Skip to content

structural-causal-models

Structural Causal Models (SCM) in Big Tech Practice⚑

Structural Causal Models (SCMs) are a framework for explicitly modeling cause-and-effect using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and structural equations. Big tech companies like Google, Meta (Facebook), Amazon, and others have embraced SCM-based causal inference to tackle practical problems that go beyond correlation. By using SCMs, they can understand the impact of interventions, diagnose business metrics, and optimize decisions in ways that traditional predictive ML cannot (Facebook’s Causal Inference Group – Paul Hünermund, Ph.D.) (Facebook’s Causal Inference Group – Paul Hünermund, Ph.D.). Below, we explore how these companies apply SCMs in practice, including real use cases, the problems solved, how DAGs/structural equations are used, benefits and limitations, and tools or code examples.

Google: Measuring Interventions with Structural Time-Series Models⚑

Google has applied SCM principles to measure the causal impact of interventions (like advertising campaigns or product changes) on key metrics over time. A prime example is Google’s CausalImpact framework, which uses a Bayesian structural state-space time-series model to estimate what would have happened without the intervention (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models). This approach constructs a counterfactual (synthetic control) from past data and covariates, then compares it to actual outcomes to attribute lift caused by the intervention. In one application, Google researchers evaluated the effect of an online ad campaign on search site visits using this method (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models).

Problem: How to quantify the incremental effect of a marketing or product intervention when no A/B test was run (e.g. measuring ad campaign ROI or a feature launch impact).

Approach: Google’s model predicts the counterfactual market response had the intervention not occurred, by leveraging a diffusion-regression state-space model (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models). Essentially, it fits a structural time-series on pre-intervention data (using control time series as covariates) and projects it forward through the intervention period. Any deviation of actual metrics from this projection is attributed to the intervention’s causal impact. The model’s DAG is implicit in the time-series structure: it assumes past values and contemporaneous controls cause current outcomes.

SCM Details: While not a DAG on a whiteboard, the structural time-series has structural equations defining how today’s outcome depends on yesterday’s state and control variables. This captures causal assumptions (e.g. that the intervention affects the outcome but not vice versa, and covariates affect outcome). The approach improves on simpler methods like difference-in-differences by (i) inferring temporal patterns of impact (how effect evolves over time), (ii) incorporating prior knowledge in a Bayesian way, and (iii) allowing multiple covariates (like a traditional SCM with many parent variables) (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models). These covariates act as a synthetic control, helping to adjust for external influences and better isolate the intervention’s effect.

Benefits: Google’s use of SCM here provides a quantitative estimate of causal effect without an experiment. It outputs not just an overall lift but a time series of the effect, which is crucial for understanding dynamics (e.g. did the effect wear off or grow?) (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models). It also naturally provides credibility intervals via Bayesian inference, conveying uncertainty. Google found this invaluable for marketing analytics: advertisers can see how much a campaign truly drove metrics (like conversions or searches) to optimize budget allocation (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models). Google released the CausalImpact R package implementing this, which has been widely adopted in industry (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models).

Example (Code): Using the CausalImpact library is straightforward. Analysts specify the time periods and data, and the library fits the structural model and computes effects. For instance, in R one can do:

# `data` has outcome and controls, pre.period/post.period define intervention timing
impact <- CausalImpact(data, pre.period, post.period)
plot(impact)

This will assemble the structural time-series model, perform posterior inference, and then plot the actual vs. predicted counterfactual outcomes (CausalImpact). The resulting plot typically shows three panels: the observed vs. counterfactual trend, the pointwise causal effect each day, and the cumulative effect (CausalImpact). Such tools exemplify how Google brought SCM to practitioners’ fingertips.

Limitations: SCM results are only as valid as the model assumptions. Google’s researchers noted the “strengths and limitations” of their state-space SCM for causal attribution (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models). One limitation is that if important driving factors are omitted (unobserved confounders), the causal estimate may be biased. Also, structural time-series models assume the relationship between covariates and outcome remains stable – if the intervention fundamentally changes the system dynamics, the counterfactual may be mis-specified. Nevertheless, when randomized experiments are infeasible, Google’s case shows that SCMs provide a practical alternative, with the caveat that analysts must carefully validate the model (e.g. through placebo tests or sensitivity analysis).

Meta (Facebook): Causal Modeling in Ads, Feed, and Marketing Analytics⚑

Facebook (Meta) deals with massive social systems and advertising platforms where causal inference is critical. They formed an Experimental Design & Causal Inference team to improve decision-making across the company (Facebook’s Causal Inference Group – Paul Hünermund, Ph.D.). This team tackles problems ranging from adaptive experiments (e.g. contextual bandits for News Feed) to heterogeneous treatment effect modeling with ML and observational causal inference at scale (Facebook’s Causal Inference Group – Paul Hünermund, Ph.D.). Several practical applications at Meta illustrate SCM usage:

  • Marketing Mix Modeling (MMM) with Robyn: Meta’s open-source tool Robyn is an advanced MMM library that embodies causal principles. MMM aims to attribute outcomes (e.g. sales) to different marketing channels (TV, search ads, social media, etc.). Traditional MMM is essentially a regression, but Robyn introduces rigor through regularization and ground-truth calibration. Developed by Meta’s Marketing Science team, Robyn uses techniques like ridge regression to handle multicollinearity and Facebook’s Prophet to account for seasonal effects (Robyn) (Robyn). While not explicitly a DAG, it’s an “AI/ML-powered” structural model where each channel’s spend is a cause of sales. Robyn can even integrate experimental results (Facebook lift tests, geo experiments) to calibrate the attribution so it aligns with causal reality (Robyn).

    Problem: Companies need to know the true contribution of each advertising channel on conversions to optimize budget. Direct experiments on all channels simultaneously are impossible, so an observational causal model is needed.

    How SCM/DAG is used: Analysts using Robyn implicitly assume a causal graph where each marketing channel influences the outcome, possibly with some interactions. They may include control factors (economic trends, etc.) as confounders in the model. Although Robyn’s default is a black-box optimization, Meta emphasizes incorporating domain knowledge. In fact, a Meta marketing scientist extended Robyn by adding an explicit Structural Equation Model (SEM) layer (Consider the causal structure in Marketing Mix Modeling with Robyn | by Ryo Tanaka | Medium). By doing so, they modeled the causal structure among media channels (e.g. a brand awareness channel affects later retargeting response) to improve attribution fairness. This is effectively adding a DAG on top of Robyn’s regression, acknowledging that channels have a causal hierarchy (upper-funnel vs lower-funnel effects) (Consider the causal structure in Marketing Mix Modeling with Robyn | by Ryo Tanaka | Medium) (Consider the causal structure in Marketing Mix Modeling with Robyn | by Ryo Tanaka | Medium).

    Benefits: SCM thinking in MMM helps avoid mis-attributing credit. For example, without causal structure, an upper-funnel channel like TV might look ineffective because its effect is indirect (through driving people to search later). By considering a causal graph, Meta’s analysts ensure each channel’s role is properly valued (Consider the causal structure in Marketing Mix Modeling with Robyn | by Ryo Tanaka | Medium) (Consider the causal structure in Marketing Mix Modeling with Robyn | by Ryo Tanaka | Medium). The open-source Robyn tool democratizes this, letting practitioners run complex causal attributions easily (Consider the causal structure in Marketing Mix Modeling with Robyn | by Ryo Tanaka | Medium). Robyn shows how big tech provides practical tools that bake in SCM ideas (like accounting for carryover effects and diminishing returns, which are essentially structural assumptions about time-lagged causation).

    Limitations: Even with MMM, there are limitations – multicollinearity and confounding can make it hard to distinguish effects. Robyn mitigates some by regularization and by encouraging experiments for validation (Robyn). But a limitation is that MMM is still an observational approach; if some channels’ spend is correlated with unobserved factors (e.g. competitor actions), the model may attribute effects incorrectly. Meta’s inclusion of experimental calibration addresses this partially, showing that SCMs often work best in conjunction with some experimental data to anchor them in reality (Robyn).

  • Social Network Spillover Effects: In Facebook’s social products, network effects violate the usual assumption of independent units. For instance, if Facebook shows a new feature to some users, their friends might also be indirectly affected (spillover), making A/B test analysis tricky. Facebook researchers turned to SCMs in the form of network causal graphs to handle this. They developed the concept of causal network motifs, which characterizes a user’s exposure by the treatment status of their neighbors (Causal Network Motifs: Identifying Heterogeneous Spillover Effects ...). In a 2021 study, they used these motifs to identify heterogeneous spillover effects in A/B tests (Causal Network Motifs: Identifying Heterogeneous Spillover Effects ...) (Spillover Effects in Online field experiments: Opportunities and challenges | WINE’2021 Experiment Design). Essentially, they enumerated small network patterns (ego networks) as pseudo-variables in a causal model – e.g. “user was treated, X friends treated” as a condition – then used a tree-based algorithm to estimate effects under each condition. This approach is an application of DAGs on a network: nodes are users, edges are friendships, and causal arrows flow from a user’s treatment to both their outcome and their friends’ outcomes.

    Problem: Standard A/B test analysis assumes one user’s treatment doesn’t affect another (SUTVA). On Facebook or Instagram, this is false due to social interactions (for example, one user’s adoption of a feature could influence friends’ engagement).

    Approach: Model the social graph as part of the causal structure. Facebook’s causal motifs effectively partition the graph into clusters or exposure categories, acknowledging the DAG of influence between friends. By doing so, they can estimate direct effects (on treated users) and indirect effects (on their untreated friends) separately (Spillover Effects in Online field experiments: Opportunities and challenges | WINE’2021 Experiment Design) (Spillover Effects in Online field experiments: Opportunities and challenges | WINE’2021 Experiment Design). The structural causal model here might have a form: a user’s outcome = f(their treatment, number of treated neighbors). This is an explicit causal equation incorporating network structure.

    Benefits: This SCM approach allowed Facebook to measure and correct for interference, leading to more reliable conclusions from experiments. It helps answer questions like “Did the feature’s apparent effect come partly via network contagion?” and quantify peer effects. Such insights are crucial when rolling out features – they inform whether network effects will amplify or dilute the impact. By identifying these patterns, Facebook can design better experiments (e.g. cluster randomized trials) and ultimately features that leverage positive network effects.

    Limitations: Modeling full social networks is extremely complex. Facebook’s method had to simplify (e.g. only consider 1-hop neighbors, or bucket the number of treated friends) (Spillover Effects in Online field experiments: Opportunities and challenges | WINE’2021 Experiment Design) (Spillover Effects in Online field experiments: Opportunities and challenges | WINE’2021 Experiment Design). These assumptions could be wrong or too simplistic in some cases (not all friendships are equal, effects might accumulate nonlinearly). There’s also a combinatorial explosion of possible network structures – their motif approach is a clever reduction, but it may not capture all nuances. In practice, implementing SCMs for networks requires heavy computation and careful validation. Still, it’s a necessary step when pure A/B testing falls short due to interference.

  • Ads Measurement and Causal Validation: Facebook’s core business is online advertising, and they extensively use causal inference to measure ad effectiveness. They run thousands of randomized lift studies but also investigate observational methods for scenarios where experiments aren’t available. A noteworthy finding at Facebook was that even with very rich data, purely observational causal models can be significantly wrong when estimating ad ROI. In a comparison of 15 large ad campaigns, Facebook’s researchers applied state-of-the-art observational models (essentially SCMs with many covariates) and compared them to ground-truth experimental results. The observational methods often overestimated the ad’s effect (or sometimes underestimated), with errors up to a factor of 3 (). In other words, despite using an SCM approach to control for user features and behaviors, hidden biases remained (). This demonstrated a key limitation: if any confounder is unobserved or the model form is wrong, an SCM can give false answers. The lesson for Facebook was that investment in experimentation and causal data collection is crucial () (). They use SCMs to augment experiments (e.g. stratified analysis, heterogeneity modeling) and to analyze observational data only as a last resort, always aware of the uncertainty.

    Conclusion for Meta: Facebook’s experience shows SCMs are powerful – enabling things like MMM attribution, policy simulations, network effect measurement – but they also recognize the pitfalls. They’ve built internal tooling (mostly in R or Python) to make causal analysis easier for engineers. For example, Facebook’s analysts often use Python libraries like DoWhy or EconML (Facebook is part of the PyWhy community, see below) or custom R scripts for causal inference. However, they stress that these methods complement, not replace, a rigorous experimentation culture (). The advantage of SCMs at Facebook is in scenarios where experiments can’t be done (for ethical, logistical, or interference reasons) – there, SCMs provide a best-effort answer with explicit assumptions, which can then be debated and improved.

Amazon: SCMs for Recommendations, Inventory, and Root Cause Analysis⚑

Amazon applies structural causal models across both their retail business and cloud (AWS) services, to drive decision-making for e-commerce and to offer solutions to clients. Two concrete contexts are:

Other Industry Examples and Tools⚑

Beyond Google, Meta, and Amazon, many other tech companies employ SCMs:

  • Uber: At Uber, causal inference is used to improve user experience and operational decision-making. Uber built and open-sourced CausalML, a Python library for uplift modeling and heterogeneous treatment effect estimation (About CausalML — causalml documentation). This library provides methods to estimate individual-level causal effects (CATE) from either experimental or observational data (About CausalML — causalml documentation). Uber’s teams use these techniques for things like campaign targeting optimization – figuring out which riders or drivers would respond positively to a promotion or change (About CausalML — causalml documentation). By using SCM-based uplift models, they can target only the users who are causally likely to benefit, thus improving ROI. For example, Uber might model the causal effect of sending a coupon on a rider’s trips in the next month, controlling for rider characteristics; CausalML can estimate that effect for each rider, enabling personalized marketing (About CausalML — causalml documentation). This goes beyond correlation by distinguishing true causal uplift from random noise. Internally, Uber applied causal methods to analyze product features as well – e.g. to determine if a new app feature actually caused increased engagement or if active users just happened to adopt it. As one Uber blog noted, “Teams across Uber apply causal inference methods... to bring richer insights to operations analysis, product development, and other areas critical to improving the user experience” (Econometric Sense: Experimentation and Causal Inference: Strategy and Innovation). This underscores that whether it’s matching supply and demand, pricing strategies, or app design, SCMs help Uber make decisions based on causal impact rather than intuition or purely predictive models.

  • Microsoft: Microsoft has contributed significantly to practical causal inference, both in research and open source. They have used SCMs in contexts like Bing search ads and Office product analytics. A recent Microsoft research example addressed interference in Bing’s sponsored search ads – similar to Facebook’s problem but in the search auction setting. Here, multiple ads on a page can affect each other (the presence of one ad can alter click probability on another). Microsoft researchers formulated a causal model of ad allocational interference, explicitly modeling how the layout (which ads get shown together) influences user clicks ( Causal Inference in the Presence of Interference in Sponsored Search Advertising - PMC ). They used the language of causal inference with interference to quantify these interactions and ran experiments on Bing’s ad system to validate the model ( Causal Inference in the Presence of Interference in Sponsored Search Advertising - PMC ). The outcome was a better understanding of how ad position and neighbors causally affect performance, allowing Bing to improve auction and ranking algorithms for optimal overall outcomes.

On the tools side, Microsoft has developed EconML (for causal effect estimation with machine learning) and was a key player (with AWS) in creating PyWhy and DoWhy (Root Cause Analysis with DoWhy, an Open Source Python Library for Causal Machine Learning | AWS Open Source Blog). These tools are actively used in the industry. For instance, Microsoft’s Office and Windows teams have huge telemetry data; to decide whether a change (like a new UI element) really causes better user retention, they combine A/B tests with causal models to generalize across different user segments. They might use EconML’s Double Robust Learner or Causal Forests to estimate the effect of a feature toggle on engagement, controlling for user traits. The advantage is finding nuanced insights (e.g. feature X helps casual users but not power users) which inform rollout strategies. The limitation is that one must have either random variation or strong assumptions – Microsoft often leverages the scale of user data to find natural experiments or uses instrument variables (another causal technique) when pure A/B isn’t possible.

  • Netflix and Others: While not explicitly in the question, it’s worth noting that companies like Netflix, LinkedIn, and Airbnb also use SCMs. Netflix has to understand causal effects of recommender system changes on user retention (beyond what A/B can show, since long-term and network effects might exist). LinkedIn has published about causal embeddings for recommendations, integrating causal objectives into representation learning (to recommend people/jobs that cause higher engagement, not just correlate). Airbnb’s data science team uses causal inference to evaluate policy changes on two-sided marketplaces (e.g. how does a change in cancellation policy causally impact bookings vs. just correlating with different hosts?). In all cases, the common theme is forming a structural model of the system – identifying key variables and mapping out cause-effect relationships – and then applying either algorithms or experiments (or both) to estimate the causal effects.

Benefits of SCM-Based Causal Inference⚑

Across these examples, several concrete benefits of using SCMs in industry emerge:

  • Answers “What-if” Questions: SCMs allow companies to ask counterfactual questions like “What if we had not launched this feature?” or “What if we increase price by 5%?” and get quantitative answers. This is crucial for strategy and policy decisions. For instance, Google’s CausalImpact answered what web traffic would have been without an ad campaign (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models), and Amazon’s seller analysis answered what sellers’ sales would be without using FBA recommendations (Removing selection bias from evaluation of recommendations - Amazon Science) (Removing selection bias from evaluation of recommendations - Amazon Science). Traditional ML focused on prediction cannot do this, because it only learns correlations from existing data. As Facebook’s team noted, causal inference tackles the “doing” part rather than just the “seeing” (Facebook’s Causal Inference Group – Paul Hünermund, Ph.D.) (Facebook’s Causal Inference Group – Paul Hünermund, Ph.D.) – this difference means insights from SCMs are directly actionable. Businesses can confidently take actions (or not take them) based on these what-if analyses.

  • Optimization and Personalization: By understanding causal relationships, companies can optimize decisions more effectively. Meta’s marketing mix optimization is a great example – knowing the true causal ROI of each channel lets them reallocate budgets optimally, potentially saving millions. Uber’s uplift modeling allows targeting only the users who will be causally influenced by a promotion (About CausalML — causalml documentation), which improves marketing efficiency and customer experience (people not influenced aren’t spammed unnecessarily). In operations, knowing causal drivers helps to prioritize: e.g., if an SCM shows delivery time delays are caused mostly by route inefficiencies vs. package volume, an e-commerce company can invest in route planning algorithms. In summary, SCM turns data into decisions by focusing on causal leverage points.

  • Domain Knowledge Integration: SCMs force teams to make their assumptions explicit by drawing DAGs or writing structural equations. This process itself is valuable – it brings together experts to agree on how they believe the system works (e.g. “we think ad spend affects brand searches which then affect sales”). This yields a shared mental model of the product or business. Unlike pure machine learning, which can be a black box, SCMs provide a transparent framework where you can incorporate prior knowledge (Google did this with Bayesian priors in CausalImpact (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models)). It also facilitates communication: decision-makers can see a causal diagram and understand the factors involved, and analysts can more clearly explain why something had an effect.

  • Robustness and Generalization: A well-specified SCM can be more robust to changes than a predictive model. For example, if a model captures that “X causes Y”, that might hold even as external conditions change (causal mechanisms tend to be more invariant), whereas a correlation might break if environment shifts. Tech companies care about generalizability – Facebook explicitly listed it as a focus (Facebook’s Causal Inference Group – Paul Hünermund, Ph.D.). They want models that not only fit historical data but also predict the effect of novel actions. SCM-based methods (like invariant prediction, causal transfer learning) help ensure that insights remain valid when scaling up or porting to new contexts. Also, SCMs can help with bias correction: e.g., eliminating biased associations in algorithmic fairness by modeling true causal factors. In summary, reasoning causally helps AI systems avoid being misled by spurious correlations when conditions change.

  • Diagnostics and Explainability: As seen with AWS’s root cause analysis, SCMs excel at diagnosing why something happened. This is a form of explainable AI – instead of just detecting a pattern, the causal model can explain it (e.g., “Metric X dropped because its parent metric Y dropped”). This is valuable for troubleshooting issues in complex software systems (many large-scale outages or revenue drops are investigated with causal analysis of logs and metrics). Moreover, SCMs naturally provide counterfactual explanations: “the algorithm recommended this because of factors A, B, C – if A had been different, the outcome would change by D.” Big tech companies working on AI fairness and transparency use SCMs to generate such explanations and to test interventions for fairness (by simulating the removal of sensitive attributes’ influence via a causal graph).

Challenges and Limitations⚑

Despite the benefits, practitioners must be aware of the limitations of SCM-based inference:

  • Need for Correct Model Specification: Perhaps the biggest challenge is that if the causal graph is wrong or important confounders are missing, the conclusions will be wrong. No statistical method can fully overcome bad assumptions. The Facebook ads study highlights this – even with hundreds of covariates, some unobserved factors made observational estimates deviate greatly from truth (). This is why companies like Facebook and Amazon still invest heavily in randomized experiments as a gold standard check. SCMs in practice often require sensitivity analyses (e.g. “if there were an unknown confounder, how strong would it have to be to change our result?”) to assess how fragile the conclusions are.

  • Data and Instrumentation Requirements: Building a reliable SCM often requires a lot of data and the right kind of data. For instance, to control for confounding, you may need to log user demographics, behavior history, contextual info, etc. Big tech firms have an advantage here due to abundant data, but even they can fall short (as seen, more data didn’t fully solve bias in ad measurement ()). In some cases, instruments or proxies are needed – these are hard to find. Also, measuring long-term or system-wide effects (like network effects) may require collecting new kinds of data (e.g. social graph snapshots over time). In summary, SCM can be data-hungry, and obtaining all relevant variables is non-trivial.

  • Computational Complexity: Inferring causal effects with complex models (especially with many variables or large networks) can be computationally expensive. Techniques like MCMC (used in Google’s CausalImpact (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models)) or causal discovery algorithms can take significant time. Tech companies mitigate this with their large compute resources and by simplifying models when possible. Still, if an SCM becomes too complex, it might not be tractable to estimate or too slow to use in real-time decisions. This is an area of active research (e.g. deep learning meets SCM to handle high-dimensional data more efficiently (A survey of deep causal models and their industrial applications)).

  • Interpreting Causal Estimates: Another practical issue is making causal findings understandable to decision-makers. While SCMs produce estimates with confidence intervals, stakeholders might ask “can we really trust this?” It takes education to build trust in these methods. Many organizations are still more comfortable with A/B tests (because of their conceptual simplicity and concreteness) and may view causal model outputs with skepticism. Big tech companies address this by demonstrating SCM successes (like the examples above) and by combining causal inference with experiments (for validation). Over time, as these methods become more standard (with tools like DoWhy, CausalML, etc.), confidence in their results is growing.

  • Ethical and Policy Constraints: Sometimes the limitation is not technical but ethical – you cannot always do an experiment (forcing or denying a treatment), so you resort to SCM, but that SCM might rely on assumptions that can’t be verified. For example, to evaluate a new healthcare feature’s impact, a company might not ethically withhold it from some users, so they use observational causal inference which has more uncertainty. Companies must be cautious in such cases, perhaps using SCM findings as supportive evidence rather than sole proof.

Despite these challenges, the trend in big tech is clear: causal thinking is becoming integral to data science. As one LinkedIn article put it, “causal inference can never replace A/B testing… but it’s a critical complement” (3 PyTorch Lightning Community Causal Inference Examples To ...). SCMs augment the experimentation toolkit and enable causal insights at scale where experiments can’t cover. With open-source libraries (CausalImpact in R, DoWhy/PyWhy, EconML, CausalML in Python) and increasing adoption, even practitioners outside of the tech giants can apply these methods.

Conclusion⚑

In summary, Structural Causal Models have moved from academic theory (thanks to pioneers like Judea Pearl) into the daily practice of big tech companies. Google uses SCMs to measure the true impact of ads and product changes (Inferring causal impact using Bayesian structural time-series models). Meta leverages them for marketing attribution (Consider the causal structure in Marketing Mix Modeling with Robyn | by Ryo Tanaka | Medium), experiment design in social networks (Causal Network Motifs: Identifying Heterogeneous Spillover Effects ...), and to improve their algorithms by focusing on causation over correlation (Facebook’s Causal Inference Group – Paul Hünermund, Ph.D.). Amazon deploys SCM-based analysis to advise sellers and diagnose business metric changes (Removing selection bias from evaluation of recommendations - Amazon Science) (Root Cause Analysis with DoWhy, an Open Source Python Library for Causal Machine Learning | AWS Open Source Blog). Companies like Uber and Microsoft invest in open-source tools to democratize these methods (Root Cause Analysis with DoWhy, an Open Source Python Library for Causal Machine Learning | AWS Open Source Blog) (About CausalML — causalml documentation).

SCMs offer a practical, concrete advantage in industry: they turn passive data into active decisions by answering “why did this happen?” and “what if we do this?” – questions at the core of business strategy. The cases above show that when applied thoughtfully, SCMs can save money (optimizing marketing spend), improve products (by understanding feature effects), and even save time (automating root cause analysis). The key is to combine domain knowledge with data, use experiments to support/validate when possible, and remain aware of the assumptions. As tools and experience grow, we can expect even broader adoption of SCMs in tech and beyond, enabling more cause-driven innovation rather than just correlation-driven guesswork.

Sources: