Improving precipitation forecasts in an AI weather model using observational data

Artificial intelligence weather prediction (AIWP) systems now surpass state-of-the-art physical models for medium-range weather forecasting. Current global AIWP models are trained almost exclusively using one reanalysis dataset, ERA5, but it has known biases, particularly for precipitation. Here we fine-tune a graph-transformer architecture with IMERG precipitation data at 0.25° resolution. The resulting model improves medium-range continuous ranked probability scores by up to 19%, while also demonstrating superior skill for tropical storms and drizzle events. Our model exceeds the Brier skill score of state-of-the-art operational models on extreme rainfall prediction by 57% globally; however, a physics-based operational model remains more reliable for the heaviest precipitation events. Our results demonstrate that incorporating observations-based precipitation data directly into training can substantially improve precipitation forecasts.

Multi-Method Causal Evidence Synthesis: Ranking Candidate Drivers by Convergent Cross-Method Evidence from Observational Data

Practitioners inferring causality from observational data usually rely on a single method and treat its output as causal truth. Recent tools select an optimal method for a dataset, and recent ensembles aggregate multiple causal-discovery algorithms into one graph, but little work pools evidence across different mathematical traditions, including non-causal ones. We present Multi-Method Causal Evidence Synthesis (MCES), a framework that ranks which candidate drivers in an observational system are most likely relevant to a set of outcomes, and with what strength of evidence. MCES runs eleven methods across eight mathematical traditions on observational panel data and pools their outputs into a Convergent Evidence Score (CES), a linear opinion pool. CES quantifies convergence of evidence across analytical lenses: the degree to which methods with different assumptions point to the same driver-outcome relationship. It does not claim causal identification in the interventionist sense; it supports hypothesis prioritization, not a transferable probability of causation. MCES first applies Structural-Behavioral Decomposition to remove definitional (algebraic) relationships, then runs all methods, normalizes outputs to [0,1], and pools them. We distinguish MCES from method selection, structural ensembles, prediction ensembles, and literature synthesis. Using synthetic data with embedded ground truth, the Sachs protein-signaling benchmark, six Bayesian-network structure benchmarks, and two further synthetic domains, we show MCES ranks true edges near the top (Precision@5 = 1.0, Precision@10 = 0.96 on the primary scenario), with a low empirical rate of null pairs reaching Moderate-or-higher convergence. Our central point is not that the pool beats every individual method, but that no single method is uniformly best across the evaluated scenarios, so MCES offers a method-agnostic default.

From Unsupervised Subgroups to Hypothetical State-Intervention Policies: An Evaluation of Selected Subgrouping Methods in Observational Health Data

Conventional subgroup analyses can yield unstable and difficult-to-interpret conclusions, especially in observational biomedical data where each individual is observed under only one exposure state, true individual treatment effects are unavailable, and causal structure is uncertain. We investigate whether subgroups constructed from pretreatment characteristics, without using exposure, outcome, or estimated treatment-effect information, can serve as interpretable units for budget-constrained policy prioritization. We propose a framework combining causal-discovery-informed covariate selection, discovery-evaluation sample splitting, inductive unsupervised clustering, uncertainty-aware subgroup selection, and held-out doubly robust policy evaluation. We compare K-means, hard, membership-weighted, and stochastic Fuzzy C-means, Bayesian Gaussian mixture models, and a supervised causal-forest-derived CATE-tree comparator. Policies are evaluated under a 70% budget for hypothetical obesity-to-non-obesity and elevated-to-lower-glucose state shifts in the PIMA Indians Diabetes dataset and for a lifetime-smoking-history contrast in NHANES. The highest estimated ungated utilities were 0.799 for the BMI policy using Bayesian GMM, 0.735 for the glucose policy using hard or membership-weighted FCM, and 0.775 for the smoking-history policy using K-means. All paired 95% confidence intervals for policy-risk differences included zero, and no comparison remained statistically significant after Holm adjustment. Bayesian pooling generally preserved ungated allocations, whereas Empirical Bernstein gating was more conservative. Policies with similar estimated utility could nevertheless prioritize different individuals. The findings should be interpreted as assumption-dependent decision-support evidence for hypothetical state contrasts rather than proof of intervention benefit.

A Hierarchy of Policy Learning Problems

Policy learning has received substantial attention with the goal of learning policies from observational data for decision-making. A majority of work in this space has focused on developing algorithms for computing policies that minimize regret compared to the optimal policy. However, in many practical settings, there is insufficient data to obtain low regret. As a result, recent work has shifted attention to alternative objectives, most notably, studying whether it is possible to learn an improving policy that statistically significantly outperforms baseline policies. We argue that there is substantial merit in studying a broader range of policy learning problems. When there is insufficient data to learn an improving policy, there may still be useful questions that can be answered. To this end, we provide a mathematical framework for studying the relationships between policy learning problems. We formalize three problems within our framework: beyond the optimal policy problem and the improving policy problem, we also propose the policy existence problem, which aims to determine if an improving policy exists. Within our framework, we show that the policy existence problem reduces to the improving policy problem, which in turn reduces to the optimal policy problem; these reductions prove that each problem is at least as easy as the next one (in sample complexity). A key question remains: is this hardness strict? We provide partial answers. First, the gap between the optimal policy and improving policy problems is strict. For the improving policy and policy existence problems, we prove that a sublinear polynomial gap exists under natural conditions on improving policy learning algorithms. Thus, we may be able to answer questions about the existence of an improving policy even when we cannot find one. These results highlight the value in studying a broader range of policy learning problems.

CaSPECT: Discovering Causally Homogeneous Subgroups via Directed Spectral Clustering

We propose \textbf{CaSPECT}, a causal spectral clustering framework for discovering causally homogeneous subgroups from observational data. Rather than clustering in covariate space, CaSPECT defines similarity through the topology of a learned directed acyclic graph (DAG); a bootstrap-stabilised PC algorithm recovers the causal skeleton; a novel \emph{Orientation Validation Score} (OVS) combines PC bootstrap evidence with DirectLiNGAM to orient edges robustly; directed edges are weighted by backdoor-identified average treatment effects estimated via OLS or double machine learning. Chung's directed Laplacian provides a spectral embedding in which individuals close together share the same causal propagation pathways. We establish almost-sure consistency of the full pipeline and validate the method through a controlled simulation study and on LaLonde CPS1, IHDP, and 401(k) datasets, where CaSPECT recovers a positive and statistically significant treatment effect within the causally comparable subpopulation and corrects for severe confounding without requiring a pre-specified propensity score model.

FoundCause: Causal Discovery with Latent Confounders from Observational Data

Causal discovery from observational data remains challenging due to the need to recover directed structure and latent confounding without interventions. We propose FoundCause, an amortized causal discovery model trained entirely on synthetic data that maps datasets directly to causal graphs in a single forward pass. By learning from large collections of simulated structural causal models, FoundCause captures transferable statistical patterns that generalize beyond individual datasets. The architecture incorporates several key inductive biases for causal discovery. It uses a permutation-invariant transformer encoder with alternating attention over samples and variables to jointly model cross-variable dependence and per-variable distributions. Pairwise statistical features derived from classical asymmetry measures are injected through statistics-conditioned attention, guiding the model toward known causal signals. A factorized decoder separates edge existence from direction, while a triangular refinement module enables reasoning over higher-order causal motifs such as chains and colliders. In addition, a dedicated confounder module based on learnable latent tokens explicitly models hidden common causes, and the model explicitly handles missing data via its masked input representation. To our knowledge, FoundCause is the first amortized causal discovery approach to explicitly model latent confounding. FoundCause outperforms 11 classical non-amortized methods (e.g., PC, GES, NOTEARS-style optimization) and 4 amortized causal discovery methods on 15 real-world datasets, achieving +9.6% improvement in $F_1$, +1.2% in AUROC, and an 18.9% reduction in structural Hamming distance relative to the strongest non-amortized methods, while performing inference in a single forward pass.

Estimating Individualized Treatment Effects in Acute Ischemic Stroke with Causal Transformation Models (TRAM-DAG): A Multi-Centre Observational Study with External RCT Validation

Personalized medicine in acute ischemic stroke requires moving beyond average treatment effects (ATE) to individualized treatment effect (ITE) estimates to support treatment decisions. In acute ischemic stroke, mechanical thrombectomy has been shown to be more effective on average than lysis in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such as the MR CLEAN study. We aim to identify which individual patients benefit most from mechanical thrombectomy compared to lysis. The outcome of interest is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at three months, an ordinal measure of functional disability (0: no symptoms, 6: death). We demonstrate that causal transformation models on directed acyclic graphs (TRAM-DAG) can be used for ITE estimation after being fitted on observational MAGIC multi-center stroke patient data. To ensure comparability with the MR CLEAN population, which we use for validation, we train the TRAM-DAG on a MAGIC sub-population with NIHSS at admission >= 6, corresponding to one inclusion criterion of MR CLEAN. The fitted model is then used to estimate ITEs for stroke patients in the MR CLEAN population. While these ITE estimates cannot be confirmed experimentally, we show that their average is consistent with the trial's reported ATE. Furthermore, the ITE estimates correctly rank trial patients by their observed frequency of a good outcome (mRS at three months <= 2). These findings support the use of causal models like TRAM-DAG for personalized decision-making in stroke care and highlight their ability to bridge the gap between observational evidence and clinical trials.

Data-Automated Policy Learning for Nonlinear Welfare

This paper explores policy learning from observational data, focusing on a nonlinear welfare criterion in a binary treatment setting. The nonlinear criterion is inspired by scenarios where policymakers prioritize specific population segments. We model this criterion using a utility function that encompasses potential outcomes and intermediate parameters, with the latter capturing higher moments of the outcome distributions. When formulated in the context of observational data, both the intermediate parameters and the welfare criterion depend on the propensity score, which we estimate using machine-learning techniques. To address bias in machine learning estimates, we introduce a novel reweighting-based debiasing approach that offers a promising alternative to traditional orthogonality-based methods. To tackle the complexities of infinite-dimensional policy spaces, we employ sieve approximations and $K$-fold cross-validation for model selection, thereby fully automating the policy-learning process. Despite these complexities, we demonstrate that both the welfare regret and the average welfare regret of our proposed policy learning method satisfy an oracle inequality, thereby providing theoretical guarantees on the performance of the estimated policy relative to the best possible policy. This finding extends the existing results from linear to nonlinear welfare criteria, from finite-dimensional to infinite-dimensional policy spaces, and from a known propensity score to a machine-learned one.

Causal Machine Learning Is Not a Panacea: A Roadmap for Observational Causal Inference in Health

Objective: The growing availability of large-scale observational clinical datasets and challenges in conducting randomized controlled trials have spurred enthusiasm in using causal machine learning (ML) for causal inference in observational data. We present a roadmap for applying causal ML to observational data. Materials and methods: We outline the importance of assessing validity assumptions within available data and applying causal ML responsibly for clinical experts using causal ML and ML practitioners with limited clinical expertise. Observations: Despite advances in causal ML, its limitations remain largely under-appreciated across disciplines. This gap in shared knowledge may impact the validity of findings. Discussion: Causal assumptions must be satisfied and modeling choices justified. Otherwise, these approaches risk producing biased or misleading results, with consequences for clinical research and patient care. Conclusion: Causal ML can be a powerful tool for generating causal hypotheses. We provide a template to strengthen the rigor and interpretability of causal analyses.

Order-based Rehearsal Learning

When a machine learning (ML) model forecasts an undesired event, one often seeks a decision to avoid it, known as the avoiding undesired future (AUF) problem. Many rehearsal learning methods have been proposed for AUF, but they rely on an underlying graph structure; learning such a graph from observational data is challenging and can incur substantial estimation error. In this work, we demonstrate that the order structure can be sufficient for AUF decision-making, and propose the first order-based rehearsal learning method. Although an order is less informative than a graph, it can be sufficient to identify the influence of decisions from observational data, suggesting that learning the entire graph is not always necessary. To learn the order, we develop an information-theoretic method that imposes no restrictions on the form of structural functions or the type of noise distributions. For AUF decision-making, we construct an order-based sampler to approximate the influence of decisions and, combined with a surrogate objective for maximizing the post-decision success probability, reduce the AUF task to a differentiable optimization problem. Experiments show that our order learning method outperforms existing methods, and that our AUF approach not only surpasses methods relying on learned graphs or learned orders, but also matches or even exceeds oracle baselines that are given the true graph.

A Novel Computational Framework for Causal Inference: Tree-Based Discretization with ILP-Based Matching

Causal inference is essential for data-driven decision-making, as it aims to uncover causal relationships from observational data. However, identifying causality remains challenging due to the potential for confounding and the distinction between correlation and causation. While recent advances in causal machine learning and matching algorithms have improved estimation accuracy, these methods often face trade-offs between interpretability and computational efficiency. This paper proposes a novel approach that combines a tree-based discretization technique, tailored for causal inference, with an integer linear programming-based matching algorithm. The discretization ensures approximately linear relationships for control datasets within strata, enabling effective matching, while the optimization framework optimizes for global balance. The resulting algorithm yields computational efficiency and less biased ATT estimates compared to state-of-the-art algorithms. Empirical evaluations demonstrate the proposed method's practical advantages over existing techniques in causal inference scenarios.