Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 79 references

SpinSVAR: Estimating Structural Vector Autoregression Assuming Sparse Input

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Modeling SVAR shocks as independent Laplacian variables yields a consistent L1 estimator that recovers window graphs up to 4,000 nodes and finds market-aligned shocks in S&P 500 data.

desk verdict Solid scalable SVAR method with a clean Laplacian MLE derivation, but the consistency theorem is proved for a different estimator than the one implemented. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03130 v2 pith:3HSPVPDG submitted 2025-01-06 cs.LG stat.ML

Panagiotis Misiakos , Markus Püschel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML MSC 62M1062F12
keywords structuralvectorautoregressionsparseinputLaplaciandistributionleastabsoluteerrortime-seriescausaldiscoverywindowgraphMLEconsistencyGPUacceleration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper's aim is to show that a structural vector autoregression (SVAR) can be estimated from time-series data when the unobserved structural shocks are sparse, by modeling those shocks as independent Laplacian random variables. This choice turns maximum likelihood estimation into a least-absolute-error regression problem, and the paper proves that both the window graph and the Laplacian scale parameter are identifiable and that the MLE is consistent (Theorem 3.3). The practical payoff is scale: the objective is computed with tensor operations, so the method reaches thousands of nodes where prior non-Gaussian estimators time out, and on synthetic Bernoulli-uniform sparse shocks it recovers window graphs with near-zero structural Hamming distance at up to 4,000 nodes. On S&P 500 daily returns, the estimated instantaneous graph clusters stocks by sector and the recovered shocks align with major price-moving events, which the paper reads as confirmation that the sparse-input assumption is viable. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete alternative to the default Gaussian-noise assumption in time-series causal discovery, with consistency theory and event-level interpretability attached.

What carries the argument

The central object is the window graph W = [B0; B1; ...; Bk], the (k+1)d × d block matrix collecting the instantaneous dependencies B0 (required acyclic) and the lagged dependency matrices B1, ..., Bk of the SVAR. The central mechanism is the Laplace(0, β) model for the structural shock matrix S: its density makes the negative log-likelihood the L1 residual norm ‖X − XpastW‖₁ plus a log-determinant change-of-variables term, and eliminating β by maximization yields the objective log‖X − XpastW‖₁ − (1/d)log|det(I − B0)| + λ₁‖W‖₁ + λ₂h(B0), where h(B0) = $e^{{B0⊙B0}}$ − d is the continuous acyclicity regularizer. The L1 residual is the part that enforces sparse shocks, and the whole objective is expressed as a single linear layer that runs on a GPU, which is what carries the method to thousands of nodes.

What would settle it

Run SpinSVAR on synthetic SVAR data at d = 500, T = 1000 with Bernoulli-uniform sparse shocks for growing N, and check whether the structural Hamming distance decays toward zero as predicted by Theorem 3.3 (the paper reports SHD ≈ 0 for N ≥ 2 at this scale); a plateau well above zero as N grows would falsify the consistency claim. A second look: generate the same data with dense Gaussian shocks of matched variance and check whether the recovered graph degrades to the level of MSE-based baselines, as misspecification of the sparse-input assumption implies.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SpinSVAR claims that, under the SVAR model X = XpastW + S with independent Laplace(0, β) structural shocks, the maximum-likelihood estimate of the window graph W (the block matrix of instantaneous and lagged dependencies [B0; B1; ...; Bk]) is identifiable and consistent. Identifiability holds whenever β > 1/(NTd) and is shown by unrolling the SVAR into a linear non-Gaussian SEM and invoking LiNGAM; consistency of the empirical maximizer of the log-likelihood then follows from the uniform law of large numbers, using a compact parameter space and acyclicity of B0. Profiling out β reduces the objective to log‖X − XpastW‖₁ − (1/d)log|det(I − B0)|, and the implemented method adds an L1 regularizer on W and the soft acyclicity regularizer h(B0) = $e^{{B0⊙B0}}$ − d. In experiments the recovered graphs are nearly perfect for Bernoulli-uniform sparse shocks and remain strong for Laplacian shocks up to d = 2000 nodes, and the estimated shocks on S&P 500 data align with significant stock price changes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the unobserved structural shocks are sparse, mutually independent, and Laplacian-distributed; if the true shocks are dense or nearly Gaussian, the L1 objective is a misspecified likelihood and the consistency guarantee does not apply, and the paper's own DREAM3 and simulated-financial experiments show degraded performance when this assumption is relaxed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Identifiability of the window graph holds under the Laplacian sparse-shock model with no more than acyclicity of B0 and β > 1/(NTd), so instantaneous and lagged dependencies are recoverable from purely observational time series.
  • With enough samples the estimator provably converges to the true window graph, and in practice it reaches near-zero SHD on Bernoulli-uniform sparse shocks at d = 4000 nodes using only N = 16 samples of length T = 1000.
  • The residual Ŝ = X − XpastŴ doubles as a shock detector: on S&P 500 data, 99.5% of the most significant recovered shocks align with next-day price moves, with specific positive shocks matching META's first dividend announcement and NVDA's AI-driven forecast upgrade.
  • Because the objective uses only tensor operations and has complexity O(M(NTd²k + d³)), SpinSVAR reaches scales where non-Gaussian baselines such as VAR-LiNGAM time out, shifting the practical bottleneck to data availability rather than computation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the L1 objective also gives the estimator an implicit tolerance for heavy-tailed noise, so even when shocks are not truly sparse the method may still outrun MSE-based SVAR estimation, although the formal identifiability theorem does not cover that regime.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's fixed decision threshold for what counts as a significant recovered shock is anchored to its synthetic data-generation setup, so a principled threshold derived from the fitted β or from extreme-value quantiles would make the shock detector usable on real data without a ground-truth anchor.
  • Editorial inference: the consistency proof applies to the global maximizer of the likelihood, while the implemented gradient procedure solves a non-convex regularized objective and can stop at local optima; the paper states this gap explicitly, so finite-sample guarantees are empirical rather than theorem-backed.
  • Editorial inference: the identifiability argument passes through LiNGAM, requiring non-Gaussian shocks; a graceful-degradation experiment that moves the shock distribution continuously from Laplace toward Gaussian would map how much sparsity signal is needed before the method loses its advantage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SpinSVAR, a structural vector autoregression estimator that models the structural shocks S as independent zero-mean Laplace variables. Under this model the negative log-likelihood is proportional to the L1 residual ||X - XpastW||1, giving a least-absolute-deviation MLE. The authors prove identifiability of (W, beta) via LiNGAM and monotonicity, and consistency of the profile MLE under a compact DAG constraint, then propose a regularized objective (11) with L1 sparsity and soft acyclicity penalties, optimized by Adam in PyTorch. Synthetic experiments on Laplacian and Bernoulli-uniform shocks show state-of-the-art SHD and runtime up to d=4000, and an S&P 500 application yields sector-clustered B0 and structural shocks aligned with major price movements.

Significance. Assuming sparse, non-Gaussian structural shocks is a useful modeling direction for SVAR, and the L1 MLE formulation is simple and scalable. The paper's strengths include a clear likelihood derivation, a large and careful experimental comparison, code/reproducibility details, and a serious attempt at a consistency theorem. If the theoretical guarantees applied to the actual estimator, the paper would be a strong contribution. However, as it stands, the main consistency theorem is proved for the unregularized MLE with a hard DAG constraint, while the evaluated method solves a different, regularized objective with a soft constraint and post-hoc thresholding; in addition, the identifiability proof for beta contains a mathematical error. These issues place the theoretical support and the empirical claims in a weakened position.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (11)] Theorem 3.3 proves consistency of the MLE defined by Eq. (10), i.e., the unregularized profile likelihood minimized over the hard-acyclicity set W. The estimator actually implemented and evaluated is the minimizer of Eq. (11), which adds fixed penalties lambda1||W||1 and lambda2 h(B0), replaces the hard constraint with a soft regularizer, and is followed by thresholding at omega in Algorithm 1. Since log||X - XpastW||1 is approximately log N + log a(W) for large N, the data-dependent part of the objective after the profiling division does not grow with N, so the O(1) penalties in Eq. (11) do not vanish and can shift the argmin away from W* as N grows. No conditions (e.g., lambda1, lambda2 -> 0) are given under which the regularized objective is consistent. Thus the consistency guarantee in the abstract and Section 3 does not transfer to the SpinSVAR estimator whose performance is reported. The authors should either prove consistency of the regularized estimator under suitable rate conditions or explicitly separate the MLE theory from the heuristic objective and not present the guarantee as covering the implemented method.
  2. [Appendix A.4, Eq. (16)] The derivative of f_X with respect to beta reported in Eq. (16) is incorrect. Let m = NTd and c = ||X - XpastW*||1. The density is proportional to (2beta)^{-m} exp(-c/beta), so the correct derivative is proportional to (c - m beta) / beta^{m+2} times exp(-c/beta), not to c(1 - m beta) / beta^{m+2} times exp(-c/beta) as implied by Eq. (16). Consequently, the sign of the derivative is governed by whether c/beta exceeds m, not by whether beta exceeds 1/(NTd); for observations with c > m beta*, the density is increasing in beta near beta*, so the claimed pointwise monotonicity does not hold. Since Theorem 3.1's identifiability of beta relies on this monotonicity, and Theorem 3.3 uses Theorem 3.1, the proof of the consistency result is not currently valid. The identifiability of beta may still be true, but it needs a correct proof.
  3. [Algorithm 1, line 6] Algorithm 1 defines the training loss as N [log||X - L(X)||1 - (1/d) log|det(I - B0)|] + lambda1||W||1 + lambda2 h(B0), while Eq. (11) defines the objective as log||X - XpastW||1 - (1/d) log|det(I - B0)| + lambda1||W||1 + lambda2 h(B0). These objectives are not equivalent: the factor N changes the relative weight of the data term to the regularizers and is inconsistent with the derivation in Appendix A.6, where the factor NT is divided out. The paper should state which objective is actually minimized, align the pseudocode with the equations, and justify the hyperparameter choices if the implemented loss differs from Eq. (11).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, after Eq. (9)] The statement 'This estimate is consistent in expectation... E[||X - XpastW||1] = E[||S||1] = NTd beta*' is only true at W = W*; for other W the equality fails. Rephrase as 'at the true parameter' to avoid giving the impression that beta-hat is unbiased for arbitrary W.
  2. [Appendix E.1] The synthetic data generation discards realizations whose average value exceeds 10^6 * N * d * T. This outcome-dependent selection could bias the evaluation; please report how often the discard rule triggers, or use weights satisfying the row-sum condition of Theorem A.1 directly so that the data-generating distribution is not conditioned on a rare event.
  3. [Throughout] The paper alternates between 'SpinSVAR' and 'SpinSV AR' (also 'SpinSV AR' in the appendix); please unify the notation.
  4. [Appendix E.9.1] There are typographical errors in the appendix, including 'signif icance' and 'V owels' in the references; a final proofread would improve readability.
  5. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'the direction of influence is from row to column,' but the matrix convention X = XpastW has W_{i,j} as the influence from i to j; please clarify to avoid ambiguity with the row/column convention.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the Laplacian MLE is derived from the stated shock model and its consistency rests on external LiNGAM and Newey-McFadden results; self-citations to SparseRC are motivational, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The likelihood (5) and log-likelihood (6) follow by change of variables from the Laplace shock model (4) and the SVAR equation (3); no target conclusion is embedded in the derivation. Identifiability (Theorem 3.1, App. A.2) invokes the external LiNGAM theorem of Shimizu et al. (2006), not a same-author uniqueness result. Consistency (Theorem 3.3, App. A.5) is proved by checking the Newey-McFadden conditions, which are standard external results. The regularized objective (11) is presented as a computationally convenient relaxation of the profiled MLE (10), and the paper openly states that there is no guarantee of convergence to the global maximum for the non-convex problem (Sec. 3). The gap between the consistency theorem, which applies to the unregularized MLE with a hard DAG constraint, and the implemented objective in (11) is therefore a rigor or overclaiming concern, not a circularity: the paper does not define the objective in terms of the conclusion it draws. Self-citations to Misiakos et al. (2023, 2024) motivate the sparse-input assumption and supply a baseline, but the main theorems do not borrow their validity from those papers. The real-data 'structural shock' analysis is a post-hoc interpretation of residuals, not an out-of-sample prediction derived from a fitted parameter. No equation reduces to its own input by construction; the score reflects only minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on the sparsity and non-Gaussianity assumption for its identifiability and on several standard theorems (LiNGAM, Newey-McFadden, Zheng acyclicity). The hyperparameters lambda1, lambda2, omega are fitted to data via grid search. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda1 = 0.0005 (Laplace), 0.0001 (Bernoulli), 0.01 (financial)
    L1 regularization weight on W in Eq (11), tuned via grid search on one synthetic setting to minimize SHD.
  • lambda2 = 0.5 (Laplace), 0.1 (Bernoulli), 1.0 (financial)
    Acyclicity regularizer weight in Eq (11), selected by grid search.
  • omega = 0.09 (synthetic), 0.5 (financial), 0.2 (DREAM3)
    Threshold to zero out small entries of W in post-processing; chosen via grid search on a single small dataset.
  • stability discard threshold = 1e6 * N * d * T
    Synthetic datasets with average X exceeding this value are discarded and regenerated (App E.1). This is a post-hoc exclusion that affects the empirical results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Structural shocks S are independent and Laplace(0,beta) distributed
    Eq (4); central model assumption used to derive the MLE and identifiability via LiNGAM.
  • domain assumption The SVAR is linear, stationary, and B0 is acyclic
    Eq (2)-(3); required for the unrolled DAG representation and for the likelihood's determinant term.
  • domain assumption No latent confounders; all relevant variables are observed
    Section 1 states that absence of latent confounders is an assumption of this line of work; not explicitly relaxed.
  • standard math LiNGAM identifiability for non-Gaussian noise
    Used in proof of Theorem 3.1 (App A.2) to show identifiability of the unrolled DAG.
  • standard math Uniform law of large numbers and compactness conditions of Newey-McFadden
    Used in Theorem 3.3 and App A.5 to prove consistency.
  • standard math Zheng et al. continuous characterization of acyclicity h(B0)=0
    Used to reduce DAG constraint to a regularizer and to prove compactness of the acyclic set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SpinSVAR: Estimating Structural Vector Autoregression Assuming Sparse Input." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3HSPVPDG

@misc{pith2026250103130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SpinSVAR: Estimating Structural Vector Autoregression Assuming Sparse Input},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3HSPVPDG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03130}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce SpinSVAR, a novel method for estimating a structural vector autoregression (SVAR) from time-series data under sparse input assumption. Unlike prior approaches using Gaussian noise, we model the input as independent Laplacian variables, enforcing sparsity and yielding a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) based on least absolute error regression. We provide theoretical consistency guarantees for the MLE under mild assumptions. SpinSVAR is efficient: it can leverage GPU acceleration to scale to thousands of nodes. On synthetic data with Laplacian or Bernoulli-uniform inputs, SpinSVAR outperforms state-of-the-art methods in accuracy and runtime. When applied to S&P 500 data, it clusters stocks by sectors and identifies significant structural shocks linked to major price movements, demonstrating the viability of our sparse input assumption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03130 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualizing an SVAR (3) with sparse input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Synthetic experiments. First row SHD (lower is better), second row runtime. (a), (b) consider [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Real experiment on the S&P 500 stock market b [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance on synthetic data (Laplacian distributed input): AUROC ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance on synthetic data (Bernoulli distributed input). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Synthetic experiment with with larger time lag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Synthetic experiment with larger time lag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evaluating the sensitivity of the time lag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evaluating the sensitivity of the time lag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evaluating baselines on the real experiment with S&P 500 stock market index. (a) Instantaneous relations between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evaluating PCMCI on the real experiment with S&P 500 stock market index. (a) Relations between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    AcceleratedLiNGAM: Learning Causal DAGs at the speed of GPUs

    Victor Akinwande and J Zico Kolter. AcceleratedLiNGAM: Learning Causal DAGs at the speed of GPUs . arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03772, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Discovery of extended summary graphs in time series

    Charles K Assaad, Emilie Devijver, and Eric Gaussier. Discovery of extended summary graphs in time series . In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 96--106. PMLR, 2022 a

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Survey and Evaluation of Causal Discovery Methods for Time Series

    Charles K Assaad, Emilie Devijver, and Eric Gaussier. Survey and Evaluation of Causal Discovery Methods for Time Series . Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 73: 0 767--819, 2022 b

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A Mixed Noise and Constraint-Based Approach to Causal Inference in Time Series

    Karim Assaad, Emilie Devijver, Eric Gaussier, and Ali Ait-Bachir. A Mixed Noise and Constraint-Based Approach to Causal Inference in Time Series . In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Research Track: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2021, Bilbao, Spain, September 13--17, 2021, Proceedings, Part I 21, pages 453--468. Springer, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Bayesian compressive sensing using laplace priors

    S Derin Babacan, Rafael Molina, and Aggelos K Katsaggelos. Bayesian compressive sensing using laplace priors. IEEE Transactions on image processing, 19 0 (1): 0 53--63, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Asymptotic theory of least absolute error regression

    Gilbert Bassett Jr and Roger Koenker. Asymptotic theory of least absolute error regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73 0 (363): 0 618--622, 1978

    work page 1978

  7. [7]

    Neural graphical modelling in continuous-time: consistency guarantees and algorithms

    Alexis Bellot, Kim Branson, and Mihaela van der Schaar. Neural graphical modelling in continuous-time: consistency guarantees and algorithms. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Neural Additive Vector Autoregression Models for Causal Discovery in Time Series

    Bart Bussmann, Jannes Nys, and Steven Latr \'e . Neural Additive Vector Autoregression Models for Causal Discovery in Time Series . In Discovery Science: 24th International Conference, DS 2021, Halifax, NS, Canada, October 11--13, 2021, Proceedings 24, pages 446--460. Springer, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Bayesian linear regression with sparse priors

    Isma \"e l Castillo, Johannes Schmidt-Hieber, and Aad Van der Vaart. Bayesian linear regression with sparse priors. The Annals of Statistics, pages 1986--2018, 2015

    1986

  2. [10]

    Using generalized gaussian distributions to improve regression error modeling for deep learning-based speech enhancement

    Li Chai, Jun Du, Qing-Feng Liu, and Chin-Hui Lee. Using generalized gaussian distributions to improve regression error modeling for deep learning-based speech enhancement. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 27 0 (12): 0 1919--1931, 2019

    1919

  3. [11]

    CUTS+: High-dimensional Causal Discovery from Irregular Time-series

    Yuxiao Cheng, Lianglong Li, Tingxiong Xiao, Zongren Li, Jinli Suo, Kunlun He, and Qionghai Dai. CUTS+: High-dimensional Causal Discovery from Irregular Time-series . In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 11525--11533, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Large-Sample Learning of Bayesian Networks is NP-Hard

    Max Chickering, David Heckerman, and Chris Meek. Large-Sample Learning of Bayesian Networks is NP-Hard . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5: 0 1287--1330, 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    On the multivariate laplace distribution

    Torbj rn Eltoft, Taesu Kim, and Te-Won Lee. On the multivariate laplace distribution. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 13 0 (5): 0 300--303, 2006

    2006

  6. [14]

    On Causal Discovery from Time Series Data using FCI

    Doris Entner and Patrik O Hoyer. On Causal Discovery from Time Series Data using FCI . Probabilistic graphical models, pages 121--128, 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work

    Eugene F Fama. Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work . Journal of finance, 25 0 (2): 0 383--417, 1970

    1970

  8. [16]

    Discrete mixtures of normals pseudo maximum likelihood estimators of structural vector autoregressions

    Gabriele Fiorentini and Enrique Sentana. Discrete mixtures of normals pseudo maximum likelihood estimators of structural vector autoregressions. Journal of Econometrics, 235 0 (2): 0 643--665, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    IDYNO: Learning Nonparametric DAGs from Interventional Dynamic Data

    Tian Gao, Debarun Bhattacharjya, Elliot Nelson, Miao Liu, and Yue Yu. IDYNO: Learning Nonparametric DAGs from Interventional Dynamic Data . In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6988--7001. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    High-recall causal discovery for autocorrelated time series with latent confounders

    Andreas Gerhardus and Jakob Runge. High-recall causal discovery for autocorrelated time series with latent confounders . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 12615--12625, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Causal Discovery from Temporal Data: An Overview and New Perspectives

    Chang Gong, Di Yao, Chuzhe Zhang, Wenbin Li, Jingping Bi, Lun Du, and Jin Wang. Causal Discovery from Temporal Data: An Overview and New Perspectives . KDD '23, page 5803–5804. Association for Computing Machinery, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Discovering Temporal Causal Relations from Subsampled Data

    Mingming Gong, Kun Zhang, Bernhard Schoelkopf, Dacheng Tao, and Philipp Geiger. Discovering Temporal Causal Relations from Subsampled Data . In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1898--1906. PMLR, 2015

    1906

  13. [21]

    Rhino: Deep causal temporal relationship learning with history-dependent noise

    Wenbo Gong, Joel Jennings, Cheng Zhang, and Nick Pawlowski. Rhino: Deep causal temporal relationship learning with history-dependent noise. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.14706, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sparse probabilistic principal component analysis

    Yue Guan and Jennifer Dy. Sparse probabilistic principal component analysis. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 185--192. PMLR, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    A Survey on Causal Discovery Methods for I.I.D

    Uzma Hasan, Emam Hossain, and Md Osman Gani. A Survey on Causal Discovery Methods for I.I.D. and Time Series Data . Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Sparse identification of dynamical systems by reweighted l1-regularized least absolute deviation regression

    Xin He and ZhongKui Sun. Sparse identification of dynamical systems by reweighted l1-regularized least absolute deviation regression. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 131: 0 107813, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Horn and Charles R

    Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson. Matrix analysis. Cambridge university press, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Estimation of a Structural Vector Autoregression Model Using Non-Gaussianity

    Aapo Hyv \"a rinen, Kun Zhang, Shohei Shimizu, and Patrik O Hoyer. Estimation of a Structural Vector Autoregression Model Using Non-Gaussianity . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11 0 (5), 2010

    2010

  19. [27]

    Regularized least absolute deviation-based sparse identification of dynamical systems

    Feng Jiang, Lin Du, Fan Yang, and Zi-Chen Deng. Regularized least absolute deviation-based sparse identification of dynamical systems. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 33 0 (1), 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Linkages among the Foreign Exchange, Stock, and Bond Markets in Japan and the United States

    Yi Jiang and Shohei Shimizu. Linkages among the Foreign Exchange, Stock, and Bond Markets in Japan and the United States . In Causal Analysis Workshop Series, pages 1--19. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Sparse probabilistic matrix factorization by laplace distribution for collaborative filtering

    Liping Jing, Peng Wang, and Liu Yang. Sparse probabilistic matrix factorization by laplace distribution for collaborative filtering. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Estimating high-dimensional directed acyclic graphs with the pc-algorithm

    Markus Kalisch and Peter B \"u hlman. Estimating high-dimensional directed acyclic graphs with the pc-algorithm. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8 0 (3), 2007

    2007

  23. [31]

    Economy Statistical Recurrent Units For Inferring Nonlinear Granger Causality

    Saurabh Khanna and Vincent YF Tan. Economy Statistical Recurrent Units For Inferring Nonlinear Granger Causality . In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Structural Vector Autoregressions

    Lutz Kilian. Structural Vector Autoregressions . In Handbook of research methods and applications in empirical macroeconomics, pages 515--554. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    Temporal node centrality in complex networks

    Hyoungshick Kim and Ross Anderson. Temporal node centrality in complex networks. Physical Review E, 85 0 (2): 0 026107, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Causality, Probability, and Time

    Samantha Kleinberg. Causality, Probability, and Time . Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    Regression model estimation using least absolute deviations, least squares deviations and minimax absolute deviations criteria

    Pranesh Kumar and Jai Narain Singh. Regression model estimation using least absolute deviations, least squares deviations and minimax absolute deviations criteria. IJCSEE, 3 0 (4): 0 2320--4028, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Gradient-based neural dag learning

    S \'e bastien Lachapelle, Philippe Brouillard, Tristan Deleu, and Simon Lacoste-Julien. Gradient-based neural dag learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Identification and estimation of non-gaussian structural vector autoregressions

    Markku Lanne, Mika Meitz, and Pentti Saikkonen. Identification and estimation of non-gaussian structural vector autoregressions. Journal of Econometrics, 196 0 (2): 0 288--304, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    A fast maximum likelihood estimation approach to lad regression

    Yinbo Li and Gonzalo R Arce. A fast maximum likelihood estimation approach to lad regression. In 2004 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, volume 2, pages ii--889. IEEE, 2004

    2004

  32. [40]

    Amortized Causal Discovery: Learning to Infer Causal Graphs from Time-Series Data

    Sindy L \"o we, David Madras, Richard Zemel, and Max Welling. Amortized Causal Discovery: Learning to Infer Causal Graphs from Time-Series Data . In Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, pages 509--525. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    New Introduction to Multiple Time Series Analysis

    Helmut L \"u tkepohl. New Introduction to Multiple Time Series Analysis . Springer Science & Business Media, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    Estimation of non-gaussian svar models: a pseudo-log-likelihood function approach

    Koichi Maekawa and Tadashi Nakanishi. Estimation of non-gaussian svar models: a pseudo-log-likelihood function approach. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 93 0 (11): 0 1830--1850, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Causal Structure Learning from Multivariate Time Series in Settings with Unmeasured Confounding

    Daniel Malinsky and Peter Spirtes. Causal Structure Learning from Multivariate Time Series in Settings with Unmeasured Confounding . In Proceedings of 2018 ACM SIGKDD workshop on causal discovery, pages 23--47. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Generating realistic in silico gene networks for performance assessment of reverse engineering methods

    Daniel Marbach, Thomas Schaffter, Claudio Mattiussi, and Dario Floreano. Generating realistic in silico gene networks for performance assessment of reverse engineering methods. Journal of computational biology, 16 0 (2): 0 229--239, 2009

    2009

  37. [45]

    Interpretable Models for Granger Causality Using Self-explaining Neural Networks

    Ri c ards Marcinkevi c s and Julia E Vogt. Interpretable Models for Granger Causality Using Self-explaining Neural Networks . In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Learning DAGs from Data with Few Root Causes

    Panagiotis Misiakos, Chris Wendler, and Markus P \"u schel. Learning DAGs from Data with Few Root Causes . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Learning Signals and Graphs from Time-Series Graph Data with Few Causes

    Panagiotis Misiakos, Vedran Mihal, and Markus P \"u schel. Learning Signals and Graphs from Time-Series Graph Data with Few Causes . In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 9681--9685, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    The minimum sum of absolute errors regression: a robust alternative to the least squares regression

    Subhash C Narula, Paulo HN Saldiva, Carmen DS Andre, Silvia N Elian, Aurea Favero Ferreira, and Vera Capelozzi. The minimum sum of absolute errors regression: a robust alternative to the least squares regression. Statistics in medicine, 18 0 (11): 0 1401--1417, 1999

    1999

  41. [49]

    Causal Discovery with Attention-Based Convolutional Neural Networks

    Meike Nauta, Doina Bucur, and Christin Seifert. Causal Discovery with Attention-Based Convolutional Neural Networks . Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 1 0 (1): 0 19, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing

    Whitney K Newey and Daniel McFadden. Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. Handbook of econometrics, 4: 0 2111--2245, 1994

    1994

  43. [51]

    On the Role of Sparsity and DAG Constraints for Learning Linear DAGs

    Ignavier Ng, AmirEmad Ghassami, and Kun Zhang. On the Role of Sparsity and DAG Constraints for Learning Linear DAGs . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 17943--17954, 2020

    2020

  44. [52]

    DYNOTEARS: Structure Learning from Time-Series Data

    Roxana Pamfil, Nisara Sriwattanaworachai, Shaan Desai, Philip Pilgerstorfer, Konstantinos Georgatzis, Paul Beaumont, and Bryon Aragam. DYNOTEARS: Structure Learning from Time-Series Data . In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1595--1605....

    2020

  45. [53]

    Identifiability of Additive Noise Models Using Conditional Variances

    Gunwoong Park. Identifiability of Additive Noise Models Using Conditional Variances . J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21 0 (75): 0 1--34, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    Identifiability of Gaussian structural equation models with equal error variances

    Jonas Peters and Peter B \"u hlmann. Identifiability of Gaussian structural equation models with equal error variances . Biometrika, 101 0 (1): 0 219--228, 2014

    2014

  47. [55]

    Structural intervention distance for evaluating causal graphs

    Jonas Peters and Peter B \"u hlmann. Structural intervention distance for evaluating causal graphs. Neural computation, 27 0 (3): 0 771--799, 2015

    2015

  48. [56]

    Causal Inference on Time Series using Structural Equation Models

    Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Causal Inference on Time Series using Structural Equation Models . Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013

    2013

  49. [57]

    Elements of causal inference: foundations and learning algorithms

    Jonas Peters, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Sch \"o lkopf. Elements of causal inference: foundations and learning algorithms . The MIT Press, 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    Asymptotics for least absolute deviation regression estimators

    David Pollard. Asymptotics for least absolute deviation regression estimators. Econometric Theory, 7 0 (2): 0 186--199, 1991

    1991

  51. [59]

    Towards a rigorous assessment of systems biology models: the dream3 challenges

    Robert J Prill, Daniel Marbach, Julio Saez-Rodriguez, Peter K Sorger, Leonidas G Alexopoulos, Xiaowei Xue, Neil D Clarke, Gregoire Altan-Bonnet, and Gustavo Stolovitzky. Towards a rigorous assessment of systems biology models: the dream3 challenges. PloS one, 5 0 (2): 0 e9202, 2010

    2010

  52. [60]

    Nvidia shares soar nearly 30\ https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-forecasts-second-quarter-revenue-above-estimates-2023-05-24/, 2023

    Reuters. Nvidia shares soar nearly 30\ https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-forecasts-second-quarter-revenue-above-estimates-2023-05-24/, 2023. Accessed: 2024-05-21

    2023

  53. [61]

    Facebook parent meta declares first dividend, shares soar

    Reuters. Facebook parent meta declares first dividend, shares soar. https://www.reuters.com/technology/facebook-parent-meta-declares-first-ever-dividend-2024-02-01/, 2024. Accessed: 2024-05-21

    2024

  54. [62]

    Discovering contemporaneous and lagged causal relations in autocorrelated nonlinear time series datasets

    Jakob Runge. Discovering contemporaneous and lagged causal relations in autocorrelated nonlinear time series datasets . In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1388--1397. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  55. [63]

    Detecting and quantifying causal associations in large nonlinear time series datasets

    Jakob Runge, Peer Nowack, Marlene Kretschmer, Seth Flaxman, and Dino Sejdinovic. Detecting and quantifying causal associations in large nonlinear time series datasets . Science advances, 5 0 (11): 0 eaau4996, 2019

    2019

  56. [64]

    a t zu Berlin, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakult \

    Pentti Saikkonen. Stability results for nonlinear vector autoregressions with an application to a nonlinear error correction model . Humboldt-Universit \"a t zu Berlin, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakult \"a t, 2001

    2001

  57. [65]

    Causal Fourier Analysis on Directed Acyclic Graphs and Posets

    Bastian Seifert, Chris Wendler, and Markus Püschel. Causal Fourier Analysis on Directed Acyclic Graphs and Posets . IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 71: 0 3805--3820, 2023. doi:10.1109/TSP.2023.3324988

    2023

  58. [66]

    Hoyer, Aapo Hyvärinen, and Antti Kerminen

    Shohei Shimizu, Patrik O. Hoyer, Aapo Hyvärinen, and Antti Kerminen. A Linear Non-Gaussian Acyclic Model for Causal Discovery . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7 0 (72): 0 2003--2030, 2006. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v7/shimizu06a.html

    2003

  59. [67]

    DirectLiNGAM: A direct method for learning a linear non-Gaussian structural equation model

    Shohei Shimizu, Takanori Inazumi, Yasuhiro Sogawa, Aapo Hyvarinen, Yoshinobu Kawahara, Takashi Washio, Patrik O Hoyer, Kenneth Bollen, and Patrik Hoyer. DirectLiNGAM: A direct method for learning a linear non-Gaussian structural equation model . Journal of Machine Learning Res...

    2011

  60. [68]

    Comparison of Interwar and Postwar Business Cycles: Monetarism Reconsidered , 1980

    Christopher A Sims. Comparison of Interwar and Postwar Business Cycles: Monetarism Reconsidered , 1980

    1980

  61. [69]

    Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and Design

    Sigurd Skogestad and Ian Postlethwaite. Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and Design . john Wiley & sons, 2005

    2005

  62. [70]

    Network modelling methods for FMRI

    Stephen M Smith, Karla L Miller, Gholamreza Salimi-Khorshidi, Matthew Webster, Christian F Beckmann, Thomas E Nichols, Joseph D Ramsey, and Mark W Woolrich. Network modelling methods for FMRI . Neuroimage, 54 0 (2): 0 875--891, 2011

    2011

  63. [71]

    Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems

    George Sugihara, Robert May, Hao Ye, Chih-hao Hsieh, Ethan Deyle, Michael Fogarty, and Stephan Munch. Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems . science, 338 0 (6106): 0 496--500, 2012

    2012

  64. [72]

    NTS-NOTEARS: Learning Nonparametric DBNs With Prior Knowledge

    Xiangyu Sun, Oliver Schulte, Guiliang Liu, and Pascal Poupart. NTS-NOTEARS: Learning Nonparametric DBNs With Prior Knowledge . In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 1942--1964. PMLR, 2023

    1942

  65. [73]

    Introduction to metric and topological spaces

    Wilson A Sutherland. Introduction to metric and topological spaces. Oxford University Press, 2009

    2009

  66. [74]

    Neural Granger Causality

    Alex Tank, Ian Covert, Nicholas Foti, Ali Shojaie, and Emily B Fox. Neural Granger Causality . IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44 0 (8): 0 4267--4279, 2021

    2021

  67. [75]

    Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso

    Robert Tibshirani. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 58 0 (1): 0 267--288, 1996

    1996

  68. [76]

    D’ya like DAGs? A survey on structure learning and causal discovery

    Matthew J Vowels, Necati Cihan Camgoz, and Richard Bowden. D’ya like DAGs? A survey on structure learning and causal discovery . ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 2021

    2021

  69. [77]

    Scalable Causal Graph Learning through a Deep Neural Network

    Chenxiao Xu, Hao Huang, and Shinjae Yoo. Scalable Causal Graph Learning through a Deep Neural Network . In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, pages 1853--1862, 2019

    2019

  70. [78]

    Detecting the causal influence of thermal environments among climate regions in the United States

    Xueli Yang, Zhi-Hua Wang, Chenghao Wang, and Ying-Cheng Lai. Detecting the causal influence of thermal environments among climate regions in the United States . Journal of Environmental Management, 322: 0 116001, 2022

    2022

  71. [79]

    DAGs with NO TEARS: Continuous Optimization for Structure Learning

    Xun Zheng, Bryon Aragam, Pradeep K Ravikumar, and Eric P Xing. DAGs with NO TEARS: Continuous Optimization for Structure Learning . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.