arXiv preprint ·
Causal discovery needs explicit epistemic standards
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
There are many causal discovery algorithms, but few guiding principles for choosing between them. Methods are usually compared through three lenses: identifiability, consistency, and benchmarks. Each introduces assumptions about the data-generating process that are often untestable. We argue that there are no shared standards for comparing, prioritizing, or even discussing those assumptions. We support this claim by showing that (i) identifiability assumptions are often preferred by convention rather than by principle, (ii) uniform consistency requires further untestable assumptions, while the weaker pointwise consistency has arguably narrowed algorithm design, and (iii) benchmarks are not neutral tests but carry an epistemic role of their own: they quietly fix which regimes matter, which guarantees come into play, and what counts as success. In doing so, they shape what algorithm comparisons are taken to show and thus perform some of the same epistemic work as theory, but less transparently. In this position paper we argue for a more transparent, integrated practice: Make the epistemic standards for discussing identifiability and consistency assumptions explicit, especially their failure modes and scope conditions; design benchmarks to operationalize those standards, by stress-testing and ablating both. Then, theoretical and empirical results jointly clarify when, why, and how algorithms may work rather than accumulate as disconnected advances.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning (Statistics)
A Scientific Claim Stability Framework for Evaluating MRI Morphometry Pipelines
Nonparametric GARCH: An Iterated Neural Estimator
Diagnosing Model--Item Interactions in Language Model Benchmarks with LSIRM
Aggregate Calibration Can Mask Stress-State Undercoverage: Bounded-Memory Forecast Intervals under Recurrent Financial Stress
Where Is a Prediction Model Miscalibrated, and for Whom? Local Audits in Outcome-Learned Pockets
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning (Statistics) every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.