Verification, Validation, and Calibration Through a Causal Lens
While typical validation and verification approaches focus on identifying the associations between data elements using statistical and machine learning methods, the novel methods in this paper focus instead on identifying causal relationships between data elements. Statistical and machine-learning-based approaches are strictly data-driven, meaning that they provide quantitative comparison measures between data sets without explicitly considering the hypotheses behind them. This can lead to the erroneous conclusion that, if two data sets are close enough, the models that generated them are similar. In addition, when experimental and simulated data differ to an extent that fails to meet the acceptance criteria, calibration techniques are used to tweak simulation model parameters to reduce the gap between the two types of data. This produces the false expectation that a simulation model will match reality. The methods presented in this paper move away from these strictly data-driven methods for validation and calibration toward more robust, model-driven methods based on causal inference. Causal inference aims to identify the possible mechanisms that might have generated data. Thus, this analysis targets the prediction of the effects when one (or more) of the identified mechanisms are altered. There are many approaches to identify, quantify, and illustrate causal relationships. For the scope of this paper, directed graphs are employed as causal models. If the directed graph lacks cycles, it is known as a directed acyclic graph. A node in such a graph represents an observed data element while a directed edge connecting two nodes represents a causal relationship between two variables. The developed causal methods are designed to extract causal models from simulation models and experimental data. Causal models capture the causal relationships between data elements (e.g., simulated and experimental data). In this context, validation and verification are performed by comparing causal models. The proposed approach does not only inform system analysts on how a simulation model matches real-world data, but also identifies elements of the simulation model that should be revised when discrepancies between simulation and experimental data are observed. Through these causal methods, analysts can identify the portion of the model equation(s) that are behind an edge connecting two variables. Hence, once the structural differences between causal models have been determined, model calibration can occur by changing only those model parameters that impact the identified causal relationships.