Interventional Score Geometry for Causal Inference

Mojtaba Eslami

arXiv 24 Jul 2026 · Statistics — Methodology

arXiv:2607.21914 · PDF · Extracted main text

Abstract

Let $p(x)$ be the joint density of variables $X$, and let $ψ(x)=\nabla_x\log p(x)$ be its score field. Geometry constructed from $p$ and $ψ$ alone cannot identify causal direction: structural models with the same observational distribution have the same score geometry. I develop an interventional analogue. A hard intervention $\operatorname{do}(X_k=ξ)$ does not merely reweight the joint law; it restricts the distribution to the submanifold ${x_k=ξ}$. Its score should therefore be defined on the remaining $d-1$ free coordinates. I define causal influence $X_k\rightsquigarrow X_j$ as variation of the interventional marginal distribution of $X_j$ with $ξ$, and show that the corresponding derivative of the marginal interventional score gives a local sufficient condition for influence. Projecting the observational score onto admissible intervention directions does not generally recover causal response: two models may share the same observational score and admissible set yet respond differently. I therefore introduce an interventional response field supplied by structural information. A causal metric is defined as the Fisher information metric on a family of interventions with a common target, avoiding ill-posed comparisons across targets. The framework yields a geometric dictionary for randomized trials, instrumental variables, and conditional-independence designs, clarifying what each does and does not identify. A bivariate Gaussian example gives two models with the same observational score but different interventional score derivatives. The framework organizes relations among designs, interventions, and score fields, but adds no identification beyond the underlying assumptions. In Pearl's Ladder of Causation, observational score geometry belongs to association, intervention-indexed score fields to intervention, and unit-level counterfactual geometry is left for future work.

Citation extraction

appendix boundary found by none_found · 100% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.

Most heavily cited references

The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.

Showing the top 10 of 13 scored citations.