REVIEW 1 cited by
dotears: Scalable, consistent DAG estimation using observational and interventional data
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
Signed reviews
abstract
New biological assays like Perturb-seq link highly parallel CRISPR interventions to a high-dimensional transcriptomic readout, providing insight into gene regulatory networks. Causal gene regulatory networks can be represented by directed acyclic graph (DAGs), but learning DAGs from observational data is complicated by lack of identifiability and a combinatorial solution space. Score-based structure learning improves practical scalability of inferring DAGs. Previous score-based methods are sensitive to error variance structure; on the other hand, estimation of error variance is difficult without prior knowledge of structure. Accordingly, we present $\texttt{dotears}$ [doo-tairs], a continuous optimization framework which leverages observational and interventional data to infer a single causal structure, assuming a linear Structural Equation Model (SEM). $\texttt{dotears}$ exploits structural consequences of hard interventions to give a marginal estimate of exogenous error structure, bypassing the circular estimation problem. We show that $\texttt{dotears}$ is a provably consistent estimator of the true DAG under mild assumptions. $\texttt{dotears}$ outperforms other methods in varied simulations, and in real data infers edges that validate with higher precision and recall than state-of-the-art methods through differential expression tests and high-confidence protein-protein interactions.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Landscape of Causal Discovery Data: Grounding Causal Discovery in Real-World Applications
A systematic review showing causal discovery evaluation is still dominated by small, low-diversity datasets and structural metrics, with a curated set of realistic alternatives.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.