Robust Counterfactuals for Markov Decision Processes under Statistical and Causal Uncertainties

Jessica Lally, Milad Kazemi, Nicola Paoletti

Counterfactual reasoning (asking what would have happened, had a decision been different) is a powerful tool for identifying causes of failure and explaining the behaviour of AI systems in sequential decision-making tasks. In Markov Decision Processes (MDPs), two sources of uncertainty complicate counterfactual inference: statistical uncertainty in the MDP transitions when the MDP is estimated from trajectory data, and uncertainty about the unknown causal model, as there are multiple structural causal models (SCMs) compatible with each MDP. Existing work addresses these two challenges in isolation. We address both simultaneously by introducing a framework for partial counterfactual inference in MDPs that is robust to both statistical and causal uncertainty. Our approach provides: 1) closed-form analytical bounds for the counterfactual probabilities that are valid across all SCMs entailed by a given interval MDP (IMDP); 2) a method to compute minimal robust interventions to achieve a desired counterfactual outcome via pessimistic value iteration on the induced counterfactual IMDP. Since the latter is constructed using our analytical bounds, our approach remains efficient and…