Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Supervised Whole DAG Causal Discovery

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2006.04697 v1 pith:UDVJZURS submitted 2020-06-08 cs.LG cs.AIstat.ML

classification cs.LGcs.AIstat.ML
keywords learningsupervisedcausaldiscoveryproposewholeapproachdata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose to address the task of causal structure learning from data in a supervised manner. Existing work on learning causal directions by supervised learning is restricted to learning pairwise relation, and not well suited for whole DAG discovery. We propose a novel approach of modeling the whole DAG structure discovery as a supervised learning. To fit the problem in hand, we propose to use permutation equivariant models that align well with the problem domain. We evaluate the proposed approach extensively on synthetic graphs of size 10,20,50,100 and real data, and show promising results compared with a variety of previous approaches.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Meta-Learning Approach to Bayesian Causal Discovery

    cs.LG 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A meta-learning model, BCNP, learns to sample DAGs from an approximate Bayesian posterior over causal graphs, enforcing acyclicity and permutation equivariance by construction.

  2. Are you doing better than random guessing? A call for using negative controls when evaluating causal discovery algorithms

    stat.ME 2024-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Causal discovery evaluations should report negative control baselines, because common metrics can look good under random guessing.

Pith tools