REVIEW 2 cited by
Position: The Causal Revolution Needs Scientific Pragmatism
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
read the original abstract
Causal models and methods have great promise, but their progress has been stalled. Proposals using causality get squeezed between two opposing worldviews. Scientific perfectionism--an insistence on only using "correct" models--slows the adoption of causal methods in knowledge generating applications. Pushing in the opposite direction, the academic discipline of computer science prefers algorithms with no or few assumptions, and technologies based on automation and scalability are often selected for economic and business applications. We argue that these system-centric inductive biases should be replaced with a human-centric philosophy we refer to as scientific pragmatism. The machine learning community must strike the right balance to make space for the causal revolution to prosper.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Training Large Language Models for Self-Explanation Faithfulness
RL fine-tuning with a counterfactual mention/influence reward raises LLM self-explanation faithfulness (Phi-CCT) from near zero to ~0.66 in-distribution for two 8B models, with partial transfer to held-out tasks.
-
Rethinking Spatio-Temporal Anomaly Detection: A Vision for Causality-Driven Cybersecurity
The paper is a position piece advocating causal graph learning as the basis for interpretable, drift-robust anomaly detection in cyber-physical systems, with a small comparison table as supporting evidence.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.