On the permutation equivariance principle for causal estimands
Extracted source text · arXiv 2510.11863
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{bm}
% \usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{xspace}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{graphicx}
% \usepackage[caption=false]{subfig}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{appendix}
\usepackage{enumerate}
\usepackage{url} % not crucial - just used below for the URL
\usepackage{authblk}
% \usepackage{float}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{xr}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=red,citecolor=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{natbib}
\newcommand{\calX}{\mathcal{X}}
\newcommand{\calA}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\calB}{\mathcal{B}}
\newcommand{\calQ}{\mathcal{Q}}
\newcommand{\calY}{\mathcal{Y}}
\newcommand{\calT}{\mathcal{T}}
\newcommand{\calZ}{\mathcal{Z}}
\newcommand{\calG}{\mathcal{G}}
\newcommand{\lb}{\left\{}
\newcommand{\rb}{\right\}}
\newcommand{\mH}{\mathbf{H}}
%\pdfminorversion=4
% NOTE: To produce blinded version, replace "0" with "1" below.
\newcommand{\blind}{1}
% DON'T change margins - should be 1 inch all around.
\addtolength{\oddsidemargin}{-.5in}%
\addtolength{\evensidemargin}{-1in}%
\addtolength{\textwidth}{1in}%
\addtolength{\textheight}{1.7in}%
\addtolength{\topmargin}{-1in}%
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\addFileDependency}[1]{% argument=file name and extension
\typeout{(#1)}% latexmk will find this if $recorder=0
% however, in that case, it will ignore #1 if it is a .aux or
% .pdf file etc and it exists! If it doesn't exist, it will appear
% in the list of dependents regardless)
%
% Write the following if you want it to appear in \listfiles
% --- although not really necessary and latexmk doesn't use this
%
\@addtofilelist{#1}
%
% latexmk will find this message if #1 doesn't exist (yet)
\IfFileExists{#1}{}{\typeout{No file #1.}}
}\makeatother
\newcommand{\bP}{\mathbf{P}}
\newcommand{\bc}{\mathbf{c}}
\newcommand{\bv}{\mathbf{v}}
\newcommand{\balpha}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}
\newcommand{\bbeta}{\boldsymbol{\beta}}
\newcommand{\Beta}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}
\newcommand{\bgamma}{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}
\newcommand{\bX}{\mathbf{X}}
\newcommand{\bx}{\mathbf{x}}
\newcommand{\mP}{\mathbb{P}}
\newcommand{\mO}{\mathcal{O}}
\newcommand{\mcV}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\whp}{\widehat{p}}
\newcommand{\whS}{\widehat{S}}
\newcommand{\whlambda}{\widehat{\lambda}}
\newcommand{\whe}{\widehat{e}}
\newcommand{\whpi}{\widehat{\pi}}
\newcommand{\whm}{\widehat{m}}
\newcommand{\bzeta}{\boldsymbol{\zeta} }
\newcommand{\bzero}{\boldsymbol{0}}
\newcommand{\whdelta}{\widehat{\delta}}
\newcommand{\whtau}{\widehat{\tau}}
\newtheorem{inequality}{Inequality}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{condition}{Condition}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}{Example}
\newtheorem{algo}{Algorithm}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\newcommand*{\myexternaldocument}[1]{%
\externaldocument{#1}%
\addFileDependency{#1.tex}%
\addFileDependency{#1.aux}%
}
%------------End of helper code--------------
\begin{document}
%\bibliographystyle{natbib}
\def\spacingset#1{\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}%
{#1}\small\normalsize} \spacingset{1}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\if1\blind
{
\title{\bf On the permutation invariance principle for causal estimands}
\author{\textbf{Jiaqi Tong$^{1,2}$ and Fan Li$^{1,2,*}$}
$^1$Department of Biostatistics, Yale University of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
$^{2}$Center for Methods in Implementation and Prevention Science, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
%$^{5}$Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator, Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
\emph{*email}: fan.f.li@yale.edu}
\maketitle
} \fi
\if0\blind
{
\bigskip
\bigskip
\bigskip
\begin{center}
{\LARGE\bf On the permutation invariance principle for causal estimands}
\end{center}
\medskip
} \fi
\bigskip
\begin{abstract}
In many causal inference problems, multiple action variables share the same causal role, such as mediators, factors, network units, or genotypes, yet lack a natural ordering. To avoid ambiguity in interpretation, causal estimands should remain unchanged under relabeling, an implicit principle we refer to as permutation invariance. We formally characterize this principle, analyze its algebraic and combinatorial structure for verification, and present a class of weighted estimands that are permutation-invariant while capturing interactions of all orders. We further provide guidance on selecting weights that yield residual-free estimands, whose inclusion-exclusion sums capture the maximal effect, and extend our results to ratio effect measures.
\end{abstract}
\noindent%
{\it Keywords:} Causal inference; causal estimands; permutation invariance; combinatorics; causal mediation; factorial experiments
\vfill
\newpage
\spacingset{1.45} % DON'T change the spacing!
\section{Introduction}
Causal inference concerns the study of potential outcome contrasts defined with respect to the same target population, and many modern causal inference problems encounter the complexities of multiple variables that share the same type of causal interpretation. Examples include causal mediation with multiple unordered mediators \citep{xia2022decomposition}, factorial experiments with multiple factors \citep{dasgupta2015causal}, causal inference under interference with multiple network units \citep{hudgens2008toward}, and Mendelian randomization with multiple genotypes (instruments) \citep{hartwig2017robust}. In each case, one is often interested in causal contrasts that summarize the separate or interactive effects of several variables. When these multiple variables have no inherent ordering, a principal consideration is that causal estimands should be \emph{permutation-invariant}. That is, the definition of a set of causal estimands should not be altered by the relabeling of these variables, such as permuting the order of mediators or swapping genotype labels. The permutation invariance principle has been informally noted in several works (e.g., termed as `symmetric estimands' in \cite{xia2022decomposition, zhao2022regression}) but has not been formally defined or systematically studied. Consequently, uncareful practice may yield label-dependent estimands whose interpretation is contingent upon an arbitrary relabeling, thereby obscuring the meaning of causal effects defined across multiple variables.
%When their relationships are unknown, relabeling these variables can obscure the definition of causal estimands. In principle, such estimands should be invariant to label permutations in the absence of an inherent ordering, yet this requirement has received little attention in the literature.
This work makes four main contributions. First, we provide a rigorous characterization of the permutation-invariance principle, which has been underexplored in prior literature. Second, we introduce a straightforward procedure to verify whether a given set of estimands satisfies permutation invariance. Third, we develop an interpretable, permutation-invariant, and complete (capturing all forms of interaction) class of weighted estimands that can be applied across various domains of causal inference. Finally, we identify a specific choice of weights that produces unique residual-free estimands whose inclusion-exclusion sum captures the maximal effect, and we discuss extensions to ratio effect measures.
%Finally, our framework applies broadly to both additive and multiplicative effect measures. For practical convenience, we lay out the general theory with explicit example expressions for $K=2$ and $K=3$ presented in Web Appendix B.
%whose inclusion-exclusion sum precisely captures the maximum contrast. The framework can be applied to both the risk ratio and the odds ratio for binary outcomes. For practical convenience, two special cases, $K=2$ and $K=3$, are explicitly presented in Appendix B.
\section{What is permutation invariance?}
\subsection{Introductory examples}\label{sec:whatispi}
We first provide two examples in the context of causal mediation analysis to illustrate the idea of permutation-invariant estimands. Causal mediation analysis concerns the decomposition of a treatment effect into indirect pathways operating through the mediators and a direct pathway that bypasses them \citep{imai2010identification}. The primary goal of such an analysis is to quantify these direct and indirect effects to understand the underlying causal mechanisms. %While a full specification of assumptions and notation is deferred to Appendix A, we briefly note that our discussion follows the standard identification conditions for mediation effects, and that precise definitions of the estimands will be provided in the appendix for clarity.
%from a multiple-mediator causal mediation analysis that are not permutation-invariant. Consider the problem of studying the causal mediation effects with two causally non-ordered mediators, denoted as $X_1$ and $X_2$.
\begin{example}\label{eg1}
Consider the problem of causal mediation with two mediators that are not causally ordered. Let $X_k(a)$ denote the potential $k$th ($k=1,2$) mediator under condition $a$ ($a=0,1$). Let $Y(1,X_1(a),X_2(a^*))$ be the potential outcome under treatment, with the potential mediators taking the values they would naturally have under treatment levels $a$ and $a^*$. \cite{lange2014assessing} defined the natural indirect effects through $X_1$ and $X_2$ as:
\begin{align}\label{eg:delta}
&\Delta_{\{X_1\}}=\mu(1,0)-\mu(0,0),~~\Delta_{\{X_2\}}=\mu(1,1)-\mu(1,0),
\end{align}
where $\mu(a,a^*)=E\{Y(1,X_1(a),X_2(a^*))\}$. Exchanging the labels for the two mediators leads to two new estimands: $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}^\dagger=\mu(0,1)-\mu(0,0)$ and $\Delta_{\{X_2\}}^\dagger=\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1)$. Neither $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}^\dagger$ nor $\Delta_{\{X_2\}}^\dagger$ overlap with the original estimands, $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}$ and $\Delta_{\{X_2\}}$. Hence, such estimands are not permutation-invariant.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{eg2}
Following from the Example \ref{eg1}, \cite{xia2022decomposition} defined the \emph{exit indirect effects} to study causal mediation with unordered mediators:
\begin{align}\label{eg:tau}
&\Delta_{\{X_1\}}=\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1),~~\Delta_{\{X_2\}}=\mu(1,1)-\mu(1,0).
\end{align}
In contrast to \eqref{eg:delta}, \eqref{eg:tau} are permutation-invariant, because exchanging the labels results in $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}^\dagger=\mu(1,1)-\mu(1,0)=\Delta_{\{X_2\}}$ and $\Delta_{\{X_2\}}^\dagger=\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1)=\Delta_{\{X_1\}}$. In other words, under any arbitrary relabeling, the collection of causal estimands remains unchanged up to permutation.
\end{example}
In what follows, we formalize the concept in Examples \ref{eg1} and \ref{eg2} through precise algebraic definitions, with applications extending beyond causal mediation.
\subsection{General setup and algebraic definition}\label{subsec:setup}
Suppose one is interested in inferring causal effects with a set of $K$ \emph{action variables}, $\mathcal{X}=\{X_1,\ldots,X_K\}$, but has no prior knowledge of their causal orderings or relationships. In such cases, it is essential to define permutation-invariant causal estimands, which prevents their specification from relying on arbitrary labeling and avoids ambiguity in interpretation. For example, $\mathcal{X}$ could be a set of $K$ unordered mediators for causal mediation \citep{xia2022decomposition}, $K$ factors in factorial experiments \citep{dasgupta2015causal}, $K$ network units in causal inference under network interference \citep{hudgens2008toward}, or $K$ genotypes in Mendelian randomization with pleiotropy \citep{hartwig2017robust}.
%Therefore, it is crucial to establish an underlying principle for defining estimands among action variables with unknown structures and to develop a mathematical formulation for it.
%To this end, we introduce the notion of permutation invariance using symmetric algebra.
%This principle requires that for any arbitrary permutation of the action variables in $X$, the resulting set of causal estimands is simply a corresponding permutation of the original set.
We assume that each action variable has two states, denoted by $X_k(1)$ and $X_k(0)$. Although the notation $X_k(a)$ resembles that of potential outcomes, its interpretation depends on context: it may represent the $k$th potential mediator under condition $a$, or simply indicate that the action variable is set to $X_k = a$ (e.g., in factorial experiments). Since our focus is on combinatorial properties, we use the power set $2^\calX$ (the collection of all subsets of $\calX$) to index all $2^K$ states. For example, $\calA = \{X_1\} \in 2^\mathcal{X}$ uniquely represents the state where $X_1$ is set to $X_1(0)$, and all other variables $X_k$ with $k \neq 1$ set to $X_k(1)$.
To proceed, we introduce a few algebraic concepts. We define an equivalence relation, `$\sim$', on $2^\calX$ such that two subsets $\calA\subseteq \calX$ and $\calB\subseteq \calX$ are equivalent, written as $\calA \sim \calB$, if they have the same cardinality, or $|\calA| = |\calB|$. This equivalence relation induces equivalence classes on the power set $2^\calX$. For any subset $\calA \in 2^\calX$, its equivalence class is defined as $[\calA] = \{\calB \in 2^\calX : |\calB| = |\calA|\}$. By construction, each equivalence class can be uniquely indexed by its cardinality, $[q]$, where $0 \leq q \leq K$ (allowing for $|\emptyset|=0$).
%Of note, the cardinality of the equivalence class $[q]$ is the binomial coefficient $\binom{K}{q}$.
%, with $\binom{K}{0}=1$.
The corresponding quotient set, $\calQ$, is the set of all such equivalence classes: $\calQ := \{[q] : 0\leq q\leq K\}$.
The causal quantities of interest are typically defined as real-valued functions on $2^\calX$, denoted as $f:2^\calX \to \mathbb{R}$. For example, the expectations of potential outcomes under each state. We then define $\mathbf{v}$ as a vector containing all possible quantities, ordered by $\calQ$ or the cardinality of the subsets. Table \ref{tab:application} lists several example functions $f$ for $K=2$. Certain causal inference settings, such as $2^K$ factorial experiments \citep{dasgupta2015causal,zhao2022regression} allow for weighting.
%To accommodate these cases, we also extend our framework to weighted causal estimands defined by $g = w \times f$, where $w : \mathcal{D}:=\{(\calT,\calY):\emptyset\neq \calY\in 2^\calX,\calT\subseteq \calY^c\} \to \mathbb{R}$ ($\bullet^c$ is the set complement) is a weight function and can be interpreted as the probability mass of $\calT$ (see Section \ref{ss:class-estimands} for further details).
For ease of exposition, we present our generic framework without weighting until Section~\ref{ss:class-estimands}. %The framework is flexible, and incorporating weights is straightforward, see Example~\ref{eg:weighted-estimands} for an example adaptation. %After Section \ref{ss:class-estimands}, our proposed class of permutation-invariant estimands will explicitly account for weighting.
%For example, for $K=2$, $\mathbf{v}$ can be defined as $\mathbf{v}=(f(\emptyset),f(\{x_1\}),f(\{x_2\}),f(\{x_1,x_2\}))$.
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Examples causal estimands and $f$ when $K=2$. Here $f(\calA)=\mu(a_1,a_2)$ such that $a_k=0$ if $X_k\in \calA$ or explicitly, $f(\emptyset)=\mu(1,1)$, $f(\{X_1\})=\mu(0,1)$, $f(\{X_2\})=\mu(1,0)$, $f(\calX)=\mu(0,0)$.}
\label{tab:application}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\textwidth}
\begin{tabular}{llllll}
\toprule
\multirow{1}{*}{Context}&\multirow{1}{*}{$X_k$}&\multicolumn{4}{c}{$f(\calA)=\mu(a_1,a_2)$ such that $a_k=0$ if $X_k\in \calA$}\\\hline
Mediation with multiple mediators&$k$th mediator&\multicolumn{4}{c}{$\mu(a_1,a_2)=E\{Y(1,X_1(a_1),X_2(a_2))\}$}\\[0.2ex]
$2^2$ factorial experiment&$k$th factor&\multicolumn{4}{c}{$\mu(a_1,a_2)=E\{Y(X_1=a_1,X_2=a_2)\}$}\\[0.2ex]
Network interference&$k$th unit's assignment&\multicolumn{4}{c}{$\mu(a_1,a_2)=\sum_{k=1}^2Y_k(X_1=a_1,X_2=a_2)/2$}\\[0.2ex]
Mendelian randomization&$k$th genotype&\multicolumn{4}{c}{$\mu(a_1,a_2)=E\{Y(1,X_1=a_1,X_2=a_2)\}$}\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{table}
With the above preliminaries, the set of causal estimands (assumed to have $d$ elements) are defined as the contrasts concerning $2^K$ quantities, formally given by:
\begin{align}\label{eq:def-contrast}
\mathbf{\Delta}=\mathbf{H}\mathbf{v},
\end{align}
where $\mathbf{H}$ is a $d \times 2^K$ generator matrix of $0$'s and $\pm1$'s. We first define permutation invariance.
%, which formalizes the ideas discussed in Section \ref{sec:whatispi}.
%In this paper, we aim to study the connections between $\mathbf{H}$ and permutation invariance principle.
\begin{definition}%[\emph{Induced permutation matrix}]
\label{def:permutation-matrix}
A permutation matrix is a square binary matrix that has exactly one entry of $1$ in each row and each column, with all other entries being $0$. Any permutation of the elements in $\mathcal{X}$ induces $K+1$ corresponding permutations on the subsets within each equivalence class $[q]\in\mathcal{Q}$, characterized by permutation matrices $\bP^{(q)}\in\mathbb{R}^{\binom{K}{q}\times \binom{K}{q}}$ for $0\leq q\leq K$. A matrix $\bP$ of size $2^K$ is called an {induced permutation matrix} if it has block diagonal structure with main diagonal of permutation matrices:
\begin{align*}
\bP&=\text{diag}(\bP^{(0)},\ldots,\bP^{(K)}).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}%[\emph{Permutation invariance}]
\label{def:permutation-invariance}
A vector of contrasts $\mathbf{\Delta}$ is permutation-invariant if for any induced column permutation matrix $\bP_c$, there exists a row permutation matrix $\bP_r$ such that $\bP_r \mathbf{H}=\mathbf{H}\bP_c$.
\end{definition}
Definition \ref{def:permutation-invariance} states that the causal estimands are permutation-invariant if any induced permutation of the columns of the generator matrix $\mathbf{H}$ is equivalent to a corresponding permutation of its rows. Together with \eqref{eq:def-contrast}, the permutation-invariant estimands should satisfy
\begin{align*}
\bP_r\mathbf{\Delta}=\mathbf{H}(\bP_c\mathbf{v}).
\end{align*}
Essentially, the term $\bP_c\bv$ represents the permutation of $\bv$ induced by relabeling the variables in $\calX$. In turn, for the vector of estimands $\mathbf{\Delta}$ to be permutation-invariant, it must also be permutable (via a corresponding matrix $\bP_r$) to align with the new ordering of the variables.
In what follows, we address three central aspects that arise in permutation-invariant causal estimands. First, we formalize a procedure to check whether a given set of estimands is permutation-invariant. %At the same time, given a permutation matrix $\bP_c$ induced by exchanging the labels of the action variables, we study how to identify the corresponding permutation matrix $\bP_r$.
Second, for $K$ action variables, we construct a set of permutation-invariant estimands that is also complete, i.e., capturing all orders of interaction effects. Finally, we discuss conditions under which the aggregation of permutation-invariant and complete estimands captures the maximal effect, and hence are residual-free, based on the inclusion–exclusion principle. %Finally, recognizing the ubiquity of binary outcomes in causal inference, we examine whether one can construct a corresponding set of estimands that includes both the risk ratio and the odds ratio, thereby extending the framework in a natural and practically relevant way.
% We aim to answer five important questions in this paper:
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item \label{q:test}\emph{Because permutation invariance is defined existentially, verification is not entirely transparent. Is there a simple way to check that a given set of estimands is permutation-invariant?}
% \item \label{q:matrix}\emph{For permutation-invariant estimands, how does one find the corresponding estimands permutation matrix $\bP_r$ for a given causal object permutation $\bP_c$?}
% \item \label{q:construct}\emph{Is it possible to construct a practically useful set of estimands that is both complete—capturing all orders of interaction effects—and permutation-invariant?}
% \item \label{q:connection}\emph{What can be said about the relationships between those estimands?}
% \item \label{q:binary}\emph{Causal inference with binary outcomes is common. Can one construct a set of estimands, analogous to that in Question \ref{q:construct}, that encompasses both the risk ratio and the odds ratio?}
% \end{enumerate}
\section{Main results}
\subsection{Algebraic characterization of permutation invariance}\label{ss:characterization-multiset}
Verification of permutation invariance based on Definition \ref{def:permutation-invariance} may appear nontrivial.
%To address Question \ref{q:test},
Our first result establishes a necessary and sufficient condition for verifying whether a set of estimands is permutation-invariant. To proceed, we leverage the following concepts in algebra and combinatorics \citep{van2001course}. A permutation $\sigma:\calY\to \calY$ is a bijection from a general finite set $\calY$ to itself. Alternatively, $\sigma$ can also be uniquely expressed as a permutation matrix. Define $S_n$ as the symmetric group for a set with cardinality $n$, i.e., $S_n$ contains all the permutations on the given set $\calY$ with $|\calY|=n$. A permutation group $\mathcal{P}$ is the subgroup of $S_n$. A multiset is an extension of a set that allows elements to appear more than once, which is defined by a double: the set of its distinct elements and the multiplicity (or count) of each element. In our example, $S_K$ and $S_{2^K}$ are the symmetric groups on $\calX$ and $2^\calX$, respectively; $\mathcal{P} \subseteq S_{2^K}$ is the permutation group consisting of the right-multiplication of all induced permutation matrices $\bP_c$; $\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{H})=\{(o_1,m_1),\ldots,(o_n,m_n)\}$ ($o_i$ and $m_i$ denote the $i$th distinct row and its multiplicity) is the multiset of rows of generator matrix $\mathbf{H}$. The permutation group $\mathcal{P}$ induces an action that applies a permutation $\sigma \in \mathcal{P}$ to $\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{H})$ and produces $\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{P}_c)$.
%and this group action also induces a permutation group on $2^X$, denoted as $\mathcal{P}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:characterization}
%Assume that the matrix $\mathbf{H}$ has no duplicate rows.
A vector of contrasts $\mathbf{\Delta}$ is permutation-invariant if and only if $\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{P}_c)=\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{H})$ for all $\sigma\in\mathcal{P}$.
\end{theorem}
By Theorem \ref{thm:characterization}, permutation invariance requires the multiplicity of rows to remain unchanged under any relabeling of the underlying action variables. Therefore, verifying permutation invariance boils down to a counting exercise. We provide an example verification with $K=2$ below.
\begin{example}\label{eg:test-thm1}
The following two generator matrices correspond to the Examples \ref{eg1} and \ref{eg2}:
\begin{align*}
&\mathbf{H}_1=\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&1&-1\\
1&0&-1&0
\end{pmatrix},~~~\mathbf{H}_2=\begin{pmatrix}
1&-1&0&0\\
1&0&-1&0
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
where $\bv=(\mu(1,1),\mu(0,1),\mu(1,0),\mu(0,0))^\top$, and $\mathbf{H}_1$ and $\mathbf{H}_2$ correspond to the estimands defined in Examples \ref{eg1} and \ref{eg2}, respectively.
%$\tau_i$ and $\Delta_i$, respectively.
Then shuffling $X_1$ and $X_2$ for $\mathbf{H}_2$ does not change the multiplicity of rows: $\{((1,-1,0,0),1),((1,0,-1,0),1)\}$. In contrast, shuffling $X_1$ and $X_2$ for $\mathbf{H}_1$ yields a different multiset of rows: $\{((0,1,0,-1),1),((1,-1,0,0),1)\}$.
\end{example}
%To identify the corresponding estimands permutation $\mathbf{P}_r$, we provide the following algorithm.
Theorem \ref{thm:characterization} also motivates the following algorithm to identify the corresponding row permutation matrix $\mathbf{P}_r$, given an induced column permutation matrix $\mathbf{P}_c$. Its convergence is guaranteed for permutation-invariant contrasts.
\begin{algo}\label{algo:compute}
Assume that $\mathbf{H}$ is permutation-invariant.
%\vspace*{-12pt}
\begin{tabbing}
\qquad \enspace To begin with, compute $\mathbf{H}'=\mathbf{H}\bP_c$. Let $r_i$ and $r'_i$ denote the $i$th rows of $\mathbf{H}$ and $\mathbf{H}'$, respectively.\\
\qquad \enspace For $i=1$ to $i=d$, set $\sigma(i)=j$ such that $r_i=r'_j$, where the choice of $\sigma$ may not be unique.\\
\qquad \enspace Output $\bP_r$ that corresponds to the permutation $\sigma$.
\end{tabbing}
\end{algo}
\subsection{A class of permutation-invariant and complete estimands}\label{ss:class-estimands}
We next introduce a class of estimands that are both permutation-invariant and \emph{complete}. Here, a set of estimands is said to be complete if it captures all interaction effects concerning the $K$ action variables. For example, the class of estimands in Example \ref{eg2} is permutation-invariant but not complete, because it only captures first-order effects (defined by varying either $X_1$ or $X_2$ while holding the other constant) and thus fails to measure their interaction. To be considered complete, a class of estimands must account for contrasts among all nonempty subsets of $\calX$. Definition \ref{def:pi-estimands-defi} below presents this class of estimands in full generality for $K\geq2$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:pi-estimands-defi}
With $K$ action variables, an interpretable complete class of estimands can be written as $\boldsymbol{\Delta}=\{\Delta_{\calY}:\emptyset\neq\calY\in 2^{\calX}\}$, where
\begin{align}\label{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted}
\Delta_{\calY}=&\sum_{\calT\subseteq \calY^c}w(\calT,\calY)\left[\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ\cup \calT)\right],
\end{align}
and $w: \mathcal{D}:=\{(\calT,\calY):\emptyset\neq \calY\in 2^\calX,\calT\subseteq \calY^c\} \to \mathbb{R}_{\geq0}$ ($\bullet^c$ is the set complement) are the normalized weights such that $\sum_{\calT\subseteq \calY^c}w(\calT,\calY)=1$ for all $\calY$ and the total number of contrasts is $d=|\boldsymbol{\Delta}|=2^K-1$.
\end{definition}
%To simplify the exposition, we will use combinatorial representations, beginning with the following standard notations.
%Here, the weights $w$ are introduced to accommodate $2^K$ factorial experiments.
For $K=2$ and when the effect of interest is $\calY=\{X_1\}$, if the weights are set to $w(\emptyset,\{X_1\})=1$ and $w(\{X_2\},\{X_1\})=0$ as in the causal mediation context, the estimand \eqref{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted} becomes $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}=f(\emptyset)-f(\{X_1\})$. Using the notation from Table \ref{tab:application}, it follows that $\Delta_{\{X_1\}} = f(\emptyset) - f(\{X_1\}) = \mu(1,1) - \mu(0,1)$, which coincides with $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}$ in Example \ref{eg2}. For the analysis of $2^K$ factorial experiments, the weighting function is not necessarily a point mass. In this case, $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}=w(\emptyset,\{X_1\})(\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1))+w(\{X_2\},\{X_1\})(\mu(1,0)-\mu(0,0))$.
%\begin{align*}
% \Delta_{\{X_1\}}
% =&w(\emptyset,\{X_1\})(\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1))+w(\{X_2\},\{X_1\})(\mu(1,0)-\mu(0,0)).
%\end{align*}
Following \cite{zhao2022regression}, the terms $\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1)$ and $\mu(1,0)-\mu(0,0)$ can be interpreted as the conditional treatment effects of factor $X_1$ given $X_2=1$ and $X_2=0$, respectively. In this context, the weights $w(\emptyset,\{X_1\})$ and $w(\{X_2\},\{X_1\})$ correspond to $\Pr(X_2=1)$ and $\Pr(X_2=0)$, respectively, and are \emph{compatible} if derived from a common joint distribution of $\calX$; see Supplementary Material Remark~\ref{remark:compatibility}.
The preceding example motivates two distinct viewpoints on the weights. The first arises in factorial designs where weights correspond to action variables and represent probability masses. This perspective implies that the weights must permute consistently with the action variables. For instance, if $X_1$ and $X_2$ are interchanged, their weights are swapped accordingly: $w(\emptyset,\{X_1\}) = \Pr(X_2 = 1)$ becomes $w(\emptyset,\{X_2\}) = \Pr(X_1 = 1)$. The second viewpoint applies when such a correspondence is absent, in which case the weights are considered invariant to permutations of the action variables. For example, the estimands $\{\Delta_{\{X_1\}},\Delta_{\{X_2\}}\}$ with $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}=1/2(\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1))+1/2(\mu(1,0)-\mu(0,0))$ and $\Delta_{\{X_2\}}=1/2(\mu(1,1)-\mu(1,0))+1/2(\mu(0,1)-\mu(0,0))$ are defined using the fixed weights $1/2$ and only $\mu$ is permutable with respect to action variables. We henceforth refer to these two types as \emph{permutable} and \emph{invariant} weights, respectively.
The proposed class of estimands also nests several existing estimands in the causal inference literature. For example, the estimands $\Delta_i$ from \cite{xia2022decomposition} (Example \ref{eg2}) are a special case of the $\boldsymbol{\Delta}$ with invariant weights, recoverable by setting $w(\calT,\calY)=\mathbf{1}(\calT=\emptyset)$ (point mass), where $\mathbf{1}(\bullet)$ is the indicator function. While \cite{xia2022decomposition} did not provide explicit definitions for $K\geq3$, $\{\Delta_{\calY}=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ):\emptyset\neq\calY\in 2^{\calX}\}$ serve as a natural extension of their estimands for general $K$. For $2^K$ factorial experiments, the estimand proposed by \cite{dasgupta2015causal} is defined by setting $w(\calT,\calY)=2^{-|\calY^c|}$ (equal invariant weights) for all $\calT$; the estimand proposed by \cite{zhao2022regression} corresponds to the class $\boldsymbol{\Delta}$ with compatible permutable weights.
%Although certain special cases or recursive formulas have been noted in the existing literature across different areas of causal inference, to the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first to provide a combinatorial characterization of the estimand contrasts in \eqref{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted} in their full generality with $K$ variables.
While the methods in Sections \ref{subsec:setup} and \ref{ss:characterization-multiset} are unweighted, Supplementary Material Example \ref{eg:weighted-estimands} ($K=2$) illustrates how these formulations can be extended to weighted estimands. The following result shows that $\boldsymbol{\Delta}$ is permutation-invariant with permutable weights, and with invariant weights, under additional restrictions.
%to connect with the results introduced in Section \ref{eq:def-contrast} (without weights) and to illustrate Theorem \ref{thm:estimand-pi}, we provide an illustrative example for the case $K=2$ below.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:estimand-pi}
For all $1\leq q\leq K$, the subclass $\{\Delta_{\calY}:\calY\in[q]\}$ with permutable weights is permutation-invariant and but incomplete because it only captures $q$-th order interaction effects. With invariant weights, this subclass retains the same properties if Supplementary Material condition \ref{con:invariant-weights-pi} (also see Supplementary Material Remark \ref{remark:df-pi-inva}) for the invariant weights additionally holds. In contrast, the full class $\{\Delta_{\calY}:\emptyset\neq \calY \in 2^{\calX}\}$ is both permutation-invariant and complete.
\end{theorem}
By Theorem \ref{thm:estimand-pi}, the estimand classes in \cite{dasgupta2015causal} and \cite{xia2022decomposition} (with invariant weights) and in \cite{zhao2022regression} (with permutable weights) are all permutation-invariant and complete. To further enhance interpretation of $\Delta_{\calY}$, we provide an alternative characterization for $\Delta_{\calY}$ below.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:alternative-repre}
For any $X_k\in \calY$, the estimand given by \eqref{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted} can alternatively be expressed as,
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{\calY}=&\sum_{\calT\subseteq \calY^c}w(\calT,\calY)\left[\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY\backslash\{X_k\}}(-1)^{|\calZ|}(f(\calZ\cup \calT)-f(\calZ\cup\{X_k\}\cup \calT))\right].
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
Consider the interaction effect where $\mathcal{Y}=\{X_1,X_2\}$. Proposition \ref{prop:alternative-repre} defines this estimand as $\Delta_{\{X_1,X_2\}} = (\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1)) - (\mu(1,0)-\mu(0,0))$. This estimand is interpreted as the extent to which the effect of variable $X_1$ is modified by variable $X_2$. Similarly, permutation invariance implies that the interaction can also be interpreted as the extent to which the effect of $X_2$ is modified by $X_1$. More generally, Proposition \ref{prop:alternative-repre} shows that $\Delta_{\calY}$ quantifies the extent to which the effect of one variable in $\calY$, $X_k$, is modified by the interaction of the remaining $|\calY|-1$ variables, with the choice of $X_k$ being arbitrary within $\calY$ due to permutation invariance.
%In summary, the interpretation of the estimands $\Delta_{\calY}$ is as follows: (i) $\Delta_{\calY}$ represents the $|\calY|$th-order interaction effect among the action variables in $\calY$; (ii) and $\{\Delta_{\calY} : |\calY| = q\},1\leq q\leq K$ captures all $q$-th order interaction effects, and are permutation-invariant.
%In what follows, we may refer to $\Delta_Y$ as the $|Y|$-th order interaction effect.
%Finally, an illustrative example of weighted estimand contrasts, demonstrating the results of this section and using the same notation as in Section \ref{sec:whatispi}, is provided in the following Example.
\subsection{Residual-free estimands}\label{ss:w-IEP}
%To further understand the interdependency between the class of estimands in \eqref{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted}, we next examine the decomposition of the estimands.
The permutation-variant and complete class of estimands in Definition \ref{def:pi-estimands-defi} depends on complex weights. For permutable weights, these are inherently determined by the action variables and are not subject to manipulation. In contrast, invariant weights can be adjusted. To guide their practical selection, we introduce the \emph{residual-free} property.
\begin{definition}%[Residual-free]
\label{def:residual-free}
The class of estimands $\boldsymbol{\Delta}$ in Definition \ref{def:pi-estimands-defi} is said to be residual-free if its inclusion-exclusion sum $\sum_{\emptyset \neq \calY \subseteq \calX} (-1)^{|\calY|+1} \Delta_{\calY}$ equals the maximum effect, defined as $f(\emptyset) - f(\calX)$; that is, the contrast between setting all variables to the treated state versus the control state.
\end{definition}
Here, the name `\emph{inclusion–exclusion}' is motivated by its connection to the \emph{Möbius inversion} in combinatorics \citep{rota1964foundations}, as detailed in the proof of Theorem \ref{prop:nie}.
%By Theorem \ref{thm:estimand-pi}, the \emph{inclusion-exclusion sum} $\sum_{\emptyset \neq \calY \subseteq \calX} (-1)^{|\calY|+1} \Delta_{\calY}$ remains invariant under any permutation of the action variables.
%First, Theorem~\ref{thm:estimand-pi} shows that the \emph{inclusion–exclusion} sum $\sum_{\emptyset \neq \calY \subseteq \calX} (-1)^{|\calY|+1} \Delta_{\calY}$ remains invariant under any permutation of the action variables. The name `inclusion–exclusion' is motivated by its connection to the \emph{Möbius inversion} in combinatorics \citep{rota1964foundations}, as detailed in the proof of Theorem \ref{prop:nie}. Using this sum, we next introduce the concept of \emph{residual-free} estimands.
According to Definition \ref{def:residual-free}, the inclusion–exclusion sum of a residual-free class of estimands is required to exactly capture the largest possible causal effect among the action variables—the maximal effect. The maximal effect is of broad interest across different areas of causal inference. In causal mediation analysis, it corresponds to the {natural indirect effect} \citep{tchetgen2012semiparametric}; in causal network analysis, it is particularly valuable because it can be identified and estimated under minimal structural assumptions \citep{hudgens2008toward}. %Alternatively, for the residual-free estimands, the definition provides a natural estimands decomposition via
Alternatively, the equation $f(\emptyset)-f(\calX)=\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}$ can be interpreted as a natural decomposition of estimands, with immediate applications to causal mediation analysis.
%\begin{align*}
% f(\emptyset)-f(\calX)=\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}.
%\end{align*}
Moreover, for the class that are not residual-free, we define the residual effect as the difference between the combinatorial sum and the maximal effect,
\begin{align*}
\text{res}=\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}-(f(\emptyset)-f(\calX)),
\end{align*}
which captures the remaining effect of inclusion-exclusion aggregation that cannot be explained by the maximal effect.
%Below, we show that the weighting scheme is unique in order for the class to be residual-free.
%Below, we provide an equivalent condition on the weights that both sufficiently and necessarily characterizes residual-free estimands among those defined in \eqref{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted}.
An explicit expression for the residual effect applicable to the non–residual-free class of estimands is provided in the Supplementary Material Lemma \ref{lemma:alt-repre-cY}. An immediate next question is how the residual-free class is identified through the weights defined in Definition \ref{def:pi-estimands-defi}. The result below provides this characterization.
%whether a residual-free estimand class exists within \eqref{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted}, and if so, whether it is unique.
%The result below establishes how the residual-free class is identified through the weights defined in Definition \ref{def:pi-estimands-defi}.
\begin{theorem}\label{prop:nie}
For the class of estimands $\boldsymbol{\Delta}$ in Definition \ref{def:pi-estimands-defi} with invariant weights, then $\text{res}=0$ if and only if $w(\calT,\calY)=\mathbf{1}(\calT=\emptyset)$ and $\Delta_{\calY}=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ)$. That is, the residual-free class exists and is uniquely identified by point-mass weights.
%On the other hand, if $w(\mathcal{T}, \mathcal{Y})$ is allowed to take negative values, then there exist infinitely many residual-free classes of estimands.
%Importantly, this uniqueness critically relies on the nonnegativity of the weights; without nonnegativity, there exist infinitely many residual-free classes (see Example \ref{eg:example-K=2-uniqueness} in the Supplementary Material).
\end{theorem}
%Our third main result addresses Question~\ref{q:connection} by decomposing the estimands in \eqref{eq:def-contrast} using combinatorial tools, offering an entirely new perspective.
Theorem \ref{prop:nie} states that the unique residual-free estimand class is obtained by setting $X_k$ to its treated state $X_k(1)$ for all $X_k$ not included in the subset under comparison, i.e., $X_k \notin \mathcal{Y}$. Based on Theorem \ref{prop:nie}, the estimand class proposed by \cite{xia2022decomposition} for the $K=2$ case is residual-free, and the class $\{\Delta_{\calY}=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ):\emptyset\neq\calY\in 2^{\calX}\}$ extends their formulation to arbitrary $K$.
%Our results serve as a natural extension of their work to cases where $K \geq 3$.
%Finally, guidance on choosing weights is provided in Remark~\ref{remark:practical-choose-weights}.
In practice, we recommend choosing weights according to their natural probabilistic context, which yields permutable weights. When such a context is unclear for invariant weights, one may simply use the default permutation-invariant, complete, and residual-free class of estimands:
$\{\Delta_{\calY} = \sum_{\calZ \subseteq \calY} (-1)^{|\calZ|} f(\calZ) : \emptyset \neq \calY \in 2^{\calX}\}$.
%Finally, Example \ref{eg:example-K=2-uniqueness} in the Supplementary Material provides further elaboration on cases where $w(\mathcal{T}, \mathcal{Y})$ is allowed to be negative.
%Finally, we recommend using residual-free, complete, and permutation-invariant estimands when the probabilistic interpretation of the weights is unclear, for example, in the applications shown in Table \ref{tab:application}, excluding the factorial experiments.
%\begin{remark}[Guideline for choosing weights]\label{remark:practical-choose-weights}
%In practice, we recommend choosing weights according to their natural probabilistic context. When such a context is not apparent, one may use the residual-free class, $\Delta_{\calY}=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ)$.
%\end{remark}
\section{Extensions to ratio estimands}
Causal inference with binary outcomes is not uncommon, and the risk ratio and odds ratio are typical alternative effect measures. The proposed permutation-invariant, complete, and residual-free estimands $\boldsymbol{\Delta}$ generalize to ratio measures. %As an example, we focus on the residual-free class of estimands, as in Theorem \ref{prop:nie}.
Specifically, the log risk ratio and log odds ratio are obtained by replacing the building block $f$ with the compositions $h \circ f = \log(f)$ and $h \circ f = \log(f/(1-f))$, respectively. We illustrate applications of the previous results to the risk ratio and odds ratio in the following two corollaries.
\begin{corollary}%[Risk ratio]
\label{eg:rr}
Consider replacing the mapping $f$ with $h\circ f$, where $h(x)=\log(x)$. The class of estimands that are permutation-invariant, complete, and residual-free is given by $\{\Delta_{\calY}:\emptyset\neq\calY \in 2^{\calX}\}$, where $\Delta_{\calY}=\Pi_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}f(\calZ)^{(-1)^{|\calZ|}}$ and
% \begin{align*}
% \Delta_{\calY}=&\Pi_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}f(\calZ)^{(-1)^{|\calZ|}},
% \end{align*}
its inclusion-exclusion product satisfies $\Pi_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}\Delta_{\calY}^{(-1)^{|\calY|+1}}=f(\emptyset)/f(\calX)$.%given by
%\begin{align*}
% \Pi_{\emptyset\neq Y\subseteq X}\Delta_Y^{(-1)^{|Y|+1}}=f(\emptyset)/f(X).
%\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}%[Odds ratio]
\label{eg:or}
Consider replacing the mapping $f$ with $h\circ f$, where $h(x) = \log(x/(1-x))$. The class of estimands that are permutation-invariant, complete, and residual-free is given by $\{\Delta_{\calY}:\emptyset\neq\calY \in 2^{\calX}\}$, where
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{\calY}=&\Pi_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}\left(\frac{f(\calZ)}{1-f(\calZ)}\right)^{(-1)^{|\calZ|}},
\end{align*}
and its inclusion-exclusion product satisfies $\Pi_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}\Delta_{\calY}^{(-1)^{|\calY|+1}}=\{f(\emptyset)(1-f(\calX))\}/\{f(\calX)(1-f(\emptyset))\}$.
%given by
%\begin{align*}
% \Pi_{\emptyset\neq Y\subseteq X}\Delta_Y^{(-1)^{|Y|+1}}=\frac{f(\emptyset)(1-f(X))}{f(X)(1-f(\emptyset))}.
%\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
Corollaries \ref{eg:rr} and \ref{eg:or} show that, algebraically, applying a logarithmic transformation converts the additive structure of estimands on the difference scale into a multiplicative structure on the ratio scale. To illustrate, we revisit the Example \ref{eg2} with a focus on ratio scale.
\begin{example}
The exit indirect effects on the risk ratio scale are defined as $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}={\mu(1,1)}/{\mu(0,1)}$, $\Delta_{\{X_2\}}={\mu(1,1)}/{\mu(1,0)}$, and $\Delta_{\{X_1,X_2\}}=\{\mu(0,0)\mu(1,1)\}/\{\mu(0,1)\mu(1,0)\}$.
%\begin{align*}
% &\Delta_{\{1\}}=\frac{\mu(1,1)}{\mu(0,1)},\quad \Delta_{\{2\}}=\frac{\mu(1,1)}{\mu(1,0)},\quad \Delta_{\{1,2\}}=\frac{\mu(0,0)\mu(1,1)}{\mu(0,1)\mu(1,0)}.
%\end{align*}
The multiplicative inclusion-exclusion decomposition is given by $\Delta_{\{X_1\}} \Delta_{\{X_2\}} / \Delta_{\{X_1,X_2\}}={\mu(1,1)}/{\mu(0,0)}$.
Similarly, the exit indirect effects on the odds ratio are $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}=\{\mu(1,1)(1-\mu(0,1))\}/\{\mu(0,1)(1-\mu(1,1))\}$, $\Delta_{\{X_2\}}=\{\mu(1,1)(1-\mu(1,0))\}/\{\mu(1,0)(1-\mu(1,1))\}$, and $\Delta_{\{1,2\}}={\mu(0,0)\mu(1,1)(1-\mu(0,1))(1-\mu(1,0))}/\{\mu(0,1)\mu(1,0)(1-\mu(0,0))(1-\mu(1,1))\}$.
%\begin{align*}
% &\Delta_{\{1\}}=\frac{\mu(1,1)(1-\mu(0,1))}{\mu(0,1)(1-\mu(1,1))},\quad \Delta_{\{2\}}=\frac{\mu(1,1)(1-\mu(1,0))}{\mu(1,0)(1-\mu(1,1))},\quad \Delta_{\{1,2\}}=\frac{\mu(0,0)\mu(1,1)(1-\mu(0,1))(1-\mu(1,0))}{\mu(0,1)\mu(1,0)(1-\mu(0,0))(1-\mu(1,1))}.
%\end{align*}
The multiplicative inclusion-exclusion decomposition is given by $\Delta_{\{X_1\}} \Delta_{\{X_2\}} / \Delta_{\{X_1,X_2\}}=\{\mu(1,1)(1-\mu(0,0))\}/\{\mu(0,0)(1-\mu(1,1))\}$.
\end{example}
%\section{An illustrative example of mediation analysis with three mediators.}
\section{Conclusion}
%We formalize the permutation invariance principle as a technical foundation for defining complex causal estimands.
%a concept with broad implications across causal inference but has remained insufficiently articulated in the existing literature to date.
The contributions of our work are fourfold. First, we formalize the permutation-invariance principle, a notion that has been insufficiently clarified in existing literature. Second, we provide a simple procedure for verifying the permutation invariance of a given set of estimands. Third, we formally characterize an interpretable, permutation-invariant, and complete class of weighted estimands applicable across diverse areas of causal inference. Finally, we identify the choice of weights that yields residual-free estimands whose combinatorial sum captures the maximal effect, and discuss extensions to ratio measures.
%Second, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort to establish a full combinatorial characterization with arbitrary $K$ action variables. Third, we provide a precise formulation and analysis of permutation invariance, a notion that has remained insufficiently clarified in the existing literature. %The following result shows that the estimand contrasts $\Delta_{\calY}$ remain permutation-invariant.
For simplicity, we demonstrate the proposed framework for the concrete cases $K=2$ and $K=3$ in the Supplementary Material Appendix B. While this paper focuses on action variables with only two states (treated or control) as a foundational step, and a future direction is to generalize to multiple states. This would allow applicability to factorial experiments with multiple categorical factors and to causal mediation with multiple unordered mediators and an ordinal treatment. %Furthermore, while Proposition \ref{prop:nie} shows that combinatorial sum has a simple form for a restrictive class of weighting schemes, it may also be simplified under other weighting schemes. We leave these questions for future investigation.
%%% FL will come back to this and see where this may fit
%The broad implications of our results are threefold. First, we elucidate the combinatorial structure underlying these definitions, even when they arise from diverse areas of causal inference. Second, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort to establish a full combinatorial characterization with arbitrary $K$ action variables. Third, we provide a precise formulation and analysis of permutation invariance, a notion that has remained insufficiently clarified in the existing literature. The following result shows that the estimand contrasts $\Delta_{\calY}$ remain permutation-invariant.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work is supported by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute\textsuperscript{\textregistered} (PCORI\textsuperscript{\textregistered} Award ME-2023C1-31350). The statements are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI\textsuperscript{\textregistered}, its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.
%Information, such as contract numbers, of no interest to readers, should be excluded.
\bigskip
\begin{center}
{\large\bf SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL}
\end{center}
\section*{Summary}
\label{SM}
This supplementary material is organized as follows. Appendix A contains the proofs of all Theorems, Propositions, and Corollaries. Appendix B presents illustrative representations of the proposed methods for the cases $K=2$ and $K=3$.
\section*{Appendix A: Proofs of Theorems, Propositions, and Corollaries}
We state three key lemmas useful for the subsequent proofs. The first lemma gives an alternative representation of $\Delta_{\calY}$ and an explicit characterization of the residual effect $\text{res}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:alt-repre-cY}
For general weights and any $\calY$, $\Delta_{\calY}$ includes all terms of the form $f(\calZ)$ with $\calZ\subseteq \calX$. More precisely, $\Delta_{\calY}$ can be alternatively expressed as
\begin{align}\label{eq:cy-alternative}
&\Delta_{\calY}=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \calY|}w(\calZ\backslash \calY,\calY)f(\calZ).
\end{align}
Consequently, the residual effect can be explicitly written as
\begin{align*}
\text{res}=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}\text{coef}(\calZ)f(\calZ),
\end{align*}
where the coefficients for $f(\calZ)$ are given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:residual-effect-weights}
\text{coef}(\calZ)=
\begin{cases}
\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+|\calZ\cap \calY|+1} w(\calZ\backslash \calY,\calY),&\calZ\neq \emptyset,\calX,\\
\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}w(\emptyset,\calY)-1,& \calZ=\emptyset,\\
1-\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}w(\calY^c,\calY),&\calZ=\calX.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
%Among the class in \eqref{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted}, $\text{res}=0$ if and only if the coefficients for $f(\calZ)$, defined as $\text{coef}(Z)=\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+|\calZ\cap \calY|+1} w(\calZ\backslash \calY,\calY)$, satisfy $\text{coef}(\emptyset)=1$, $\text{coef}(X)=-1$, and $\text{coef}(Z)=0$ otherwise.
\begin{proof}
We first show \eqref{eq:cy-alternative}. By the De Morgan's Laws, any subset $\calZ\subseteq \calX$ can be written as $\calZ= \calT\cup \calZ'$, where $\calZ'=\calZ\cap \calY\subseteq \calY$ and $\calT=\calZ\cap \calY^c=\calZ\backslash \calY\subseteq \calY^c$, which further implies the right-hand-side of \eqref{eq:cy-alternative} equals to
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \calY|}w(\calZ\backslash \calY,\calY)f(\calZ)\\
=&\sum_{\calT\subseteq \calY^c}\sum_{\calZ'\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|(\calT\cup \calZ')\cap \calY|}w((\calT\cup \calZ')\backslash \calY,\calY)f(\calT\cup \calZ')\\
=&\sum_{\calT\subseteq \calY^c}\sum_{\calZ'\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ'|}w(\calT,\calY)f(\calT\cup \calZ')\\
=&\sum_{\calT\subseteq \calY^c} w(\calT,\calY)\left[\sum_{\calZ'\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ'|}f(\calZ'\cup \calT)\right]=\text{(Equation \eqref{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted}, main manuscript)}.
\end{align*}
Next, we show \eqref{eq:residual-effect-weights}. By definition, we have that
\begin{align*}
\text{res}=&\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX} (-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}-[f(\emptyset)-f(\calX)]\\
=&\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX} (-1)^{|\calY|+1}\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \calY|}w(\calZ\backslash \calY,\calY)f(\calZ)-[f(\emptyset)-f(\calX)]\\
=&\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX} \sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+|\calZ\cap \calY|+1}w(\calZ\backslash \calY,\calY)f(\calZ)-[f(\emptyset)-f(\calX)]\\
=& \sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}\text{coef}^\ast(\calZ)f(\calZ)-[f(\emptyset)-f(\calX)],
\end{align*}
where $\text{coef}^\ast(\calZ)=\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+|\calZ\cap \calY|+1}w(\calZ\backslash \calY,\calY)$ and the last equality follows from the fact that the summation is exchangeable over a rectangle. We conclude by letting $\text{coef}(\calZ)=\text{coef}^\ast(\calZ)$ for $\calZ\neq\emptyset ,\calX$; and $\text{coef}(\emptyset)=\text{coef}^\ast(\emptyset)-1$ and $\text{coef}(\calX)=\text{coef}^\ast(\calX)+1$.
\end{proof}
Another useful combinatorial lemma is the \emph{weighted inclusion–exclusion principle (w-IEP)}, which follows from \emph{Möbius inversion theory} in combinatorics. Here, the inclusion-exclusion weights differ from the probability mass weights $w$ introduced in the main manuscript. We state it without proof, as it is a standard result found in standard combinatorics texts, such as \cite{rota1964foundations,van2001course}.
\begin{lemma}[Weighted Inclusion–Exclusion Principle]\label{lemma:IEP-weighted}
Suppose $\lambda : \calX \to \mathbb{R}$ is a inclusion-exclusion weight function that assigns a weight to each element in $\calX$. With a slight abuse of notation, define $\lambda(\calA) = \sum_{X \in \calA} \lambda(X)$; that is, the total weight of a subset $\calA$ is the sum of the weights of its elements. Then for any collection of subsets $\calG_s\subseteq \calX,1\leq s\leq S$, the w-IEP is
\begin{align*}
\lambda(\cap_{s=1}^S \calG_s)=\lambda(\calX)+\sum_{s=1}^S(-1)^s\sum_{i_1<\ldots< i_s}\lambda(\calG_{i_1}^c\cap\ldots\cap \calG_{i_s}^c),
\end{align*}
where $\bullet^c$ is the set complement.
\end{lemma}
The third lemma establishes a simple property: applying any element-wise permutation to the elements of the power set defines a surjective mapping.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:surjective-power-set}
For any permutation $\sigma \in S_K$ and any subset $\calA \subseteq \calX$, we define $\sigma^\ast(\calA) := \{\sigma(X) : X \in \calA\}$, which is well-defined because $\sigma$ is a bijective map. Then $\sigma^\ast:2^\calX\to 2^\calX$ is a bijective map.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The injectivity of $\sigma^\ast$ follows directly from the bijectivity of $\sigma$. We establish surjectivity. For any $\calB\in 2^\calX$, we construct a well-defined set using inverse of $\sigma$ (inverse function exists as $\sigma$ is bijective), $\calA=\{\sigma^{-1}(X'):X'\in \calB\}$. It is enough to show that $\calA\in 2^\calX$, i.e., for any $X\in \calA$, we have that $X\in \calX$. This holds because $X=\sigma^{-1}(X')\in \calX$, and $\sigma$ is a bijective.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:characterization}}
\begin{proof}
For simplicity, we denote the generator matrix after permuting action variables as $\mH'=\mH\bP_c$. We first show the necessity, i.e., forward direction ($\Rightarrow$). By definition, the class of permutation-invariant estimands $\mathbf{\Delta}$ satisfy that for any $\sigma\in \mathcal{P}$ and the corresponding induced permutation matrix $\bP_c$, there exists a row permutation matrix $\bP_r$ such that $\bP_r\mH=\mH'$, which implies that $\mathcal{R}(\bP_r\mH)=\mathcal{R}(\mH')$. On the other hand, the multiset of rows is invariant under row permutation, i.e., $\mathcal{R}(\bP_r\mH)=\mathcal{R}(\mH)$. Therefore, we obtain $\mathcal{R}(\mH')=\mathcal{R}(\bP_r\mH)=\mathcal{R}(\mH)$.
We next prove sufficiency (the backward direction, $\Leftarrow$). It suffices to construct a row permutation matrix $\bP_r$ such that $\bP_r\mH=\mH'$. The procedure is as follows. Since the multisets of rows of $\mH$ and $\mH'$ coincide, we denote their common multiset by $(M,\eta)$, where $M=\{m_1,\ldots,m_l\}$ is the set of $l$ distinct rows and $\eta:M\to\mathbb{R}_{+}$ denotes the multiplicity function. Let $d$ be the total number of rows of $\mH$ or $\mH'$. For ease of exposition, we also define $\{r_1,\ldots,r_d\}$ and $\{r’_1,\ldots,r’_d\}$ as the multisets of rows of $\mH$ and $\mH'$, respectively, where $r_i$ and $r’_i$ denote the $i$th rows of $\mH$ and $\mH'$, respectively.
%Let $[\nu]$ be the set of positive integers up to $\nu$.
Further, we define two maps $\mu:\{1,\ldots,d\}\to\{m_1,\ldots,m_l\}$ and $\mu’:\{1,\ldots,d\}\to\{m_1,\ldots,m_l\}$, where $\mu(i)=m_s$ if $r_i=m_s$ and $\mu’(i)=m_s$ if $r’_i=m_s$, for $i\in\{1,\ldots,d\}$ and $s\in\{1,\ldots,l\}$. Of note, $\mu$ and $\mu'$ are surjective but not injective. For each $m_s$ (where $s\in\{1,\ldots,l\}$), we define $I_s = \mu^{-1}(m_s)$ as the set of indices for all rows in the matrix $\mH$ that are equal to $m_s$, and similarly, $J_s = {\mu'}^{-1}(m_s)$ as the corresponding index set for the matrix $\mH'$, where $\bullet^{-1}$ denotes the preimage. By assumption, these two sets have the same cardinality, such that $|I_s|=|J_s|=\eta(m_s)$. The fact that $I_s$ and $J_s$ have the same cardinality implies that for all $s\in\{1,\ldots,l\}$, there exist a bijection between $I_s$ and $J_s$ and we denote it as $\gamma_s:I_s\to J_s$. We set the permutation from $\mH$ to $\mH'$ as $\sigma:\{1,\ldots,d\}\to\{1,\ldots,d\}$ such that $\sigma(i)=\gamma_{s}(i)$ and $\mu(i)=m_s$, and find $\bP_r$ that uniquely characterizes the permutation $\sigma$. Lastly, we show that $\sigma$ is a permutation. First, $\sigma$ is well-defined, as $\mu(i)$ maps to a unique distinct row $m_s$. Second, the bijectivity of $\sigma$ follows from the bijectivity of $\gamma_s$ all $s\in\{1,\ldots,l\}$. In fact, the above procedure not only establishes sufficiency but also yields an explicit algorithm for constructing the required row permutation matrix $\bP_r$, thereby proving the convergence of Algorithm 1 in the main manuscript.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:estimand-pi}}
\begin{proof} We first focus on the permutable weights. For any permutation $\sigma \in S_K$ and any subset $\calA \subseteq \calX$, we define $\sigma^\ast(\calA) := \{\sigma(X) : X \in \calA\}$. It suffices to show that, for any permutation $\sigma$ and any $\Delta_{\calY}$ with $\calY \subseteq [q]$ for $1 \leq q \leq K$, the quantity $\Delta_{\sigma^\ast(\calY)}$ coincides with the estimand, $\Delta^\sigma_{\calY}$, obtained by applying $\sigma$ to both the building block $f$ and the weight $w(\calT,\calY)$. We employ the alternative characterization of $\Delta_{\calY}$ provided in Lemma \ref{lemma:alt-repre-cY}. That is, we must show that $\Delta_{\sigma(\calY)}=\Delta^\sigma_{\calY}$, where
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{\sigma^\ast(\calY)}=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|}w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\calZ),\\
&\Delta^\sigma_{\calY}=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{| \calZ\cap \calY|}w( \sigma^\ast(\calZ\backslash \calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\sigma^\ast(\calZ)).
\end{align*}
Since $\sigma$ is a bijective map, the cardinality is preserved under mapping $\sigma^\ast$, i.e., $|\sigma^\ast(\calA)|=|\calA|$ for any $\calA\subseteq \calX$, and that $\sigma^\ast$ is distributive with respect to set intersection, i.e., $\sigma^\ast(\calA \cap \calB)=\sigma^\ast(\calA)\cap \sigma^\ast(\calB)$ for any $\calA,\calB\subseteq\calX$. Thus, we have that (i)
\begin{align}
\sigma^\ast(\calZ\backslash \calY)=&\sigma^\ast(\calZ\cap\calY^c)\nonumber\\
=&\sigma^\ast(\calZ)\cap\sigma^\ast(\calY^c)\nonumber\\
=&\sigma^\ast(\calZ)\cap\sigma^\ast(\calY)^c\nonumber\\
=&\sigma^\ast(\calZ)\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY)\label{eq:proof-thm2-propertyi}
\end{align}
and (ii)
\begin{align}
|{\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\cap \calY|=&|\sigma^\ast({\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\cap \calY)|\nonumber\\
=&|\sigma^\ast({\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ))\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY))|\nonumber\\
=&|\calZ \cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|.\label{eq:proof-thm2-property2}
\end{align}
%Thus, the signs of $c_{\sigma^\ast(Y)}$ and $c^\sigma_Y$ equal. It suffices to show that
Finally, we have that
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{\sigma^\ast(\calY)}-\Delta^\sigma_{\calY}\\
=& \sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|}w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\calZ)-\sum_{\calZ^\ast\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ^\ast\cap \calY|}w( \sigma^\ast(\calZ^\ast)\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY)),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\sigma^\ast(\calZ^\ast))\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|}w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\calZ)-\sum_{{\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|{\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\cap \calY|}w( \calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY)),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\calZ)\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}((-1)^{|\calZ\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|}-(-1)^{|{\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\cap \calY|})w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\calZ)\nonumber\\
=&0,
\end{align*}
where (i) the first equality follows from \eqref{eq:proof-thm2-propertyi}; (ii) the second equality follows by setting $\calZ = \sigma^\ast(\calZ^\ast)$ and noting that $\calZ^\ast = {\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)$, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:surjective-power-set}; (iii) the second to last equality follows from the fact that Lemma~\ref{lemma:surjective-power-set} implies ${\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ) \subseteq \calX$ if and only if $\calZ \subseteq \calX$; and (iv) the last equality is because of \eqref{eq:proof-thm2-property2}.
For invariant weights, we note that the permutation only applies to $f(\calZ)$ rather than the weights, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\Delta^\sigma_{\calY}=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{| \calZ\cap \calY|}w(\calZ\backslash \calY,\calY)f(\sigma^\ast(\calZ)).
\end{align*}
By the similar reasoning, we have that
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{\sigma^\ast(\calY)}-\Delta^\sigma_{\calY}\\
=& \sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|}w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\calZ)-\sum_{\calZ^\ast\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ^\ast\cap \calY|}w( \calZ^\ast\backslash \calY),\calY)f(\sigma^\ast(\calZ^\ast))\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|}w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\calZ)-\sum_{{\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|{\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\cap \calY|}w( {\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\backslash \calY,\calY)f(\calZ)\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|}w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))f(\calZ)-\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|}w( {\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\backslash \calY,\calY)f(\calZ)\nonumber\\
=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calZ\cap \sigma^\ast(\calY)|}(w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))-w( {\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\backslash \calY,\calY))f(\calZ).
\end{align*}
We conclude if the following condition holds.
\begin{condition}\label{con:invariant-weights-pi}
For all $\calZ$, $\calY$, and $\sigma^\ast$, the following condition holds
\begin{align*}
w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))=w( {\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\backslash \calY,\calY).
\end{align*}
\end{condition}
Finally, we comment on the implications of the condition $w(\calZ\backslash \sigma^\ast(\calY),\sigma^\ast(\calY))=w( {\sigma^\ast}^{-1}(\calZ)\backslash \calY,\calY)$ for the degrees of freedom of the invariant weights, as below.
\begin{remark}\label{remark:df-pi-inva}
The total degrees of freedom for the invariant weights are given by $\mathrm{df} = {(K-1)K}/{2}$. To see this, the weighted class of estimands given in Definition \ref{def:pi-estimands-defi} is permutation-invariant only if $w(\calT,\calY)$ only depends on $|\calT|$ and $|\calY|$, as the equivalence class $[q]$ is closed under permutation. Therefore, the total degrees of freedom can be computed as
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{df}=\sum_{q=1}^{K-1} (K-q+1)-(K-1)=\frac{(K-1)K}{2}.
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Theorem \ref{prop:nie}}
\begin{proof}
When $w(\calT,\calY)=\mathbf{1}(\calT=\emptyset)$, the proposed estimands reduce to
\begin{align}\label{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted-reduced}
\Delta_{\calY}=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ).
\end{align}
We first show sufficiency (backward direction, $\Leftarrow$), which uses a combinatorial technique, namely, w-IEP in the Lemma \ref{lemma:IEP-weighted}.
%To begin, we introduce the w-IEP in the lemma below. Here, the inclusion-exclusion weights differ from the probability mass weights $w$ introduced earlier.
%In this section, when we refer to "weights", we mean the inclusion-exclusion weights.
Without loss of generality, we index the collection of subsets $\calG_s$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:IEP-weighted} by elements $X \in \calX$, written as $\calG_X,X\in \calX$. We define the weight function on $2^\mathcal{X}$ as follows. First, select a collection of subsets $\calG_X$ such that $\bigcap_{X \in \calY} \calG_X^c$ are all distinct across $\calY \subseteq \calX$. Second, define $\lambda$ as the solution to the following system of linear equations:
\begin{align}\label{eq:weight-definition}
\lambda((\cup_{X\in \calZ}\calG_X)^c)=f(\calZ),
\end{align}
where the solution exits and is unique because the number of equations match the number of unknowns (both equal $2^K$) and the column
space is of full rank by construction. Applying w-IEP yields that
\begin{align}
&\Delta_{\calY}=\lambda(\cap_{X\in \calY} \calG_X),\label{eq:decomp1}\\
&\lambda(\cup_{X\in \calX} \calG_X)=\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}.\label{eq:decomp2}
\end{align}
In other words, (i) \eqref{eq:decomp1} implies that the interaction effect $\Delta_{\calY}$ among action variables in $\calY$ can be interpreted as the total weight of the interactions of the subsets $\calG_X$ corresponding to those variables, and (ii) \eqref{eq:decomp2} implies that the inclusion-exclusion sum of all interaction effects equals the total weight across the union of all subsets.
%In particular, the combinatorial sum of all interaction effects simplifies further when $w_{\emptyset,Y} = 1$ and $w(\calT,\calY) = 0$ for all other $T$.
%\begin{proposition}\label{prop:nie}
% Assume that $w_{\emptyset,Y} = 1$ and $w(\calT,\calY) = 0$ for all other $T$, the combinatorial sum of $\Delta_{\calY}$ has a simple form
% \begin{align*}
% \sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}=f(\emptyset)-f(\calX).
% \end{align*}
%\end{proposition}
%Proposition \ref{prop:nie} states that the combinatorial sum of $\Delta_{\calY}$ equals the total causal effect contrasting the state in which all action variables are assigned to treatment with the state in which all objects are assigned to control. In causal mediation analysis, this total causal effect corresponds to the \emph{natural indirect effect} and generalizes the decomposition proposed in \cite{xia2022decomposition}; in causal network analysis, it is of particular interest as it can be assessed with minimal structural assumptions \citep{hudgens2008toward}.
%\end{proof}
Finally, we compute $\lambda(\cup_{X\in \calX} \calG_X)$. Setting $\calZ=\emptyset$ in the equation \eqref{eq:weight-definition} yields
\begin{align}
&f(\emptyset)=\lambda((\cup_{X\in \emptyset}\calG_X)^c)=\lambda(\calX).\label{eq:wIEP1}
\end{align}
Similarly, setting $\calZ=\calX$ in the equation \eqref{eq:weight-definition} yields
\begin{align}
f(\calX)=&\lambda((\cup_{X\in \calX}\calG_X)^c)\nonumber\\
=&\lambda(\calX)-\lambda(\cup_{X\in \calX}\calG_X)\quad(\text{definition of $\lambda$})\nonumber\\
=&\lambda(\calX)-\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}\quad(\text{Equation \eqref{eq:decomp2}}).\label{eq:eq:wIEPw}
\end{align}
Therefore, subtracting \eqref{eq:decomp2} from \eqref{eq:eq:wIEPw} yields
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}=f(\emptyset)-f(\calX).
\end{align*}
Second, we establish necessity (forward direction, $\Rightarrow$), or equivalently, uniqueness of class of estimands consisting of \eqref{eq:estimandsclass-unweighted-reduced}. In particular, we prove a stronger result in which uniqueness does not require the Condition \ref{con:invariant-weights-pi}.
%Specifically, we compute the coefficient, or total weight, of the term $f(\emptyset)$ in $\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}$. For any $\Delta_{\calY}$, the coefficient of $f(\emptyset)$ is given by $w(\emptyset,\calY)$. Thus, the coefficient of $f(\emptyset)$ in $\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\Delta_{\calY}$ is $\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}w(\emptyset,\calY)$. Finally, by matching the coefficients of $f(\emptyset)$ on the left- and right-hand sides, we obtain
%\begin{align*}
% \sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}w(\emptyset,\calY)=1.
%\end{align*}
%Of note, $w(\emptyset,X)=1$ by construction. Consequently, the above condition is equivalent to that
%\begin{align*}
% \sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subset \calX}%(-1)^{|\calY|+1}w(\emptyset,\calY)+(-1)^{|X|+1}=1.
%\end{align*}
%Before establishing the uniqueness result, we illustrate the case with $K=2$ in the following Example, where nonnegativity plays a key role in ensuring uniqueness.
%\begin{example}\label{eg:example-K=2-uniqueness}
% For the case where $K=2$ and the set is $\calX=\{X_1, X_2\}$, we illustrate how the nonnegativity constraint for the weight is essential for forcing a unique solution. First, there are five distinct weights: $w(\emptyset, \{X_1\})$, $w(\{X_2\}, \{X_1\})$, $w(\emptyset, \{X_2\})$, $w(\{X_1\}, \{X_2\})$, and $w(\emptyset, \{X_1, X_2\})$. Without nonnegativity, we obtain that: $w(\emptyset, \{X_1, X_2\}) = 1$, $w(\emptyset, \{X_1\}) = c$, $w(\emptyset, \{X_2\}) = 2 - c$, $w(\{X_2\}, \{X_1\}) = 1 - c$, and $w(\{X_1\}, \{X_2\}) = c - 1$. However, when we introduce the crucial constraint that all weights must be nonnegative, $w(\calT,\calY) \ge 0$, a set of additional inequalities is created for $c$. From the condition $w(\{X_2\}, \{X_1\}) \ge 0$, we get $1 - c \ge 0$, which implies $c \le 1$. From $w(\{X_1\}, \{X_2\}) \ge 0$, we get $c - 1 \ge 0$, which implies $c \ge 1$. Therefore, we must have $c=1$. The nonnegativity constraint therefore uniquely determines every weight: $w(\emptyset, \{X_1, X_2\}) = 1$, $w(\emptyset, \{X_1\}) = 1$, $w(\emptyset, \{X_2\}) = 1$, $w(\{X_2\}, \{X_1\}) = 0$, and $w(\{X_1\}, \{X_2\}) = 0$.
%Thus, it is precisely the nonnegativity constraint that resolves the ambiguity of the linear system and forces the unique solution.
%\end{example}
The objective is to show that, for all $\calY$, $w(\emptyset,\calY)=1$ and $w(\calT,\calY)=0$ for $\calT\neq \emptyset$. By the normalizing conditions, it suffices to show that for all $\calY$, $w(\calT,\calY)=0$ for $\calT\neq \emptyset$, as $w(\emptyset,\calY)=1$ follows immediately. We prove by the backward induction on $m=|\calT|+|\calY|\leq K$ for $\calT\subseteq \calY^c$ and $\emptyset\neq \calY \subset \calX$.
For base case $m=K$, we must have $\calT=\calY^c$, and then the objective is to show $w(\calY^c,\calY)=0$ for all $\emptyset\neq \calY\neq \calX$. To see this, the condition $\text{coef}(\calX)=0$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:alt-repre-cY} implies that $\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subseteq \calX}w(\calY^c,\calY)=1$. Then $\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subset \calX}w(\calY^c,\calY)+w(\emptyset,\calX)=1$. Since the weights are normalized, we have that $w(\emptyset,\calX)=1$, and consequently, $\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY\subset \calX}w(\calY^c,\calY)=0$. By nonnegativity of the weights, we conclude $w(\calY^c,\calY)=0$ for all $\calY\neq \calX$.
%For ease of notation, we use the shorthand $w_{\delta}$ to denote the weight function defined by $w(\emptyset,\calY)=1$ and $w(\calT,\calY)=0$ for all $T \subseteq Y^c$.
The inductive hypothesis is that provided that $\calT\subseteq \calY^c$ and $\emptyset\neq \calY\subset \calX$, $w(\calT,\calY)=0$, whenever $m < |\calT|+|\calY| \leq K$.
The inductive step is to show that, for $\calT\subseteq \calY^c$ and $\emptyset\neq \calY\subset \calX$, $w(\calT,\calY)=0$ holds when $|\calT|+|\calY|=m$. Define $\calZ=\calT\cup \calY$. Then $|\calZ|=m$, because $\calT$ and $\calY$ are disjoint by definition. Of note, $\calZ$ is neither $\emptyset$ or $\calX$ for $1\leq m\leq K-1$, because $\calY\neq \emptyset$. By the condition $\text{coef}(\calZ)=0$ in Lemma \ref{lemma:alt-repre-cY}, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:coef(Z)-uniquness}
\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY'\subseteq \calX} (-1)^{|\calY'|+|\calZ\cap \calY'|+1} w(\calZ\backslash \calY',\calY')=0.
\end{align}
By the inclusion-exclusion principle for the cardinality, it follows that $|\calZ\backslash \calY'|+|\calY'|=|\calZ\cup \calY'|=|\calZ|+|\calY'|-|\calZ\cap \calY'|=m+|\calY'|-|\calZ\cap \calY'|$. For the case when $|\calY'|-|\calZ\cap \calY'|\geq1$, we have that $|\calZ\backslash \calY'|+|\calY'|\geq m+1$, which by the induction hypothesis, $w(\calZ\backslash \calY',\calY')=0$ for all $\calY'\neq \calX$. Therefore, the condition in Equation \eqref{eq:coef(Z)-uniquness} is simplified to
\begin{align}\label{eq:coef(Z)-uniquness-2}
\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY'\subseteq \calZ} (-1)^{2|\calY'|+1} w(\calZ\backslash \calY',\calY')=0.
\end{align}
In Equation \eqref{eq:coef(Z)-uniquness-2}, the exponent is odd, which implies that $\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY'\subseteq \calZ} w(\calZ\backslash \calY',\calY')=0$. Since the weights are nonnegative, $w(\calZ\backslash \calY',\calY')=0$ for all $\emptyset\neq \calY'\subseteq \calZ$. We conclude if for any $\calT\subseteq \calY^c$ and $\emptyset\neq \calY\subset \calX$, we can find $\calY'$ such that $(\calZ\backslash \calY',\calY')=(\calT,\calY)$. To see this, we note that setting $\calY'=\calY$ (valid since $\calY\subseteq \calZ=\calT\cup \calY$) implies $w(\calZ\backslash \calY,\calY)=w((\calT\cup \calY)\backslash \calY,\calY)=w(\calT,\calY)=0$, as $\calT\subseteq \calY^c$.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:alternative-repre}}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we focus on $w(\calT,\calY)=\mathbf{1}(\calT=\emptyset)$. That is, the objective is to show that
\begin{align}\label{eq:objective-proposition1}
\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY\backslash\{X_k\}}(-1)^{|\calZ|}(f(\calZ)-f(\calZ\cup\{X_k\}))=\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ).
\end{align}
The left-hand side can be written as
\begin{align*}
\text{LHS}=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY\backslash\{X_k\}}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ)-\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY\backslash\{X_k\}}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ\cup\{X_k\})\\
=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY,\{X_k\}\notin \calZ}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ)+\sum_{\calZ'\subseteq \calY,\{X_k\}\in \calZ'}(-1)^{|\calZ'|}f(\calZ')\\
=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ|}f(\calZ),
\end{align*}
where the second equality follows from the change of varible $\calZ'=\calZ\cup\{X_k\}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection*{Proof of Corollaries \ref{eg:rr} and \ref{eg:or}}
\begin{proof}
We provide a unified proof for Corollaries \ref{eg:rr} and \ref{eg:or}. Specifically, suppose the function transformation $\log \circ g \circ f$ is applied to the building block $f$. The proposed estimands on the $\log$ scale then become
\begin{align*}
\log(\Delta_{\calY})=&\sum_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}(-1)^{|\calZ|}\log(g\circ f(\calZ))\\
=&\log\left[ \prod_{\calZ\subseteq \calY}\left(g\circ f(\calZ)\right)^{(-1)^{|\calZ|}}\right].
\end{align*}
By Theorem \ref{prop:nie}, the inclusion-exclusion sum of $\log(\Delta_{\calY})$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\emptyset\neq \calY \subseteq \calX}(-1)^{|\calY|+1}\log(\Delta_{\calY})=\log(g\circ f(\emptyset))-\log(g\circ f(\calX)),
\end{align*}
which can be simplified into
\begin{align*}
\log\left(\prod_{\emptyset\neq \calY \subseteq \calX}\Delta_{\calY}^{(-1)^{|\calY|+1}}\right)=\log\left(\frac{g\circ f(\emptyset)}{g\circ f(\calX)}\right).
\end{align*}
The Corollary \ref{eg:rr} is obtained by choosing $g(x) = x$, whereas the Corollary \ref{eg:or} is obtained by setting $g(x) = x/(1-x)$.
\end{proof}
\section*{Appendix B}
While the methods proposed in the main manuscript (Sections \ref{subsec:setup} and \ref{ss:characterization-multiset}) are unweighted, the following illustrative example with $K=2$ demonstrates how these formulations can be adapted for weighted estimands.
\begin{example}\label{eg:weighted-estimands}
For permutable weights, one specifies all possible weight($w$)-by-estimand($f$) interaction in $\bv$,
\begin{align*}
\bv=&(w(\emptyset,\{X_1\})f(\emptyset),w(\emptyset,\{X_1\})f(\{X_1\}),w(\{X_2\},\{X_1\})f(\{X_2\}),w(\{X_2\},\{X_1\})f(\{X_1,X_2\}),\\
&w(\emptyset,\{X_2\})f(\emptyset),w(\emptyset,\{X_2\})f(\{X_2\}),w(\{X_1\},\{X_2\})f(\{X_1\}),w(\{X_1\},\{X_2\})f(\{X_1,X_2\}),\\
&w(\emptyset,\{X_1,X_2\})f(\emptyset),w(\emptyset,\{X_1,X_2\})f(\{X_1\}),w(\emptyset,\{X_1,X_2\})f(\{X_2\}),w(\emptyset,\{X_1,X_2\})f(\{X_1,X_2\}))^\top.
\end{align*}
Then one can express the estimand contrasts in Definition \ref{def:pi-estimands-defi} as the matrix form in the main manuscript Equation \eqref{eq:def-contrast}:
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\Delta}=(\Delta_{\{X_1\}},\Delta_{\{X_2\}},\Delta_{\{X_1,X_2\}})^\top=\mathbf{H}\bv=\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{e}_1^\top &\mathbf{0} &\mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} &\mathbf{e}_1^\top &\mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} &\mathbf{0} &\mathbf{e}_2^\top
\end{pmatrix}\bv,
\end{equation*}
where
%$\{k_1,k_2\}$ is the shorthand for $\{X_{k_1},X_{k_2}\}$,
$\mathbf{e}_1=(1,-1,1,-1)^\top$ and $\mathbf{e}_2=(1,-1,-1,1)^\top$. For invariant weights, the basis $\bv$ remains the same and the elements of the generator matrix may take values in $[-1,1]$. For example, with equal invariant weights,
\begin{equation*}
\mathbf{\Delta}=(\Delta_{\{X_1\}},\Delta_{\{X_2\}},\Delta_{\{X_1,X_2\}})^\top=\mathbf{H}\bv=\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}&\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}\\
\frac{1}{2}&\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}&-\frac{1}{2}\\
1&-1&-1&1
\end{pmatrix}\bv,
\end{equation*}
Once $\mathbf{H}$ is specified, our previous results apply. For example, Theorem \ref{thm:characterization} holds: $\mathcal{R}(\mathbf{H})$ remains unchanged, as exchanging the labels is equivalent to permuting the first and second rows in $\mathbf{H}$.
%Theorem \ref{thm:estimand-pi} also holds, as exchanging the labels of $X_1$ and $X_2$ yields $\Delta_{\{X_1\}}^\dagger = \Delta_{\{X_2\}}$ and $\Delta_{\{X_2\}}^\dagger = \Delta_{\{X_1\}}$.
\end{example}
We illustrate the proposed framework in the concrete cases $K=2$ and $K=3$ in the following two examples. For simplicity, we recycle the notation introduced in Example 2 of the main manuscript. For notational convenience, we use $\{k_1,k_2\}$ as a shorthand for the set of action variables $\{X_{k_1},X_{k_2}\}$. In factorial experiments, the weights can be derived from a common joint distribution for $\mathcal{X}$, as shown below.
\begin{remark}%[Compatibility]
\label{remark:compatibility}
A class of weight functions $w(\calT,\calY)$ is said to be compatible across $\calY$ if there exists a probability mass function $\widetilde{w} : 2^\calX \to \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ ($\sum_{\calA \subseteq \calX} \widetilde{w}(\calA) = 1$) and $w(\calT,\calY)$ satisfies $w(\calT,\calY) = \sum_{\calZ \subseteq \calY} \widetilde{w}(\calZ \cup \calT)$.
\end{remark}
%In particular, for the unweighted case, we also present its inclusion–exclusion decomposition.
\begin{example}[$K=2$]\label{example:K=2-practice}
We define the following class of unweighted estimands
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{\lb1\rb}=\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1),\\
&\Delta_{\lb 2\rb}=\mu(1,1)-\mu(1,0),\\
&\Delta_{\lb 1,2\rb}=\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1)-\mu(1,0)+\mu(0,0).
\end{align*}
They satisfy the inclusion–exclusion decomposition $\Delta_{\lb1\rb}+\Delta_{\lb2\rb}-\Delta_{\lb1,2\rb}=\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,0)$. Further, the weighted variant is given by
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{\lb1\rb}=w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)(\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1))+w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)(\mu(1,0)-\mu(0,0)),\\
&\Delta_{\lb2\rb}=w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)(\mu(1,1)-\mu(1,0))+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)(\mu(0,1)-\mu(0,0)),\\
&\Delta_{\lb1,2\rb}=\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,1)-\mu(1,0)+\mu(0,0),
\end{align*}
where the weights are nonnegative and satisfy
\begin{align*}
&w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)+w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)=1,\\
&w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)=1.
\end{align*}
For the compatible permutable weights, we mean that there exists a probability mass $\widetilde{w}$ for a bivariate binary random vector and all the compatible weights are generated from this common probability mass through
\begin{align*}
&w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,1),\\
&w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,0),\\
&w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)=\widetilde{w}(1,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,0),\\
&w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,1)+\widetilde{w}(0,0),
\end{align*}
where the probability mass $\widetilde{w}$ is normalized via $\widetilde{w}(0,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,1)=1$. For invariant weights, the additional restrictions required to guarantee permutation invariance are
\begin{align*}
w(\emptyset,\{1\})=w(\emptyset,\{2\}),~~~w(\{2\},\{1\})=w(\{1\},\{2\}).
\end{align*}
To confirm the permutation invariance property, when the labels of $X_1$ and $X_2$ are swapped, we have $\Delta^\dagger_{\lb1\rb}=\Delta_{\lb2\rb}$, $\Delta^\dagger_{\lb2\rb}=\Delta_{\lb1\rb}$, and $\Delta^\dagger_{\{1,2\}}=\Delta_{\lb1,2\rb}$. The residual effect for the weighted estimands, $\text{res}=\Delta_{\lb1\rb}+\Delta_{\lb2\rb}-\Delta_{\lb1,2\rb}-(\mu(1,1)-\mu(0,0))$, can be written as
\begin{align*}
\text{res}=\text{coef}(\emptyset)\mu(1,1)+\text{coef}(\lb1\rb)\mu(0,1)+\text{coef}(\lb2\rb)\mu(1,0)+\text{coef}(\lb1,2\rb)\mu(0,0),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
&\text{coef}(\emptyset)=w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)+w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)-2,\\
&\text{coef}(\lb1\rb)=-w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)+1\\
&\text{coef}(\lb2\rb)=w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)-w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)+1,\\
&\text{coef}(\lb1,2\rb)=-\left(w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)\right).
\end{align*}
\end{example}
\begin{example}[$K=3$]\label{example:K=3-practice}
We draw a third index to denote the state of the third action variable of interest. That is, we define the following unweighted class of estimands
\begin{align*}
&\Delta_{\lb1\rb}=\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,1,1),\\
&\Delta_{\lb2\rb}=\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(1,0,1),\\
&\Delta_{\lb3\rb}=\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(1,1,0),\\
&\Delta_{\lb1,2\rb}=\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,1,1)-\mu(1,0,1)+\mu(0,0,1),\\
&\Delta_{\lb1,3\rb}=\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,1,1)-\mu(1,1,0)+\mu(0,1,0),\\
&\Delta_{\lb2,3\rb}=\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(1,0,1)-\mu(1,1,0)+\mu(1,0,0),\\
&\Delta_{ \lb1,2,3\rb}=\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,1,1)-\mu(1,0,1)-\mu(1,1,0)+\mu(0,0,1)+\mu(0,1,0)+\mu(1,0,0)-\mu(0,0,0).
\end{align*}
They satisfy the inclusion–exclusion decomposition
\begin{align*}
&\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,0,0)=\sum_{j=1}^3\Delta_{\lb j\rb}-\Delta_{\lb1,2\rb}-\Delta_{\lb1,3\rb}-\Delta_{\lb2,3\rb}+\Delta_{ \lb1,2,3\rb}.
\end{align*}
\end{example}
Further, the weighted variant is given by
\begin{align*}
\Delta_{\lb1\rb}=&w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)(\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,1,1))+w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)(\mu(1,0,1)-\mu(0,0,1))+\\
&w(\lb3\rb,\lb1\rb)(\mu(1,1,0)-\mu(0,1,0))+w(\lb2,3\rb,\lb1\rb)(\mu(1,0,0)-\mu(0,0,0)),\\
\Delta_{\lb2\rb}=&w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)(\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(1,0,1))+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)(\mu(0,1,1)-\mu(0,0,1))+\\
&w(\lb3\rb,\lb2\rb)(\mu(1,1,0)-\mu(1,0,0))+w(\lb1,3\rb,\lb2\rb)(\mu(0,1,0)-\mu(0,0,0)),\\
\Delta_{\lb3\rb}=&w(\emptyset,\lb3\rb)(\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(1,1,0))+w(\lb1\rb,\lb3\rb)(\mu(0,1,1)-\mu(0,1,0))+\\
&w(\lb2\rb,\lb3\rb)(\mu(1,0,1)-\mu(1,0,0))+w(\lb1,2\rb,\lb3\rb)(\mu(0,0,1)-\mu(0,0,0)),\\
\Delta_{\lb1,2\rb}=&w(\emptyset,\lb1,2\rb)(\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,1,1)-\mu(1,0,1)+\mu(0,0,1))+\\
&w(\lb3\rb,\lb1,2\rb)(\mu(1,1,0)-\mu(0,1,0)-\mu(1,0,0)+\mu(0,0,0)),\\
\Delta_{\lb1,3\rb}=&w(\emptyset,\lb1,3\rb)(\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,1,1)-\mu(1,1,0)+\mu(0,1,0))+\\
&w(\lb2\rb,\lb1,3\rb)(\mu(1,0,1)-\mu(0,0,1)-\mu(1,0,0)+\mu(0,0,0)),\\
\Delta_{\lb2,3\rb}=&w(\emptyset,\lb2,3\rb)(\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(1,0,1)-\mu(1,1,0)+\mu(1,0,0))+\\
&w(\lb1\rb,\lb2,3\rb)(\mu(0,1,1)-\mu(0,0,1)-\mu(0,1,0)+\mu(0,0,0)),\\
\Delta_{ \lb1,2,3\rb}=&\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,1,1)-\mu(1,0,1)-\mu(1,1,0)+\mu(0,0,1)+\mu(0,1,0)+\mu(1,0,0)-\mu(0,0,0),
\end{align*}
where the weights are nonnegative and normalized such that
\begin{align*}
&w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)+w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)+w(\lb3\rb,\lb1\rb)+w(\lb2,3\rb,\lb1\rb)=1,\\
&w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb3\rb,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb1,3\rb,\lb2\rb)=1,\\
&w(\emptyset,\lb3\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb3\rb)+w(\lb2\rb,\lb3\rb)+w(\lb1,2\rb,\lb3\rb)=1,\\
&w(\emptyset,\lb1,2\rb)+w(\lb3\rb,\lb1,2\rb)=1,~~w(\emptyset,\lb1,3\rb)+w(\lb2\rb,\lb1,3\rb)=1,~~w(\emptyset,\lb2,3\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2,3\rb)=1.
\end{align*}
For the compatible permutable weights, we mean that there exists a probability mass $\widetilde{w}$ for a trivariate binary random vector and all the compatible weights are generated from this common probability mass through
\begin{align*}
&w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,1,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,1),~~~w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,0,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,1),\\
&w(\lb3\rb,\lb1\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,0),~~~w(\lb2,3\rb,\lb1\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,0),\\[0.5ex]
&w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)=\widetilde{w}(1,1,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,1),~~~w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,1,1)+\widetilde{w}(0,0,1),\\
&w(\lb3\rb,\lb2\rb)=\widetilde{w}(1,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,0),~~~w(\lb1,3\rb,\lb2\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,0,0),\\[0.5ex]
&w(\emptyset,\lb3\rb)=\widetilde{w}(1,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,1),~~~w(\lb1\rb,\lb3\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,1,1),\\
&w(\lb2\rb,\lb3\rb)=\widetilde{w}(1,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,1),~~~w(\lb1,2\rb,\lb3\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,0,1),\\[0.5ex]
&w(\emptyset,\lb1,2\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,0,1)+\widetilde{w}(0,1,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,1),\\
&w(\lb3\rb,\lb1,2\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,0),\\[0.5ex]
&w(\emptyset,\lb1,3\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,1,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,1),\\
&w(\lb2\rb,\lb1,3\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,0,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,1),\\[0.5ex]
&w(\emptyset,\lb2,3\rb)=\widetilde{w}(1,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,1),\\
&w(\lb1\rb,\lb2,3\rb)=\widetilde{w}(0,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,0,1)+\widetilde{w}(0,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,1,1),
\end{align*}
where the probability mass $\widetilde{w}$ is normalized via
\begin{align*}
&\widetilde{w}(0,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(0,0,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,0)+\widetilde{w}(1,0,1)+\widetilde{w}(0,1,1)+\widetilde{w}(1,1,1)=1.
\end{align*}
For invariant weights, the additional restrictions required to guarantee permutation invariance are
\begin{align*}
&w(\emptyset,\{1\})=w(\emptyset,\{2\})=w(\emptyset,\{3\}),\\
&w(\{2\},\{1\})=w(\{1\},\{2\})=w(\{1\},\{3\})=w(\{3\},\{1\})=(\{2\},\{3\})=(\{3\},\{2\}),\\
&w(\{2,3\},\{1\})=w(\{1,3\},\{2\})=w(\{1,2\},\{3\}),\\
&w(\emptyset,\{1,2\})=w(\emptyset,\{1,3\})=w(\emptyset,\{2,3\}),\\
&w(\{3\},\{1,2\})=w(\{2\},\{1,3\})=w(\{1\},\{2,3\}).
\end{align*}
To verify the permutation invariance property, consider an example label permutation $\sigma$ with $\sigma(1)=2$, $\sigma(2)=3$, and $\sigma(3)=1$. In this case, we have
\begin{align*}
&\Delta^\dagger_{\lb1\rb}=\Delta_{\lb2\rb},~~~\Delta^\dagger_{\lb2\rb}=\Delta_{\lb3\rb},~~~\Delta_{\lb3\rb}^\dagger=\Delta_{\lb1\rb},\\
&\Delta^\dagger_{\lb1,2\rb}=\Delta_{\lb2,3\rb},~~~\Delta^\dagger_{\lb1,3\rb}=\Delta_{\lb1,2\rb},~~~\Delta^\dagger_{\lb2,3\rb}=\Delta_{\lb1,3\rb},~~~\Delta^\dagger_{\lb1,2,3\rb}=\Delta_{\lb1,2,3\rb}.
\end{align*}
The residual effect for the weighted estimands, $\text{res}=\sum_{j=1}^3\Delta_{\lb j\rb}-\Delta_{\lb1,2\rb}-\Delta_{\lb1,3\rb}-\Delta_{\lb2,3\rb}+\Delta_{ \lb1,2,3\rb}-(\mu(1,1,1)-\mu(0,0,0))$, can be written as
\begin{align*}
\text{res}=&\text{coef}(\emptyset)\mu(1,1,1)+\text{coef}(\lb1\rb)\mu(0,1,1)+\text{coef}(\lb2\rb)\mu(1,0,1)+\text{coef}(\lb3\rb)\mu(1,1,0)+\\
&\text{coef}(\lb1,2\rb)\mu(0,0,1)+\text{coef}(\lb1,3\rb)\mu(0,1,0)+\text{coef}(\lb2,3\rb)\mu(1,0,0)+\text{coef}(\lb1,2,3\rb)\mu(0,0,0),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\text{coef}(\emptyset)=&w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)+w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)+w(\emptyset,\lb3\rb)-w(\emptyset,\lb1,2\rb)-w(\emptyset,\lb1,3\rb)-w(\emptyset,\lb2,3\rb),\\
\text{coef}(\lb1\rb)=&-w(\emptyset,\lb1\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb3\rb)+w(\emptyset,\lb1,2\rb)+\\
&w(\emptyset,\lb1,3\rb)-w(\lb1\rb,\lb2,3\rb)-1,\\
\text{coef}(\lb2\rb)=&-w(\emptyset,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)+w(\lb2\rb,\lb3\rb)+w(\emptyset,\lb1,2\rb)+\\
&w(\emptyset,\lb2,3\rb)-w(\lb2\rb,\lb1,3\rb)-1,\\
\text{coef}(\lb3\rb)=&-w(\emptyset,\lb3\rb)+w(\lb3\rb,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb3\rb,\lb1\rb)+w(\emptyset,\lb2,3\rb)+\\
&w(\emptyset,\lb1,3\rb)-w(\lb3\rb,\lb1,2\rb)-1,\\
\text{coef}(\lb1,2\rb)=&-w(\lb2\rb,\lb1\rb)-w(\lb1\rb,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb1,2\rb,\lb3\rb)-w(\emptyset,\lb1,2\rb)+\\
&w(\lb2\rb,\lb1,3\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2,3\rb)+1,\\
\text{coef}(\lb1,3\rb)=&-w(\lb3\rb,\lb1\rb)-w(\lb1\rb,\lb3\rb)+w(\lb1,3\rb,\lb2\rb)-w(\emptyset,\lb1,3\rb)+\\
&w(\lb3\rb,\lb1,2\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2,3\rb)+1,\\
\text{coef}(\lb2,3\rb)=&-w(\lb2\rb,\lb3\rb)-w(\lb3\rb,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb2,3\rb,\lb1\rb)-w(\emptyset,\lb2,3\rb)+\\
&w(\lb2\rb,\lb1,3\rb)+w(\lb3\rb,\lb1,2\rb)+1,\\
\text{coef}(\lb1,2,3\rb)=&-\left(w(\lb2,3\rb,\lb1\rb)+w(\lb1,3\rb,\lb2\rb)+w(\lb1,2\rb,\lb3\rb)+w(\lb3\rb,\lb1,2\rb)+\right.\\
&\left.w(\lb2\rb,\lb1,3\rb)+w(\lb1\rb,\lb2,3\rb)\right).
\end{align*}
\bibliographystyle{chicago}
\bibliography{ref}
\end{document}
\begin{thebibliography}{}
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dasgupta, Pillai, and Rubin}{Dasgupta et~al.}{2015}]{dasgupta2015causal}
Dasgupta, T., N.~S. Pillai, and D.~B. Rubin (2015).
\newblock Causal inference from 2k factorial designs by using potential outcomes.
\newblock {\em Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\/}~{\em 77\/}(4), 727--753.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hartwig, Davey~Smith, and Bowden}{Hartwig et~al.}{2017}]{hartwig2017robust}
Hartwig, F.~P., G.~Davey~Smith, and J.~Bowden (2017).
\newblock Robust inference in summary data mendelian randomization via the zero modal pleiotropy assumption.
\newblock {\em International Journal of Epidemiology\/}~{\em 46\/}(6), 1985--1998.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hudgens and Halloran}{Hudgens and Halloran}{2008}]{hudgens2008toward}
Hudgens, M.~G. and M.~E. Halloran (2008).
\newblock Toward causal inference with interference.
\newblock {\em Journal of the American Statistical Association\/}~{\em 103\/}(482), 832--842.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Imai, Keele, and Yamamoto}{Imai et~al.}{2010}]{imai2010identification}
Imai, K., L.~Keele, and T.~Yamamoto (2010, February).
\newblock Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects.
\newblock {\em Statistical Science\/}~{\em 25\/}(1), 51--71.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lange, Rasmussen, and Thygesen}{Lange et~al.}{2014}]{lange2014assessing}
Lange, T., M.~Rasmussen, and L.~C. Thygesen (2014).
\newblock Assessing natural direct and indirect effects through multiple pathways.
\newblock {\em American Journal of Epidemiology\/}~{\em 179\/}(4), 513--518.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rota}{Rota}{1964}]{rota1964foundations}
Rota, G.-C. (1964).
\newblock On the foundations of combinatorial theory: I. theory of m{\"o}bius functions.
\newblock In {\em Classic Papers in Combinatorics}, pp.\ 332--360. Springer.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tchetgen and Shpitser}{Tchetgen and Shpitser}{2012}]{tchetgen2012semiparametric}
Tchetgen, E. J.~T. and I.~Shpitser (2012).
\newblock Semiparametric theory for causal mediation analysis: efficiency bounds, multiple robustness, and sensitivity analysis.
\newblock {\em The Annals of Statistics\/}~{\em 40\/}(3), 1816.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van~Lint and Wilson}{Van~Lint and Wilson}{2001}]{van2001course}
Van~Lint, J.~H. and R.~M. Wilson (2001).
\newblock {\em A course in combinatorics}.
\newblock Cambridge university press.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Xia and Chan}{Xia and Chan}{2022}]{xia2022decomposition}
Xia, F. and K.~C.~G. Chan (2022).
\newblock Decomposition, identification and multiply robust estimation of natural mediation effects with multiple mediators.
\newblock {\em Biometrika\/}~{\em 109\/}(4), 1085--1100.
\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zhao and Ding}{Zhao and Ding}{2022}]{zhao2022regression}
Zhao, A. and P.~Ding (2022).
\newblock Regression-based causal inference with factorial experiments: estimands, model specifications and design-based properties.
\newblock {\em Biometrika\/}~{\em 109\/}(3), 799--815.
\end{thebibliography}