Due to the fundamental problem of causal inference -- the impossibility of observing counterfactual outcomes -- there is always a gap between the training goal (outcome, propensity) and the inference target (CATE, ATE). Traditional causal effect estimation revolves around setting assumptions, selecting identification strategies, and choosing causal estimators, while more recently, Causal Foundation Models (CFMs), built on Prior-Data-Fitted Networks (PFNs), ease this process by pretraining on massive synthetic prior datasets. Despite their success, such amortization makes causal inference less transparent, obscuring which assumptions the model implicitly relies on for a given dataset. The high diversity of real-world data-generating processes (DGPs) and Structural Causal Models (SCMs) makes it hard to know, a priori, which causal inference strategy is compatible with a given dataset. In this work, we focus on this compatibility between an observational dataset and method-specific assumptions, and find that geometric characteristics of data embeddings -- specifically, the variogram -- provide a useful signal of whether a given causal estimation strategy is appropriate. We develop MoE-Learner, a mixture-of-causal-experts framework that embeds a dataset under multiple assumption-specific views and uses the variogram as a counterfactual-free router to assess each expert's validity. Rather than eliminating causal assumptions, this shifts their validation from a fixed, a priori choice to a criterion that can be checked directly from data geometry. MoE-Learner achieves the best average rank on benchmark datasets (IHDP, ACIC, Lalonde). Being orthogonal to (causal) foundation models, our method builds a bridge from data characteristics to causal estimation strategy rather than proposing another CFM.

翻译：暂无翻译