One of the goals of causal inference is to generalize from past experiments and observational data to novel conditions. While it is in principle possible to eventually learn a mapping from a novel experimental condition to an outcome of interest, provided a sufficient variety of experiments is available in the training data, coping with a large combinatorial space of possible interventions is hard. Under a typical sparse experimental design, this mapping is ill-posed without relying on heavy regularization or prior distributions. Such assumptions may or may not be reliable, and can be hard to defend or test. In this paper, we take a close look at how to warrant a leap from past experiments to novel conditions based on minimal assumptions about the factorization of the distribution of the manipulated system, communicated in the well-understood language of factor graph models. A postulated $\textit{interventional factor model}$ (IFM) may not always be informative, but it conveniently abstracts away a need for explicit unmeasured confounding and feedback mechanisms, leading to directly testable claims. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for causal effect identifiability with IFMs using data from a collection of experimental settings, and implement practical algorithms for generalizing expected outcomes to novel conditions never observed in the data.