Interpretable Population Dynamics: Causal Inference for Engineering Optimization Decisions

Authors

  • Rania A. Mahmoud * Department of Computer Science, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6876-992X
  • Kwame A. Mensah Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana.

https://doi.org/10.48313/maa.vi.77

Abstract

Engineering teams increasingly ask of an optimization algorithm more than a good design: They ask for a justification of it. This paper presents Interpretable Population Dynamics (IPD), a metaheuristic for optimization over Riemannian manifolds in which population evolution is governed by an explicitly modeled causal system, so that the algorithm can audit, and explain, its own search behavior. Within IPD, geodesic variation operators act as interventions on a causal graph of search dynamics, scheduling selects the action with maximal predicted counterfactual progress, and inverse-probability-weighted estimation on logged trajectories quantifies the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) of every algorithmic factor. The experimental program evaluates the method on ten problems spanning four manifold species, the sphere, the Stiefel manifold, the Symmetric Positive Definite (SPD) cone, and SO(3), against twelve racing competitors, including newly admitted Riemannian trust-region, adaptive stochastic, and quasi-Newton rivals, over 21 independent runs under a 12,000-evaluation budget. IPD attains the smallest median optimality gap on seven of the ten problems, with a median reduction of 26.2% against the strongest rival on those problems; exact paired permutation tests with Benjamini-Hochberg control confirm 94 of 100 contrasts, while Riemannian CMA-ES retains the two smooth SPD instances and a Riemannian trust-region method retains the best-conditioned Stiefel instance. In the audit leg, an honest Causal Forest reproduces the audit's effect ordering with Spearman correlation 0.90, whereas naive correlational attribution overstates the dominant operator's effect by 43.7%. Grouping by curvature regime locates the scheduling gain chiefly on positive-curvature multimodal instances, two one-sided equivalence tests certify wall-clock parity with the fastest baselines wherever objective evaluation dominates, and a regime surrogate with 85.9% cross-validated accuracy converts logged trajectories into decision-ready evidence.

Keywords:

Interpretable optimization, Causal inference, Population dynamics, Riemannian manifolds, Metaheuristics, Explainable artificial intelligence

References

  1. [1] Eiben, A. E., & Smith, J. E. (2003). Introduction to evolutionary computing. Berlin: springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44874-8
  2. [2] Talbi, E. G. (2009). From design to implementation. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley. https://zeus.inf.ucv.cl/~bcrawford/DiplomadoIA_2024/Cap1_Metaheuristics_Talbi.pdf
  3. [3] Boumal, N. (2020). An introduction to optimization on smooth manifolds. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009166164
  4. [4] Absil, P. A., Mahony, R., & Sepulchre, R. (2008). Optimization algorithms on matrix manifolds. Princeton University Press. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400830244/html
  5. [5] Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S. I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 4765–4774. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/8a20a8621978632d76c43dfd28b67767-Abstract.html
  6. [6] Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). " Why should i trust you?" Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 1135-1144). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778
  7. [7] Guidotti, R., Monreale, A., Ruggieri, S., Turini, F., Giannotti, F., & Pedreschi, D. (2018). A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 51(5), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236009
  8. [8] Pearl, J. (2009). Causality. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803161
  9. [9] Edelman, A., Arias, T. A., & Smith, S. T. (1998). The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality constraints. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 20(2), 303–353. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0895479895290954
  10. [10] Smith, S. T. (2014). Optimization techniques on Riemannian manifolds. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1407.5965
  11. [11] Nishimori, Y., & Akaho, S. (2005). Learning algorithms utilizing quasi-geodesic flows on the Stiefel manifold. Neurocomputing, 67, 106–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2004.11.035
  12. [12] Bonnabel, S. (2013). Stochastic gradient descent on Riemannian manifolds. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58(9), 2217–2229. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2013.2254619
  13. [13] Absil, P. A., Baker, C. G., & Gallivan, K. A. (2007). Trust-region methods on Riemannian manifolds. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 7(3), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10208-005-0179-9
  14. [14] Boumal, N., Absil, P. A., & Cartis, C. (2019). Global rates of convergence for nonconvex optimization on manifolds. IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 39(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drx080
  15. [15] Bhatia, R. (2009). Positive definite matrices. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691168258/positive-definite-matrices
  16. [16] Higham, N. J. (2008). Functions of matrices: Theory and computation. SIAM. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898717778
  17. [17] Förstner, W., & Moonen, B. (2003). A metric for covariance matrices. Geodesy-The Challenge of the 3rd Millennium (pp. 299–309). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05296-9_31
  18. [18] Davis, J. V., Kulis, B., Jain, P., Sra, S., & Dhillon, I. S. (2007). Information-theoretic metric learning. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 209-216). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/1273496.1273523
  19. [19] So, A. M. C., & Ye, Y. (2007). Theory of semidefinite programming for sensor network localization. Mathematical Programming, 109(2), 367-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-006-0040-1
  20. [20] Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (1995). Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of ICNN'95-International Conference on Neural Networks (Vol. 4, pp. 1942-1948). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968
  21. [21] Hansen, N., & Ostermeier, A. (2001). Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evolutionary Computation, 9(2), 159–195. https://doi.org/10.1162/106365601750190398
  22. [22] Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0037350
  23. [23] Rubin, D. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469), 322–331. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/016214504000001880
  24. [24] Pearl, J. (2022). Causal diagrams for empirical research (with discussions). In Probabilistic and Causal Inference: The Works of Judea Pearl (pp. 255–316). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/3501714.3501734
  25. [25] Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences. New York, 517. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139025751
  26. [26] Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2001). Causation, prediction, and search. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1754.001.0001
  27. [27] Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 37(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
  28. [28] Shalizi, C. R., & Thomas, A. C. (2011). Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods & Research, 40(2), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124111404820
  29. [29] Runge, J. (2018). Causal network reconstruction from time series: From theoretical assumptions to practical estimation. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 28(7). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5025050
  30. [30] Runge, J., Nowack, P., Kretschmer, M., Flaxman, S., & Sejdinovic, D. (2019). Detecting and quantifying causal associations in large nonlinear time series datasets. Science Advances, 5(11), eaau4996. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4996
  31. [31] Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
  32. [32] Horvitz, D. G., & Thompson, D. J. (1952). A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 663–685. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280784
  33. [33] Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1993). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The American Economic Review, 84(4), 772–793. https://doi.org/10.3386/w4509
  34. [34] Hernán, M. A., & Robins, J. M. (2020). Causal inference: What if. Chapman & Hall/CRC. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/675db8b0dd37046447128f5f/t/677676888e31cc50c2c33877/1735816881944/hernanrobins_WhatIf_2jan25.pdf
  35. [35] Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
  36. [36] Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315139470
  37. [37] Quinlan, J. R. (1986). Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1(1), 81–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00116251
  38. [38] Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., & Elhadad, N. (2015). Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 1721-1730). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/2783258.2788613
  39. [39] Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., Vedantam, R., Parikh, D., & Batra, D. (2017). Grad-cam: Visual explanations from deep networks via gradient-based localization. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (pp. 618-626). IEEE. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_iccv_2017/html/Selvaraju_Grad-CAM_Visual_Explanations_ICCV_2017_paper.html
  40. [40] Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. University of Michigan Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262082136/adaptation-in-natural-and-artificial-systems/
  41. [41] Storn, R., & Price, K. (1997). Differential evolution-A simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. Journal of Global Optimization, 11(4), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328
  42. [42] DaCosta, L., Fialho, A., Schoenauer, M., & Sebag, M. (2008). Adaptive operator selection with dynamic multi-armed bandits. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (pp. 913-920). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/1389095.1389272
  43. [43] Karafotias, G., Hoogendoorn, M., & Eiben, Á. E. (2014). Parameter control in evolutionary algorithms: Trends and challenges. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 19(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2014.2308294
  44. [44] Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997). No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.585893
  45. [45] García, S., Molina, D., Lozano, M., & Herrera, F. (2009). A study on the use of non-parametric tests for analyzing the evolutionary algorithms’ behaviour: A case study on the CEC’2005 special session on real parameter optimization. Journal of Heuristics, 15(6), 617-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10732-008-9080-4
  46. [46] Robbins, H., & Siegmund, D. (1971). A convergence theorem for non negative almost supermartingales and some applications. In Optimizing Methods in Statistics (pp. 233–257). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-604550-5.50015-8
  47. [47] Hartley, R., Trumpf, J., Dai, Y., & Li, H. (2013). Rotation averaging. International Journal of Computer Vision, 103(3), 267–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11263-012-0601-0
  48. [48] Moakher, M. (2005). A differential geometric approach to the geometric mean of symmetric positive-definite matrices. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 26(3), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0895479803436937
  49. [49] Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press Google Schola, 2, 29–41. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262082136/adaptation-in-natural-and-artificial-systems/
  50. [50] Bécigneul, G., & Ganea, O. E. (2018). Riemannian adaptive optimization methods. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.00760
  51. [51] Ring, W., & Wirth, B. (2012). Optimization methods on Riemannian manifolds and their application to shape space. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 22(2), 596–627. https://doi.org/10.1137/11082885X
  52. [52] Wager, S., & Athey, S. (2018). Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523), 1228–1242. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2017.1319839
  53. [53] Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2), 65–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4615733
  54. [54] Cliff, N. (1993). Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 494. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494
  55. [55] Wobbrock, J. O., Findlater, L., Gergle, D., & Higgins, J. J. (2011). The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 143-146). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963
  56. [56] Derrac, J., García, S., Molina, D., & Herrera, F. (2011). A practical tutorial on the use of Nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2011.02.002
  57. [57] Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2336267

Published

2026-06-01

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): Metaheuristic Algorithms with Applications (MAA)

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Mahmoud, R. A. ., & Mensah, K. A. . (2026). Interpretable Population Dynamics: Causal Inference for Engineering Optimization Decisions. Metaheuristic Algorithms With Applications, 3(2), 168-194. https://doi.org/10.48313/maa.vi.77

Similar Articles

1-10 of 66

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.