Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Ladder of Causal Distances

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 2005.02480 v2 pith:6CPM42YR submitted 2020-05-05 cs.AI cs.LGstat.ML

classification cs.AIcs.LGstat.ML
keywords causalmodelsdistancesdiscoveryladderavailabledatasetsgraphical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Causal discovery, the task of automatically constructing a causal model from data, is of major significance across the sciences. Evaluating the performance of causal discovery algorithms should ideally involve comparing the inferred models to ground-truth models available for benchmark datasets, which in turn requires a notion of distance between causal models. While such distances have been proposed previously, they are limited by focusing on graphical properties of the causal models being compared. Here, we overcome this limitation by defining distances derived from the causal distributions induced by the models, rather than exclusively from their graphical structure. Pearl and Mackenzie (2018) have arranged the properties of causal models in a hierarchy called the "ladder of causation" spanning three rungs: observational, interventional, and counterfactual. Following this organization, we introduce a hierarchy of three distances, one for each rung of the ladder. Our definitions are intuitively appealing as well as efficient to compute approximately. We put our causal distances to use by benchmarking standard causal discovery systems on both synthetic and real-world datasets for which ground-truth causal models are available. Finally, we highlight the usefulness of our causal distances by briefly discussing further applications beyond the evaluation of causal discovery techniques.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. FactoryBench: Evaluating Industrial Machine Understanding

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    FactoryBench reveals that frontier LLMs achieve under 50% on structured causal questions and under 18% on decision-making in industrial robotic telemetry.

  2. Validating Causal Abstraction Metrics on Simulated Complex Systems

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Authors create a benchmark across discrete/continuous and static/dynamical systems and introduce the Causal Abstraction Error (CAE) metric that reliably distinguishes valid from invalid causal abstractions when it inc...

Pith tools