arXiv:2609.37446v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Supervised causal discovery learns to infer causal structure for a new dataset from training datasets paired with structural labels. These training pairs are typically simulated, making the simulator both a source of supervision and a carrier of assumptions about causal graphs, mechanisms, and noise. Understanding the resulting predictions therefore requires examining how these assumptions supplement the information available in observational data, which may be compatible with multiple causal graphs. This paper examines that relationship across representative methods available through June 2026. We organize these methods by prediction target, prediction granularity, encoder, structural decoder, and training regime to relate what each method predicts to how it uses data and simulator-based supervision. Using this framework, we distinguish two questions: whether the target is identifiable under the assumed model class, and whether a trained predictor generalizes beyond its training distribution. Restrictions on mechanisms and noise can make otherwise ambiguous causal directions identifiable, but predictive accuracy under those restrictions does not establish transfer when they change. This distinction motivates evaluation that matches metrics to the identifiable graph target and tests changes in graphs, mechanisms, and noise between training and deployment. Extending such evaluation to real data also requires documenting the external causal evidence and uncertainty behind benchmark reference graphs. Together, these analyses guide method comparison and identify open questions in transfer, test-time adaptation, and uncertainty assessment.
Abstract: Supervised causal discovery learns to infer causal structure for a new dataset from training datasets paired with structural labels. These training pairs are typically simulated, making the simulator both a source of supervision and a carrier of assumptions about causal graphs, mechanisms, and noise. Understanding the resulting predictions therefore requires examining how these assumptions supplement the information available in observational data, which may be compatible with multiple causal graphs. This paper examines that relationship across representative methods available through June 2026. We organize these methods by prediction target, prediction granularity, encoder, structural decoder, and training regime to relate what each method predicts to how it uses data and simulator-based supervision. Using this framework, we distinguish two questions: whether the target is identifiable under the assumed model class, and whether a trained predictor generalizes beyond its training distribution. Restrictions on mechanisms and noise can make otherwise ambiguous causal directions identifiable, but predictive accuracy under those restrictions does not establish transfer when they change. This distinction motivates evaluation that matches metrics to the identifiable graph target and tests changes in graphs, mechanisms, and noise between training and deployment. Extending such evaluation to real data also requires documenting the external causal evidence and uncertainty behind benchmark reference graphs. Together, these analyses guide method comparison and identify open questions in transfer, test-time adaptation, and uncertainty assessment.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: