning to be fully characterized, with crucial theoretical work published recently. With simulations, we show that our experiment-selection policies identify causal structures more efficiently than random experiment selection. Unlike methods that require primary data, our meta-analytic approach offers a flexible alternative for those seeking to incorporate qualitative domain knowledge into their search for causal mechanisms. We also present a method that categorizes hypotheses with respect to their utility for identifying a system’s causal structure. Although this categorization is usually infeasible to perform manually, it is critical for conducting research efficiently.

[1]  Marius Thomas Lindauer,et al.  Potassco: The Potsdam Answer Set Solving Collection , 2011, AI Commun..

[2]  Anthony Landreth,et al.  The Need for Research Maps to Navigate Published Work and Inform Experiment Planning , 2013, Neuron.

[3]  Frederick Eberhardt,et al.  Introduction to the foundations of causal discovery , 2017, International Journal of Data Science and Analytics.

[4]  Christopher H. Bryant,et al.  Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist , 2004, Nature.

[5]  Sarala M. Wimalaratne,et al.  The Systems Biology Graphical Notation , 2009, Nature Biotechnology.

[6]  Frederick Eberhardt,et al.  Introduction to the Epistemology of Causation , 2009 .

[7]  Frederick Eberhardt,et al.  Experiment selection for causal discovery , 2013, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[8]  Conor Mayo-Wilson,et al.  Causal identifiability and piecemeal experimentation , 2018, Synthese.

[9]  Alcino J. Silva,et al.  ResearchMaps.org for integrating and planning research , 2018, PloS one.

[10]  Clark Glymour,et al.  The automation of discovery , 2004, Daedalus.

[11]  Conor Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The Limits of Piecemeal Causal Inference , 2014, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[12]  Nicholas John Matiasz Planning Experiments with Causal Graphs , 2018 .

[13]  David Danks,et al.  Causal discovery algorithms: A practical guide , 2018 .

[14]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[15]  Conor Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The Problem of Piecemeal Induction , 2011, Philosophy of Science.

[16]  Wei Wang,et al.  Translating literature into causal graphs: Toward automated experiment selection , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM).

[17]  Ivayla Nedeltcheva Vatcheva,et al.  Computer-Supported Experiment Selection for Model Discrimination , 2001 .

[18]  Frederick Eberhardt,et al.  Discovering Cyclic Causal Models with Latent Variables: A General SAT-Based Procedure , 2013, UAI.

[19]  Frederick Eberhardt,et al.  Experimental Indistinguishability of Causal Structures , 2013, Philosophy of Science.

[20]  Hidde de Jong,et al.  Selection of Perturbation Experiments for Model Discrimination , 2000, ECAI.

[21]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  The need for novel informatics tools for integrating and planning research in molecular and cellular cognition , 2015, Learning & memory.

[22]  Frederick Eberhardt,et al.  Constraint-based Causal Discovery: Conflict Resolution with Answer Set Programming , 2014, UAI.

[23]  Adnan Darwiche,et al.  Modeling and Reasoning with Bayesian Networks , 2009 .

[24]  Frederick Eberhardt,et al.  N-1 Experiments Suffice to Determine the Causal Relations Among N Variables , 2006 .

[25]  Chitta Baral,et al.  Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving , 2003 .

[26]  Frederick Eberhardt,et al.  Causal Discovery as a Game , 2008, NIPS Causality: Objectives and Assessment.

[27]  Wei Wang,et al.  Computer-Aided Experiment Planning toward Causal Discovery in Neuroscience , 2017, Front. Neuroinform..

[28]  Olivier Bernard,et al.  Experiment selection for the discrimination of semi-quantitative models of dynamical systems , 2006, Artif. Intell..