Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Causal Learning for Heterogeneous Subgroups Based on Nonlinear Causal Kernel Clustering

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a u-centered sample mapping function turns each sample row into a matrix whose sign pattern encodes pairwise dependence and independence, and that this mapping space is isomorphic to the causal graph space, so…

desk verdict Incremental kernel-clustering extension with a useful u-centered twist, but the central isomorphism proof reverses its own sign convention and the Boston experiments contradict the 'reduced prediction error' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11622 v3 pith:FIY5MXQR submitted 2025-01-20 cs.LG stat.ML

Lu Liu , Yang Tang , Kexuan Zhang , Qiyu Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGstat.ML
keywords causaldiscoveryheterogeneoussubgroupsclusteringkernelmethodsdistancecovarianceu-centeredestimatoridentifiabilitysubgroupinvariance
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 is trying to establish that heterogeneous subgroups in observational data can be found by clustering samples in a space whose geometry mirrors the underlying causal graphs. It introduces a u-centered sample mapping function that turns each sample row into a matrix; a positive entry is read as dependence between the two features, a negative entry as independence. A nonlinear kernel on these matrices measures sample similarity, and a clustering step groups samples with matching causal sign patterns. The authors argue that because the mapping space is isomorphic to the causal graph space, the clusters are causally meaningful, not just statistically similar. They further show that feeding subgroup information into existing causal learning methods reduces prediction error on climate and housing data.

What carries the argument

The u-centered sample mapping function $\Phi(S_i)$ together with the nonlinear causal kernel. The function subtracts an $n$-times chi-square threshold from a u-centered marginal distance covariance sum, and the sign pattern of the resulting matrix is the causal matrix. The kernel $\kappa(S_i,S_{i'}) = \langle \Phi(S_i), \Phi(S_{i'}) \rangle_F / (\|\Phi(S_i)\|_F \|\Phi(S_{i'})\|_F)$ is a cosine similarity between the two mapping matrices, which turns sign-pattern agreement into cluster affinity. The load-bearing mechanism is the claimed isomorphism between the sign-pattern space and the causal graph space, which is what lets the authors interpret any clustering of the mapped samples as a grouping by causal structure.

What would settle it

Generate many small samples of two independent standard normal features, compute the aggregated sample mapping entry with the paper's chi-square threshold at $\nu = 0.05$, and check how often the sign is positive; if the rate is far above 5 percent, the sign rule is not controlling its stated error level and clusters formed by the sign pattern would not correspond to true dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.1: the sample mapping function $\Phi(S_i)$ is an isomorphism between the causal graph space and the causal matrix space. Concretely, for each sample row $S_i$, $\Phi(S_i)$ is an $m \times m$ matrix whose $(p,q)$ entry is the difference between a marginal distance covariance term and an amplified chi-square threshold. The sign of that entry is the paper's binary decision: positive means $X_p$ and $X_q$ are nonlinearly dependent, negative means independent. Two samples are assigned to the same subgroup when their sign matrices match, and the paper argues this is equivalent to sharing the same m-connectivity pattern in the causal graph. This is what licenses the method's use of ordinary kernel clustering to recover causally heterogeneous subgroups.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that whenever its dependence measure exceeds a chi-square cutoff, the features are truly dependent, and whenever it falls below, they are truly independent, and no statistical guarantee for that comparison is given.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the isomorphism holds, ordinary kernel clustering on the mapped samples returns clusters that reflect differences in causal relationships rather than differences in marginal distributions.
  • Because the method is a plug-and-play module, it can be prepended to existing causal structure learning and stable prediction methods; the paper demonstrates reduced prediction error on Boston housing for ERM, KerHRM, and stable learning baselines.
  • The sign of the aggregated time-lagged causal kernel between Indian Ocean Dipole regions can serve as an early warning signal about a year ahead, with the paper reporting 15 warnings, 13 correct out of 15 IOD events.
  • The method is robust to the choice of cluster number $K$, since what matters is capturing the heterogeneous subgroup information rather than the exact subgroup count.
  • No subgroup labels are needed in advance; the clustering discovers the causally distinct subgroups from the data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the chi-square threshold could be calibrated against a permutation null on independent features, turning the sign rule into a formal hypothesis test with a controlled error rate.
  • Beyond the paper: if the isomorphism is taken seriously, a new environment's samples could be assigned to a subgroup purely by their sign matrix, making the method a causal-aware classifier for distribution shift.
  • Beyond the paper: the binary sign collapses continuous dependence strength, so a magnitude-weighted variant might separate subgroups that share an edge but differ in its strength, which the current method would merge.
  • Beyond the paper: the IOD early-warning result suggests using the sign of time-lagged causal kernels as a leading indicator for other climate indices, providing a transfer test of the underlying mechanism.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the nonlinear Causal Kernel Clustering (CKC) method for learning heterogeneous subgroups from observational data. The method constructs a u-centered sample mapping function Φ that compares a marginal distance covariance statistic with a chi-square threshold, builds a nonlinear causal kernel from these mappings, and clusters samples in the resulting kernel space. The central theoretical claim is that the sample mapping space is isomorphic to the causal graph space, which would guarantee that clusters correspond to differences in causal structure. The paper also reports experiments on synthetic data, Indian Ocean Dipole early warning, and Boston housing prediction, integrating the method with existing causal learning approaches.

Significance. If the causal identifiability claim were valid, the paper would offer a useful plug-and-play module for heterogeneous subgroup causal learning, with the attractive feature of using u-centered distance covariance to reduce finite-sample bias in nonlinear dependence measurement. The empirical work, especially the synthetic nonlinear experiments and the IOD case study, shows promise and is a real strength of the manuscript. However, the central theoretical guarantee is not established: the sign rule in Theorem 4.1 lacks a distributional basis, the proof of Theorem 5.1 reverses that sign rule and conflates graph connectivity with marginal dependence, and the bijectivity proof in Section 5.1 is unsupported. Because these issues are load-bearing for the paper's claim that clusters are causally meaningful, the theoretical contribution, which is the main novelty, does not hold as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Definition 4.2 and Theorem 4.1] The sign rule at the core of the method is asserted without a distributional basis. Φ(S_i) is defined as a sum of u-centered distance-covariance terms minus nχ²_{1−ν}(1), and Theorem 4.1 declares that a positive aggregate entry means dependence and a non-positive entry means independence. No argument shows that this difference (or its aggregate over samples) has the chi-square null distribution, that the chosen threshold controls a Type I error, or that the rule is consistent as n grows. Because Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 5.1 both inherit this sign rule, the causal interpretation of the clusters rests on an unvalidated thresholding procedure. A concrete fix would be to derive the asymptotic distribution of the aggregated statistic under H0, or to replace the threshold with a calibrated permutation test, and then state the resulting level and consistency properties.
  2. [§5.2, Theorem 5.1] The proof of Theorem 5.1 reverses the sign convention established in Theorem 4.1. Theorem 4.1 says that a positive aggregate Φ entry implies X_p and X_q are not independent, but the proof of Theorem 5.1 states that a positive entry 'indicates a causal relationship between the features X_j and X_j′: X_j ⊥⊥ X_j′', i.e., independence. Independently, the proof equates m-connectivity in N_G with marginal dependence, which is false in general: in the collider X1→X3←X2, X1 and X2 have a path of length 2 and would be included in N_G for m=2, yet they are marginally independent and would receive a negative Φ entry. Hence sign(Φ) and the matrix I defined in Eq. (14) cannot agree in general, and the claimed isomorphism between causal graph space and causal matrix space is not established.
  3. [§5.1] The bijectivity proof of Φ is not justified. It asserts that Φ(S_i)=Φ(S_i′) implies Z_i=Z_i′ and hence S_i=S_i′, but according to Definition 4.2 each Φ(S_i) depends on global quantities—sums over all α, β, ζ and dataset-wide normalizations—so Φ(S_i) is not a function of the single row S_i. The proof does not show injectivity, and the surjectivity claim ('for each η there exists S_ϵ with Φ(S_ϵ)=η') is asserted without construction. The isomorphism between the sample space and the mapping space, and with it the claim that clustering in the mapped space preserves sample-space structure, is therefore unproven.
  4. [§6.2.2, Table 3] The claim that the method 'reduc[es] the predicted error in almost all scenarios' is contradicted by the reported RMSE values. For ERM, RMSE increases from 3.09 to 4.70, 4.69, and 4.68 for K=2, K=4, and K=5 respectively; for DWR, RMSE increases from 0.80 to 1.96 and 1.95 for K=2 and K=4. Only Sta_Error decreases in most scenarios. The table also does not display the underlines mentioned in the text. The evidence for improving downstream causal learning is thus only partial and should be reanalyzed with error bars or paired statistical tests.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Eqs. (9)–(11)] The notation is difficult to follow: Φ(S_i,) has a trailing comma, and V_{ζ,γ} uses Z_{ζ,γ,·} without a clear definition of the index ranges, especially since Z is introduced as an n×n×m tensor; please define all indices and dimensions explicitly.
  2. [Theorem 5.1 statement] The theorem states that Φ maps 'from the causal graph space Y_m to the causal matrix space G_m', but Definition 5.1 calls the causal graph space G_m and Definition 5.2 calls the causal matrix space Y_m; the names are reversed.
  3. [Table 1] The header lists four condition columns under 'Linear Nonlinear', but each method row contains five V-measure/ARI pairs; the columns should be aligned and the linear versus nonlinear settings labeled clearly.
  4. [§6.2.1] The sentence 'providing 15 warnings out of 15 IOD events, with 13 of these predictions being accurate' is confusing given Table 2, which shows TP=13 and FN=2; please rephrase to clarify the relationship between warnings, events, and correct predictions.
  5. [References] Reference [29] appears to have garbled author order ('Sambit Panda Cencheng Shen and Joshua T. V ogelstein'); the correct citation is likely C. Shen, S. Panda, and J. T. Vogelstein.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The central causal-identifiability theorem is asserted by sign convention and reverses the paper's own Theorem 4.1, so the guarantee that clusters are causally meaningful is imposed rather than derived.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2, proof of Theorem 5.1]
    "For the square matrix mapped by the sample mapping function Φ(Si,), if the corresponding matrix element is positive: Φ(Si,)j,j′ > 0, it indicates a causal relationship between the features Xj and Xj′: Xj ⊥⊥ Xj′ . If the corresponding matrix element is negative: Φ(Si,)j,j′ < 0, it signifies no causal relationship between Xj and Xj′: Xj ̸⊥⊥ Xj′. Thus, in the causal graph space, if the node pair (j, j′) belongs to the m-connectivity set, it is equivalent to the matrix element corresponding to features Xj and X′j being positive."

    The theorem claims an isomorphism between the causal graph space and the causal matrix space, but the causal matrix space (Definition 5.2) is defined as equivalence of sign(Y), i.e., equivalence of sign(Φ). The proof then simply asserts that sign(Φ(Si))_{j,j'} > 0 means (j,j') ∈ N_G and sign < 0 means (j,j') ∉ N_G. That assertion is exactly the conclusion the theorem is meant to establish: no independent bridge between m-connectivity and the sign of Φ is given. The sign rule also contradicts Theorem 4.1, which concluded that aggregate positive Φ implies Xp ̸⊥⊥ Xq (non-independence); the proof of Theorem 5.1 instead equates positive Φ with Xj ⊥⊥ Xj′ (independence).

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical claim is Theorem 5.1, which underlies the assertion that clustering in the sample-mapping space identifies causally heterogeneous subgroups. The proof of this theorem does not derive the correspondence between the causal graph space and the causal matrix space; it assumes it by equating positive/negative entries of Φ(Si) with membership/non-membership in the m-connectivity set N_G. This is circular because the causal matrix space is defined through sign(Φ), and then the isomorphism is 'proved' by asserting that sign(Φ) encodes N_G. The situation is worsened by a direct internal inconsistency: Theorem 4.1 proved that a positive aggregate Φ entry implies non-independence (Xp ̸⊥⊥ Xq), while Theorem 5.1's proof states that a positive entry indicates independence (Xj ⊥⊥ Xj′) and calls that a causal relationship. Thus the main load-bearing result reduces to an unproved, self-contradictory sign identification. The experimental sections are not themselves circular: synthetic data are compared against known DAG subgroups, the IOD experiment is evaluated against actual IOD events, and the Boston Housing experiments use external prediction error. But those experiments cannot rescue the theoretical guarantee, which is the basis for the causal interpretation of the clusters. The circularity is concentrated in the derivation of Theorem 5.1, and because that theorem is the paper's principal contribution, a high score is warranted.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unproved statistical and geometric assumptions; the method also depends on user-chosen parameters ν, K, t, and θ.

free parameters (4)
  • Significance level ν = not reported
    Used in the chi-square threshold Γ(ν) in Definition 4.2; the paper never states how ν is chosen, so it can be tuned to change cluster assignments.
  • Number of clusters K = 2 to 6 in Boston experiments
    K is set by the user, not learned; the method's results change with K, and the paper only shows robustness across a small grid.
  • Time window t = 60 days
    In the IOD experiment the causal kernel is computed over a 60 day window; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Time lag θ = between 0 and 100 days
    The lag range is stated but the exact choice used for the reported IOD results is not specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Causal Markov and faithfulness conditions hold for the observed features.
    Standard assumptions for causal discovery; the paper does not state them explicitly but relies on them when interpreting dependence as causal.
  • domain assumption The data are generated by an additive noise model with non-Gaussian noise, as in Eq. (1).
    Required for causal identifiability, but no identifiability theorem is cited or proved.
  • ad hoc to paper The sign of the marginal distance covariance statistic relative to a chi-square quantile determines dependence or independence.
    Theorem 4.1 asserts this decision rule without a distributional derivation; it is the key premise for all later claims.
  • ad hoc to paper Equality of Φ(S_i) and Φ(S_i') implies equality of the underlying samples S_i and S_i'.
    Used to prove injectivity in Section 5.1; no argument shows the many sums and products in Eq. (9) preserve this implication.
  • ad hoc to paper The m-connectivity relation captures all causally relevant information about a graph.
    Definition 5.1 introduces m-connectivity and declares graph equivalence based on it, but this notion is not justified against established Markov equivalence or faithfulness.
invented entities (2)
  • m-connectivity set N_G
    purpose: Defines when two causal graphs are equivalent by comparing longest paths between node pairs.
    Introduced only to match the sign structure of the sample mapping matrix; no independent graph-theoretic support.
  • Causal matrix space Y_m with sign equivalence
    purpose: Formalizes the causal relationship encoded by the sign pattern of Φ(S_i).
    The equivalence is defined as equality of sign matrices, which is exactly the criterion the mapping function uses; this makes Theorem 5.1 close to a definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Causal Learning for Heterogeneous Subgroups Based on Nonlinear Causal Kernel Clustering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FIY5MXQR

@misc{pith2026250111622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Causal Learning for Heterogeneous Subgroups Based on Nonlinear Causal Kernel Clustering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FIY5MXQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11622}
}
abstract

Due to the challenge posed by multi-source and heterogeneous data collected from diverse environments, causal relationships among features can exhibit variations influenced by different time spans, regions, or strategies. This diversity makes a single causal model inadequate for accurately representing complex causal relationships in all observational data, a crucial consideration in causal learning. To address this challenge, the nonlinear Causal Kernel Clustering method is introduced for heterogeneous subgroup causal learning, highlighting variations in causal relationships across diverse subgroups. The main component for clustering heterogeneous subgroups lies in the construction of the $u$-centered sample mapping function with the property of unbiased estimation, which assesses the differences in potential nonlinear causal relationships in various samples and supported by causal identifiability theory. Experimental results indicate that the method performs well in identifying heterogeneous subgroups and enhancing causal learning, leading to a reduction in prediction error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11622 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the process of generating multi-source and heterogeneous data from various environments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The operated framework of the method (CKC) which is based on samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The evolution of the standardized YC(y) time series. When it undergoes transitions (passing through red line) and reaches an extreme value (marked by black boxes), there is a possibility of an IOD event in the upcoming year (pointed with the green line). (b) The years predicted by the method are displayed in the circles. Both circles of blue and red represent IOD events among the correctly predicted. The black c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The coefficients β gi of features across heterogeneous subgroups G = {g1 , g2 , . . . , g6 } as learned by the method with K = 6. The features with lower variances of coefficients are more likely causal factors that the models need to prioritize [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    A Distance Covariance-based Kernel for Nonlinear Causal Clustering in Heterogeneous Populations

    Alex Markham, Richeek Das, and Moritz Grosse-Wentrup. A Distance Covariance-based Kernel for Nonlinear Causal Clustering in Heterogeneous Populations. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, volume 177 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 542–558. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Review of Causal Discovery Methods Based on Graphical Models

    Clark Glymour, Kun Zhang, and Peter Spirtes. Review of Causal Discovery Methods Based on Graphical Models. Frontiers in Genetics, 10, 2019. 13 Causal Learning for Heterogeneous Subgroups Based on Nonlinear Causal Kernel Clustering

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Toward Causal Representation Learning

    Bernhard Schölkopf, Francesco Locatello, Stefan Bauer, Nan Rosemary Ke, Nal Kalchbrenner, Anirudh Goyal, and Yoshua Bengio. Toward Causal Representation Learning. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(5):612–634, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Measurement Dependence Inducing Latent Causal Models

    Alex Markham and Moritz Grosse-Wentrup. Measurement Dependence Inducing Latent Causal Models. In Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), pages 590–599. PMLR, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Causal Consistency of Structural Equation Models

    Paul K Rubenstein, Sebastian Weichwald, Stephan Bongers, Joris M Mooij, Dominik Janzing, Moritz Grosse- Wentrup, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Causal Consistency of Structural Equation Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00819, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Local Causal Discovery in Multiple Manipulated Datasets

    Yunxia Wang, Fuyuan Cao, Kui Yu, and Jiye Liang. Local Causal Discovery in Multiple Manipulated Datasets. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 34(10):7235–7247, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Richard Hahn, and Huan Liu

    Ruocheng Guo, Lu Cheng, Jundong Li, P. Richard Hahn, and Huan Liu. A Survey of Learning Causality with Data: Problems and Methods. ACM Comput. Surv., 53(4), jul 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Causal Discovery from Heterogeneous/Nonstationary Data

    Biwei Huang, Kun Zhang, Jiji Zhang, Joseph Ramsey, Ruben Sanchez-Romero, Clark Glymour, and Bernhard Schölkopf. Causal Discovery from Heterogeneous/Nonstationary Data. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(89):1–53, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Bennett, and Malik Magdon-Ismail

    Georgios Mavroudeas, Nafis Neehal, Jason Kuruzovich, Kristin P. Bennett, and Malik Magdon-Ismail. Sub- population Analysis in Causal Inference: A Healthcare Case Study. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 1673–1676, 2022

    2022

  2. [9]

    CCSL: a causal structure learning method from multiple unknown environments

    Wei Chen, Yunjin Wu, Ruichu Cai, Yueguo Chen, and Zhifeng Hao. CCSL: a causal structure learning method from multiple unknown environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09666, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Estimating Heterogeneous Causal Effect of Polysubstance Usage on Drug Overdose from Large-Scale Electronic Health Record

    Vaishali Mahipal and Mohammad Arif Ul Alam. Estimating Heterogeneous Causal Effect of Polysubstance Usage on Drug Overdose from Large-Scale Electronic Health Record. In 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), page...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Integrated Latent Heterogeneity and Invariance Learning in Kernel Space

    Jiashuo Liu, Zheyuan Hu, Peng Cui, Bo Li, and Zheyan Shen. Integrated Latent Heterogeneity and Invariance Learning in Kernel Space. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 21720–21731. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

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

    Sindy Löwe, David Madras, Richard Zemel, and Max Welling. Amortized Causal Discovery: Learning to Infer Causal Graphs from Time-Series Data. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, volume 177 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Causal Structure Learning for Latent Intervened Non-stationary Data

    Chenxi Liu and Kun Kuang. Causal Structure Learning for Latent Intervened Non-stationary Data. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 21756–21777. PMLR, 23–29 Jul 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Causal Inference and Mechanism Clustering of A Mixture of Additive Noise Models

    Shoubo Hu, Zhitang Chen, Vahid Partovi Nia, Laiwan CHAN, and Yanhui Geng. Causal Inference and Mechanism Clustering of A Mixture of Additive Noise Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Multi-label causal variable discovery: Learning common causal variables and label-specific causal variables

    Xingyu Wu, Bingbing Jiang, Yan Zhong, and Huanhuan Chen. Multi-label causal variable discovery: Learning common causal variables and label-specific causal variables. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04176, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Causal Temporal Regime Structure Learning

    Abdellah Rahmani and Pascal Frossard. Causal Temporal Regime Structure Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01412, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    V owels, Necati Cihan Camgoz, and Richard Bowden

    Matthew J. V owels, Necati Cihan Camgoz, and Richard Bowden. D’ya Like DAGs? A Survey on Structure Learning and Causal Discovery. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(4), November 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Székely and Maria L

    Gábor J. Székely and Maria L. Rizzo. Partial distance correlation with methods for dissimilarities. The Annals of Statistics, 42(6):2382 – 2412, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Causal inference and the data-fusion problem

    Elias Bareinboim and Judea Pearl. Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27):7345–7352, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    MetaCI: Meta-learning for causal inference in a heterogeneous population

    Ankit Sharma, Garima Gupta, Ranjitha Prasad, Arnab Chatterjee, Lovekesh Vig, and Gautam Shroff. MetaCI: Meta-learning for causal inference in a heterogeneous population. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.03960, 2019

    1912 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Alaa and Mihaela van der Schaar

    Ahmed M. Alaa and Mihaela van der Schaar. Bayesian Inference of Individualized Treatment Effects using Multi-task Gaussian Processes. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. 14 Causal Learning for Heterogeneous Subgroups...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Masked gradient-based causal structure learning

    Ignavier Ng, Shengyu Zhu, Zhuangyan Fang, Haoyang Li, Zhitang Chen, and Jun Wang. Masked gradient-based causal structure learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM), pages 424–432. SIAM, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Statistical Dependence: Beyond Pearson’s ρ

    Dag Tjøstheim, Håkon Otneim, and Bård Støve. Statistical Dependence: Beyond Pearson’s ρ. Statistical Science, 37(1):90–109, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Testing Mutual Independence in High Dimension via Distance Covariance

    Shun Yao, Xianyang Zhang, and Xiaofeng Shao. Testing Mutual Independence in High Dimension via Distance Covariance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 80(3):455–480, 10 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Discussion of: Brownian distance covariance

    Arthur Gretton, Kenji Fukumizu, and Bharath K Sriperumbudur. Discussion of: Brownian distance covariance. The annals of applied statistics, 3(4):1285–1294, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    The Chi-square test of independence

    Mary L McHugh. The Chi-square test of independence. Biochemia Medica, 23(2):143–149, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Seven proofs of the Pearson Chi-squared independence test and its graphical interpretation

    Eric Benhamou and Valentin Melot. Seven proofs of the Pearson Chi-squared independence test and its graphical interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09171, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    V ogelstein

    Sambit Panda Cencheng Shen and Joshua T. V ogelstein. The Chi-Square Test of Distance Correlation.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 31(1):254–262, 2022. PMID: 35707063

    2022

  22. [30]

    Spearman’s correlation coefficient in statistical analysis

    Khawla Ali Abd Al-Hameed. Spearman’s correlation coefficient in statistical analysis. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, 13(1):3249–3255, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    A new framework for distance and kernel-based metrics in high dimensions

    Shubhadeep Chakraborty and Xianyang Zhang. A new framework for distance and kernel-based metrics in high dimensions. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 15(2):5455 – 5522, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Identification of Linear Non-Gaussian Latent Hierarchical Structure

    Feng Xie, Biwei Huang, Zhengming Chen, Yangbo He, Zhi Geng, and Kun Zhang. Identification of Linear Non-Gaussian Latent Hierarchical Structure. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, page...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Identification of Partially Observed Linear Causal Models: Graphical Conditions for the Non-Gaussian and Heterogeneous Cases

    Jeffrey Adams, Niels Hansen, and Kun Zhang. Identification of Partially Observed Linear Causal Models: Graphical Conditions for the Non-Gaussian and Heterogeneous Cases. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 22822–22833. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests

    Amy Nowacki. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. Cleve Clin J Med, 84(9 suppl 2):e20–5, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Applying Chi-Square Test In Measuring The Significance Of The Occurrence Of French Synonym In Corpus Data

    Weddha Savitri, Ni Luh Sutjiati Beratha, I Nengah Sudipa, and I Made Rajeg. Applying Chi-Square Test In Measuring The Significance Of The Occurrence Of French Synonym In Corpus Data. International Journal of Linguistics and Discourse Analytics, 6(1):13–21, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Causal inference of gene expression data using a clustering-based extension of Kernel-Granger causality

    Fateme Nateghi Haredasht, Farnaz Ghassemi, and Mohammad Hassan Moradi. Causal inference of gene expression data using a clustering-based extension of Kernel-Granger causality. In 2016 23rd Iranian Conference on Biomedical Engineering and 2016 1st International Iranian Conferen...

    2016

  29. [37]

    High-dimensional joint estimation of multiple directed Gaussian graphical models

    Yuhao Wang, Santiago Segarra, and Caroline Uhler. High-dimensional joint estimation of multiple directed Gaussian graphical models. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 14(1):2439 – 2483, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Deep Stable Learning for Out-of-Distribution Generalization

    Xingxuan Zhang, Peng Cui, Renzhe Xu, Linjun Zhou, Yue He, and Zheyan Shen. Deep Stable Learning for Out-of-Distribution Generalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5372–5382, June 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Multi-Granularity Causal Structure Learning

    Jiaxuan Liang, Jun Wang, Guoxian Yu, Shuyin Xia, and Guoyin Wang. Multi-Granularity Causal Structure Learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(12):13727–13735, Mar. 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Abstract algebra: theory and applications

    Thomas W Judson. Abstract algebra: theory and applications. 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Continuous mappings in soft lattice topological spaces

    Sandhya S Pai and Thankanchan Baiju. Continuous mappings in soft lattice topological spaces. Italian J. Pure Appl. Math.(Communicated), 48:937–949, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Bijective digitized rigid motions on subsets of the plane

    Kacper Pluta, Pascal Romon, Yukiko Kenmochi, and Nicolas Passat. Bijective digitized rigid motions on subsets of the plane. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 59:84–105, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Locally constrained graph homomorphisms—structure, complexity, and applications

    Jiˇrí Fiala and Jan Kratochvíl. Locally constrained graph homomorphisms—structure, complexity, and applications. Computer Science Review, 2(2):97–111, 2008

    2008

  36. [44]

    Faster Isomorphism for p-Groups of Class 2 and Exponent p

    Xiaorui Sun. Faster Isomorphism for p-Groups of Class 2 and Exponent p. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2023, page 433–440, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. 15 Causal Learning for Heterogeneous Subgroup...

    2023

  37. [45]

    A Transformational Characterization of Unconditionally Equivalent Bayesian Networks

    Alex Markham, Danai Deligeorgaki, Pratik Misra, and Liam Solus. A Transformational Characterization of Unconditionally Equivalent Bayesian Networks. In Proceedings of The 11th International Conference on Probabilistic Graphical Models, pages 109–120. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  38. [46]

    Causal Adjacency Learning for Spatiotemporal Prediction Over Graphs

    Zhaobin Mo, Qingyuan Liu, Baohua Yan, Longxiang Zhang, and Xuan Di. Causal Adjacency Learning for Spatiotemporal Prediction Over Graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16142, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bogachev, and Juergen Kurths

    Zhenghui Lu, Wenjie Dong, Bo Lu, Naiming Yuan, Zhuguo Ma, Mikhail I. Bogachev, and Juergen Kurths. Early warning of the Indian Ocean Dipole using climate network analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(11):e2109089119, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    Sinaga and Miin-Shen Yang

    Kristina P. Sinaga and Miin-Shen Yang. Unsupervised K-Means Clustering Algorithm. IEEE Access, 8:80716– 80727, 2020

    2020

  41. [49]

    New Hermite orthogonal polynomial kernel and combined kernels in Support Vector Machine classifier

    Vahid Hooshmand Moghaddam and Javad Hamidzadeh. New Hermite orthogonal polynomial kernel and combined kernels in Support Vector Machine classifier. Pattern Recognition, 60:921–935, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Radial basis function approximations: comparison and applications

    Zuzana Majdisova and Vaclav Skala. Radial basis function approximations: comparison and applications. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 51:728–743, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Lipsky and Sander Greenland

    Ari M. Lipsky and Sander Greenland. Causal Directed Acyclic Graphs. JAMA, 327(11):1083–1084, 03 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Di Capua, J

    G. Di Capua, J. Runge, R. V . Donner, B. van den Hurk, A. G. Turner, R. Vellore, R. Krishnan, and D. Coumou. Dominant patterns of interaction between the tropics and mid-latitudes in boreal summer: causal relationships and the role of timescales. Weather and Climate Dynamics, ...

    2020

  45. [53]

    V . Vapnik. Principles of Risk Minimization for Learning Theory. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 4. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1991

    1991

  46. [54]

    Stable Prediction with Model Misspecification and Agnostic Distribution Shift

    Kun Kuang, Ruoxuan Xiong, Peng Cui, Susan Athey, and Bo Li. Stable Prediction with Model Misspecification and Agnostic Distribution Shift. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(04):4485–4492, Apr. 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Stable Learning via Sample Reweighting

    Zheyan Shen, Peng Cui, Tong Zhang, and Kun Kunag. Stable Learning via Sample Reweighting. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(04):5692–5699, Apr. 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Stable Learning via Sparse Variable Independence

    Han Yu, Peng Cui, Yue He, Zheyan Shen, Yong Lin, Renzhe Xu, and Xingxuan Zhang. Stable Learning via Sparse Variable Independence. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 37(9):10998–11006, Jun. 2023. 16

    2023

Pith tools

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