aiqbench analysis
This research introduces a novel validation technique for causal discovery algorithms by utilizing leave-one-out datasets to estimate dependencies without requiring direct joint observations of the target variables. By correlating prediction errors with algorithmic accuracy, the method offers a robust framework for falsifying causal models in scenarios lacking ground truth data. This advancement addresses critical reliability concerns in machine learning applications where establishing true causal relationships is essential but difficult.
Cross-validating causal discovery via Leave-One-Variable-Out
arXiv:2411.05625v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We propose a new approach to falsify causal discovery algorithms without ground truth, which is based on testing the causal model on a variable pair excluded during learning the causal model. Specifically, given data on $X, Y, \boldsymbol{Z}=X, Y, Z_1,\dots,Z_k$, we apply the causal discovery algorithm separately to the 'leave-one-out' data sets $X, \boldsymbol{Z}$ and $Y, \boldsymbol{Z}$. We demonstrate that the two resulting causal models, in the form DAGs, ADMGs, CPDAGs or PAGs, often entail conclusions on the dependencies between $X$ and $Y$ and allow to estimate $\mathbb{E}(Y\mid X=x)$ without any joint observations of $X$ and $Y$, given only the leave-one-out datasets. This estimation is called "Leave-One-Variable-Out (LOVO)" prediction. Its error can be estimated since the joint distribution $P(X, Y)$ is available, and $X$ and $Y$ have only been omitted for the purpose of falsification. We present two variants of LOVO prediction: One graphical method, which is applicable to general causal discovery algorithms, and one version tailored towards algorithms relying on specific a priori assumptions, such as linear additive noise models. Simulations indicate that the LOVO prediction error is indeed correlated with the accuracy of the causal outputs, affirming the method's effectiveness.
Abstract:We propose a new approach to falsify causal discovery algorithms without ground truth, which is based on testing the causal model on a variable pair excluded during learning the causal model. Specifically, given data on $X, Y, \boldsymbol{Z}=X, Y, Z_1,\dots,Z_k$, we apply the causal discovery algorithm separately to the 'leave-one-out' data sets $X, \boldsymbol{Z}$ and $Y, \boldsymbol{Z}$. We demonstrate that the two resulting causal models, in the form DAGs, ADMGs, CPDAGs or PAGs, often entail conclusions on the dependencies between $X$ and $Y$ and allow to estimate $\mathbb{E}(Y\mid X=x)$ without any joint observations of $X$ and $Y$, given only the leave-one-out datasets. This estimation is called "Leave-One-Variable-Out (LOVO)" prediction. Its error can be estimated since the joint distribution $P(X, Y)$ is available, and $X$ and $Y$ have only been omitted for the purpose of falsification. We present two variants of LOVO prediction: One graphical method, which is applicable to general causal discovery algorithms, and one version tailored towards algorithms relying on specific a priori assumptions, such as linear additive noise models. Simulations indicate that the LOVO prediction error is indeed correlated with the accuracy of the causal outputs, affirming the method's effectiveness.
Machine Learning (stat.ML); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Methodology (stat.ME)
arXiv:2411.05625 [stat.ML]
(or arXiv:2411.05625v2 [stat.ML] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.05625 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 289 words
Related coverage
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026
Coverage-driven alignment - What ‘Teaching Claude Why’ can borrow from AV verification
LessWrong · Jun 8, 2026
sHAIL-Causal: A Sequential Staircase Procedure for Invariant Causal Predictor Discovery
arXiv · Oct 7, 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026