Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Toward a Causal Data Management Ecosystem for Decision Making and Agentic AI

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Modern AI ecosystems need a shared, queryable causal layer — the Causal World System — to make decisions and agent actions trustworthy.

desk verdict A credible vision paper that lifts GAV/LAV data integration into a mediated causal schema; its central multi-level consistency guarantee, however, rests on an unproven tau-abstraction assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07214 v1 pith:CAKPBJDJ submitted 2026-08-07 cs.DB cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY

Dazhuo Qiu , Yingli Zhou , Amedeo Pachera , Angela Bonifati , Andrea Mauri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBcs.AIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords causalworldsystemdataintegrationstructuralmodelabstractioncounterfactualreasoningagenticAImulti-levelinferencecausality-poweredtraining
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

This paper argues that modern AI is an ecosystem of models and agents exchanging outputs, and that correlational data integration alone cannot support trustworthy decisions: the ecosystem needs a first-class causal layer. It proposes building that layer as a Causal World System (CWS): a persistent, explicit, queryable causal graph over named variables, assembled from local views of heterogeneous sources the way data integration builds a mediated schema. If the paper is right, the same white-box causal structure would serve human prescriptive queries, agent counterfactual deliberation, and sample-efficient multi-level training, turning causal knowledge into shared infrastructure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Causal World System (CWS), an explicit white-box causal DAG over named ecosystem variables, assembled through a mediated causal schema. Two mechanisms carry the argument: lifting GAV/LAV view-rewriting from data integration to causal structure (local views, a mediator, a global SCM), and causal abstraction via tau-abstractions, which guarantees that coarse-grained queries answered by marginalizing over the global model agree with fine-grained mechanism-level answers. The first makes causal structure a managed, queryable artifact; the second lets one substrate serve operators, teams, and agents simultaneously.

What would settle it

Build two sources (say, transactional sales logs and free-text support tickets) that describe the same causal story but disagree on one edge's direction after variable alignment; then compute an interventional estimate at the global coarse level and at the fine mechanism level. If the estimates diverge beyond what the stated tau-abstraction guarantee allows, the central consistency claim is falsified. A sharper version is to exhibit a query whose global-level answer, obtained by marginalizing over the mediated SCM, differs from the answer of the fine-grained model, contradicting the claimed agreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that causal knowledge should be treated as shared, persistent ecosystem infrastructure rather than as a latent model or an application-specific add-on. Concretely it defines the CWS as a structural causal model whose variables are the organization's meaningful quantities, whose edges carry provenance, and which is built by lifting the classical GAV/LAV data-integration duality to causality: sources publish local causal views, a mediator reconciles them into a global structural causal model, and causal queries are rewritten over the views. A defining commitment is that the structure is white-box — an explicit, inspectable causal DAG — so every answer comes with the mechanisms and assumptions it rests on. The paper further claims that causal abstraction (tau-abstractions) makes coarse and fine views mutually consistent, enabling multi-level inference and multi-level training on one substrate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the coarse and fine causal views remain tau-abstractions of one another after integration across many heterogeneous, independently governed sources — an assumption the paper cites from existing theory but does not establish for the ecosystem setting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Human decision-makers get actionable answers like 'raising the price by 5% will raise tickets by 12% and churn by 3%' rather than bare forecasts.
  • Autonomous agents can simulate the interventional distribution of candidate actions and compare counterfactual outcomes before acting, converting prediction into deliberation.
  • Models can condition training and fine-tuning on causal structure, suppressing spurious shortcuts, improving robustness under distribution shift, and reducing the sample budget.
  • The same substrate answers queries at local, subsystem, and global altitudes, with a consistency guarantee from causal abstraction and an audit trail for every estimate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete next test would be to instantiate the mediator on a small enterprise benchmark — sales, support tickets, and an A/B test — and check whether coarse-grained effect estimates from the integrated DAG match fine-grained graph estimates; the paper leaves this as future work.
  • The white-box commitment suggests a governance benefit not spelled out: every query answer could double as a certificate stating the identification assumptions, making causal estimates auditable and contestable.
  • Because the CWS is an explicit graph, its maintenance cost under source drift could be compared against retraining latent world models; the paper hints at incremental revalidation but does not quantify the trade-off.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 argues that modern AI deployments form an ecosystem of heterogeneous models, retrieval pipelines, and agents whose integration is a data-management problem, and that this ecosystem currently lacks an explicit causal layer. It proposes a Causal World System (CWS): a persistent, white-box, queryable structural causal model over named ecosystem variables, assembled from local views through a data-integration mediator, and supporting causal discovery, inference, counterfactual reasoning, provenance tracking, and multi-level querying. The paper identifies three classes of consumers—humans asking analytical/prescriptive/causal queries, agents performing counterfactual deliberation, and ML models trained with causal inductive biases—and claims that τ-abstraction between coarse and fine views guarantees consistency of answers across levels. It concludes with five research challenges (C1–C5) and positions the proposal as a grand challenge spanning databases, learning, and AI safety.

Significance. If the agenda is realized, it would be a valuable step: it reframes causality as shared infrastructure rather than per-model machinery, connects causal reasoning to established data-integration concepts (LAV/GAV, view-based query rewriting), and makes a concrete commitment to white-box, provenance-carrying causal graphs. The paper's strengths are its clear problem framing, its mapping of causal abstraction onto multi-level queries, and its honest enumeration of open problems. However, because it is a vision paper with no formal model, implementation, or experiments, the load-bearing technical assertions—above all the τ-consistency guarantee in Section 3—must be stated with their exact conditions. The paper currently overstates that guarantee, and the lack of a formal view/query semantics makes the proposal harder to evaluate. These issues are fixable in revision, and the overall direction remains worth pursuing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, 'Multi-level inference'] The central consistency guarantee is asserted rather than derived. The paper states that coarse and fine views are τ-abstractions of one another, so a coarse query is answered by marginalizing over mechanisms it does not depend on, 'with a guarantee that the answer agrees with the fine-grained model.' The cited results [7,31], however, concern two fixed SCMs where the coarse model is a known function of the fine one, whereas the CWS must construct a global SCM by merging partial, possibly conflicting local views. The paper itself lists this merging as open in C1 ('how to merge partial, possibly conflicting local causal views into a sound global one'). If two local views are not τ-consistent (e.g., one contains a hidden confounder or edge orientation is ambiguous), no global SCM can be τ-consistent with both, and the stated guarantee does not follow. Because this guarantee is load-bearing for multi-level queries, agent counterfactual deliberation, and multi-level training, the paper should either demote it to an explicit assumption/requirement or provide conditions under which the mediator's merging procedure provably preserves τ-consistency.
  2. [§3, 'The global view and the mediator'] The paper never defines what a 'view' is formally in the causal setting. In classical data integration, a view is a schema mapping with precise semantics, and query answering using views has known algorithms and complexity; here, 'view' is defined only as 'an abstraction that re-presents heterogeneous sources' and a local view is described as a list of variables, timestamps, and assumptions. This leaves open the central question of how a mediated global SCM is constructed from local SCM fragments and how do(·) and counterfactual queries over the global view are rewritten into queries over local views. Without such a formalization, the core proposal remains an analogy rather than a system design, and it is impossible to verify the claimed preservation of identifiability, provenance, and abstraction across the view hierarchy.
  3. [§3, 'Multi-level, sample-efficient training'] The sample-efficiency and compute-reduction benefits of sharing the global causal skeleton as a regularizer across local, subsystem, and global models are presented as established consequences, but the cited references [24,32] support causality as an inductive bias in single-model settings, not the specific multi-level sharing scheme proposed here. In particular, the paper does not explain what happens when models trained at different levels inherit inconsistent constraints, or how certified mechanisms transfer across levels without re-validation. These claims should be rephrased as research hypotheses or accompanied by a concrete mechanism (e.g., invariance constraints applied per level) and conditions under which the claimed gains hold.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, 'Causal World System'] The acronym CWM is introduced in the sentence 'The CWM is the causal object; the CWS is the system that builds, maintains, and serves it,' but the abstract and introduction define only CWS. Please clarify whether CWM is a new term or a typo, and use the terminology consistently throughout.
  2. [References] References [13] and [14] are the same Halevy survey, and references [18] and [24] are the same paper with different author lists. Please consolidate the duplicates.
  3. [§2, examples] Several sentences have malformed punctuation and quotation marks, e.g., '“how did churn evolve last quarter?”' and 'Instead of support tickets will rise next week, ” it answers...'; also, 'What I would have done' should be 'What would I have done.' A careful copyedit is needed.
  4. [§1, paragraph 3] The sentence 'models may conflate correlation with [28, 32]' is missing the object after 'with' (presumably 'with causation').
  5. [§3, 'Multi-level inference'] The phrase 'thesameCWS' is missing a space, and the notion of granularity could be made more precise; for instance, the paper could define whether coarser views are formed by clustering variables, by abstracting mechanisms, or by marginalizing over latent variables.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the multi-level guarantee relies on external abstraction results and is explicitly deferred as open in C1; the only self-citation is non-load-bearing. The paper is a research proposal, not a derivation chain that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a vision/position proposal with no derived equations, fitted parameters, or uniqueness theorems, so the main circularity patterns do not apply. Section 3's load-bearing multi-level inference claim—that coarse and fine views are tau-abstractions of one another, so a coarse query agrees with the fine-grained model—is explicitly attributed to external prior work ([7] Beckers & Halpern; [31] Rubenstein et al.), not to the present authors, and the manuscript itself flags the ecosystem-scale extension as open in C1 ('how to merge partial, possibly conflicting local causal views into a sound global one') and in C3. This is an unproven condition and a legitimate correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the cited abstraction results are independent mathematical facts whose stated assumptions do not include the ecosystem-scale conclusion. The only self-citation is [27] ('What If: Causal Analysis with Graph Databases', by Pachera, Bonifati, and Mauri), used in Section 4 C2 as an analogy for view maintenance over causal mechanisms; it is illustrative rather than load-bearing, and removing it would not change the argument. No step in the paper is self-definitional, no fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The proposal therefore has no significant circularity; the central claim stands or falls on external results and on future work that the authors candidly identify as open.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The proposal rests on five unproven assumptions: white-box SCM over ecosystem variables is feasible; local views can be merged into a sound global SCM; tau-abstraction consistency holds across dynamically integrated views; causal discovery and inference methods scale to the ecosystem; and causal structure improves learning as promised. No free parameters are fitted because there is no data or derivation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Causal structure over ecosystem variables can be represented as an explicit white-box SCM/DAG with named variables.
    The whole CWS rests on this. Section 2 states the CWS is composed of a structural causal model whose variables are the meaningful quantities of the organization, and Section 3 commits to a white-box causal DAG.
  • domain assumption Local causal views over heterogeneous sources can be merged into a global SCM via data-integration style GAV/LAV mappings while preserving identifiability.
    Section 3 proposes lifting the GAV/LAV duality to causal structure and lists it as open challenge C1. The feasibility of sound merging is assumed, not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Tau-abstraction consistency holds between coarse and fine causal views at ecosystem scale.
    Section 3 invokes causal abstraction from the literature and asserts a guarantee that a coarse query agrees with the fine-grained model. This is load-bearing for multi-level inference and is not proven for dynamic multimodal settings.
  • domain assumption Causal discovery and inference methods such as PC, GES, FCI, NOTEARS, and do-calculus can be scaled and composed to operate over hundreds of evolving sources.
    Section 3 lists these methods as available machinery, while challenge C1 admits the scalability question is open. The paper assumes these methods remain sound when applied to the integrated ecosystem.
  • domain assumption Integrating causal structure into model training improves sample efficiency, robustness, and generalization as claimed.
    Section 3 states that causal structure is a powerful inductive bias and cites prior work. The multi-level training claims extrapolate these benefits to the full CWS hierarchy without new evidence.
invented entities (2)
  • Causal World System (CWS)
    purpose: A shared, persistent, queryable causal substrate that overlays the data and AI ecosystem and serves humans, models, and agents.
    No prototype, implementation, or falsifiable handle is provided; the CWS exists only as an architecture proposal (Figure 1).
  • Causal World Model (CWM)
    purpose: The explicit causal object that the CWS builds, maintains, and serves over named ecosystem variables.
    Defined in Section 3 as the causal DAG with mechanisms, but no instantiation or empirical validation is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward a Causal Data Management Ecosystem for Decision Making and Agentic AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CAKPBJDJ

@misc{pith2026260807214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward a Causal Data Management Ecosystem for Decision Making and Agentic AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CAKPBJDJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07214}
}
read the original abstract

Modern AI is no longer a single model but an ecosystem: classical ML predictors, deep and multimodal models, large language models, and agents, each trained and tuned over different data sources and each producing outputs at scale that become inputs to the others. Operating such an ecosystem is fundamentally a data integration problem - the knowledge it depends on is fragmented across dozens of heterogeneous, independently governed sources that must be reconciled and continually maintained. Yet integration alone is not enough. The predictions these systems make are shaped by many interacting factors, and the events, decisions, and variables that drive an outcome are routinely entangled with the ones that merely accompany it; treated as a basis for action, such correlational signals invite confounded decisions. This becomes acute once agents act autonomously: to be trustworthy and reliable, an agent must anticipate the consequences of its actions, not merely extrapolate from what has co-occurred before. Causal reasoning is what closes this gap, distinguishing the drivers of an outcome from its correlates, and enabling prescriptive and counterfactual analysis over the ecosystem's data. We therefore argue that the integrated ecosystem needs an explicit causal layer, and we propose to build it as a shared, persistent, queryable Causal World System (CWS).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07214 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Causal World System Overview This proposal builds on, but differs from, several related threads. Causal machine learning formalizes data generation as structural causal models and studies interventions and counterfactuals across supervised, generative, and reinforcement-learning settings [20, 28]; recent surveys document how causal structure can improve ro￾bustness and interpretability over purely correlation-based … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Alon Y. Halevy. 2001. Answering Queries Using Views: A Survey.The VLDB Journal10, 4 (2001), 270–294

    work page 2001

  2. [14]

    Alon Y. Halevy. 2001. Answering Queries Using Views: A Survey.The VLDB Journal10, 4 (2001), 270–294. doi:10.1007/s007780100054

    doi:10.1007/s007780100054 2001

  3. [27]

    Amedeo Pachera, Mattia Palmiotto, Angela Bonifati, and Andrea Mauri. 2025. What If: Causal Analysis with Graph Databases.Proc. VLDB Endow.18, 11 (July 2025), 4009–4016. doi:10.14778/3749646.3749671

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [1]

    Martin Arjovsky, Léon Bottou, Ishaan Gulrajani, and David Lopez-Paz. 2019. Invariant Risk Minimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02893(2019)

    arXiv 2019

  5. [2]

    Mido Assran, Adrien Bardes, David Fan, Quentin Garrido, Russell Howes, Matthew Muckley, Ammar Rizvi, Claire Roberts, Koustuv Sinha, Artem Zho- lus, et al. 2025. V-jepa 2: Self-supervised video models enable understanding, prediction and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09985(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [3]

    Mahmoud Assran, Quentin Duval, Ishan Misra, Piotr Bojanowski, Pascal Vincent, Michael Rabbat, Yann LeCun, and Nicolas Ballas. 2023. Self-Supervised Learning from Images with a Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture.Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)(2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [4]

    Mahmoud Assran, Quentin Duval, Ishan Misra, Piotr Bojanowski, Pascal Vincent, Michael Rabbat, Yann LeCun, and Nicolas Ballas. 2023. Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 15619–15629

    2023

  8. [5]

    Adrien Bardes, Jean Ponce, and Yann LeCun. 2023. MC-JEPA: A Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture for Self-Supervised Learning of Motion and Content Features.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.12698(2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [6]

    Elias Bareinboim and Judea Pearl. 2016. Causal Inference and the Data-Fusion Problem.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)113, 27 (2016), 7345–7352

    2016

  2. [7]

    Sander Beckers and Joseph Y. Halpern. 2019. Abstracting Causal Models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2019

  3. [8]

    Delong Chen, Mustafa Shukor, Theo Moutakanni, Willy Chung, Tejaswi Kasarla, Yejin Bang, Allen Bolourchi, Yann LeCun, and Pascale Fung. 2025. VL-JEPA: Joint Embedding Predictive Architecture for Vision-Language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.10942(2025)

    2025

  4. [9]

    Xia Chen, Ruiji Sun, Ueli Saluz, Stefano Schiavon, and Philipp Geyer. 2024. Using causal inference to avoid fallouts in data-driven parametric analysis: A case study in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry.Developments in the Built Environment17 (2024), 100296

    2024

  5. [10]

    David Maxwell Chickering. 2002. Optimal Structure Identification With Greedy Search.Journal of Machine Learning Research3 (2002), 507–554

    2002

  6. [11]

    Atticus Geiger, Zhengxuan Wu, Hanson Lu, Josh Rozner, Elisa Kreiss, Thomas Icard, Noah Goodman, and Christopher Potts. 2022. Inducing causal structure for interpretable neural networks. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 7324–7338

    2022

  7. [12]

    Ashish Gupta, Inderpal Singh Mumick, and V. S. Subrahmanian. 1993. Maintaining views incrementally.SIGMOD Rec.22, 2 (June 1993), 157–166. doi:10.1145/170036. 170066

    1993 doi

  8. [15]

    Soonbo Han and Zachary G. Ives. 2024. Implementation Strategies for Views over Property Graphs.Proc. ACM Manag. Data2, 3, Article 146 (May 2024), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3654949

    2024 doi

  9. [16]

    Soonbo Han and Zachary G. Ives. 2025. Implementing Views for Property Graphs. SIGMOD Record54, 1 (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    Kaplan, Matteo Matteucci, Supriyo Chakraborty, and Irina Rish

    Prateek Humane, Paolo Cudrano, Daniel Z. Kaplan, Matteo Matteucci, Supriyo Chakraborty, and Irina Rish. 2025. Influence Functions for Efficient Data Selection in Reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06108(2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    Licheng Jiao, Yuhan Wang, Xu Liu, Lingling Li, Fang Liu, Wenping Ma, Yuwei Guo, Puhua Chen, Shuyuan Yang, and Biao Hou. 2024. Causal inference meets deep learning: A comprehensive survey.Research7 (2024), 0467

    2024

  12. [19]

    Jean Kaddour, Aengus Lynch, Qi Liu, Matt J Kusner, and Silva Ricardo. 2025. Causal machine learning: A survey and open problems.Foundations and Trends in Optimization9, 1-2 (2025), 1–247

    2025

  13. [20]

    Kusner, and Ricardo Silva

    Jean Kaddour, Aengus Lynch, Qi Liu, Matt J. Kusner, and Ricardo Silva. 2022. Causal Machine Learning: A Survey and Open Problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15475(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Murat Kocaoglu, Christopher Snyder, Alexandros G Dimakis, and Sriram Vish- wanath. 2018. CausalGAN: Learning Causal Implicit Generative Models with Adversarial Training. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2018

  15. [22]

    2022.A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence

    Yann LeCun. 2022.A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence. Technical Report. OpenReview. Position paper, version 0.9.2

    2022

  16. [23]

    Maurizio Lenzerini. 2002. Data Integration: A Theoretical Perspective. InPro- ceedings of the 21st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS). 233–246

    2002

  17. [24]

    Licheng Li et al. 2024. Causal Inference Meets Deep Learning: A Comprehensive Survey.Research7 (2024), 0467. doi:10.34133/research.0467

    2024 doi

  18. [25]

    Amin Mansouri, Jason Hartford, Yan Zhang, and Yoshua Bengio. 2024. Object cen- tric architectures enable efficient causal representation learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, Vol. 2024. 830–853

    2024

  19. [26]

    Heejeong Nam, Quentin Le Lidec, Lucas Maes, Yann LeCun, and Randall Balestriero. 2026. Causal-JEPA: Learning World Models through Object-Level Latent Masking. InProceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). arXiv:2602.11389

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2009.Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference(2nd ed.)

    Judea Pearl. 2009.Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press

    2009

  21. [29]

    Jonas Peters, Peter Bühlmann, and Nicolai Meinshausen. 2016. Causal Inference by Using Invariant Prediction: Identification and Confidence Intervals.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)78, 5 (2016), 947–1012. doi:10.1111/rssb.12167

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    Thomas Richardson and Peter Spirtes. 2002. Ancestral Graph Markov Models. The Annals of Statistics30, 4 (2002), 962–1030

    2002

  23. [31]

    Rubenstein, Sebastian Weichwald, Stephan Bongers, Joris M

    Paul K. Rubenstein, Sebastian Weichwald, Stephan Bongers, Joris M. Mooij, Dominik Janzing, Moritz Grosse-Wentrup, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2017. Causal Consistency of Structural Equation Models. InProceedings of the 33rd Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence

    2017

  24. [32]

    Bernhard Schölkopf, Francesco Locatello, Stefan Bauer, Nan Rosemary Ke, Nal Kalchbrenner, Anirudh Goyal, and Yoshua Bengio. 2021. Toward Causal Repre- sentation Learning.Proc. IEEE109, 5 (2021), 612–634

    2021

  25. [33]

    Ilya Shpitser and Judea Pearl. 2008. Complete Identification Methods for the Causal Hierarchy.Journal of Machine Learning Research9 (2008), 1941–1979

    2008

  26. [34]

    2000.Causation, Prediction, and Search(2nd ed.)

    Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, and Richard Scheines. 2000.Causation, Prediction, and Search(2nd ed.). MIT Press

    2000

  27. [35]

    Sandeep Yaramakala and Dimitris Margaritis. 2005. Speculative Markov blanket discovery for optimal feature selection. InFifth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM’05). IEEE, 4–pp

    2005

  28. [36]

    Anna Zeng, Michael Cafarella, Batya Kenig, Markos Markakis, Brit Youngmann, and Babak Salimi. 2025. Causal DAG Summarization.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment18, 6 (2025), 1933–1947

    2025

  29. [37]

    Yin Zhang, Yongqiang Zhang, Yaoyue Zheng, Bogdan Raducanu, and Dan Liu

  30. [38]

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

    2018

  31. [39]

    Zhuge and H

    Y. Zhuge and H. Garcia-Molina. 1998. Graph structured views and their incremen- tal maintenance. InProceedings 14th International Conference on Data Engineering. 116–125. doi:10.1109/ICDE.1998.655767

    1998

  32. [2026]

    InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol

    Causal-tune: mining causal factors from vision foundation models for domain generalized semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 40. 12916–12924

Pith tools

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