Author name cluster

Elias Eulig

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

2 papers

1 author row

AAAI Conference 2025 Conference Paper

Toward Falsifying Causal Graphs Using a Permutation-Based Test

Elias Eulig
Atalanti A. Mastakouri
Patrick Blöbaum
Michaela Hardt
Dominik Janzing

Understanding causal relationships among the variables of a system is paramount to explain and control its behavior. For many real-world systems, however, the true causal graph is not readily available and one must resort to predictions made by algorithms or domain experts. Therefore, metrics that quantitatively assess the goodness of a causal graph provide helpful checks before using it in downstream tasks. Existing metrics provide an absolute number of inconsistencies between the graph and the observed data, and without a baseline, practitioners are left to answer the hard question of how many such inconsistencies are acceptable or expected. Here, we propose a novel consistency metric by constructing a baseline through node permutations. By comparing the number of inconsistencies with those on the baseline, we derive an interpretable metric that captures whether the graph is significantly better than random. Evaluating on both simulated and real data sets from various domains, including biology and cloud monitoring, we demonstrate that the true graph is not falsified by our metric, whereas the wrong graphs given by a hypothetical user are likely to be falsified.

PDF Details DOI

NeurIPS Conference 2023 Conference Paper

Assumption violations in causal discovery and the robustness of score matching

Francesco Montagna
Atalanti Mastakouri
Elias Eulig
Nicoletta Noceti
Lorenzo Rosasco
Dominik Janzing
Bryon Aragam
Francesco Locatello

When domain knowledge is limited and experimentation is restricted by ethical, financial, or time constraints, practitioners turn to observational causal discovery methods to recover the causal structure, exploiting the statistical properties of their data. Because causal discovery without further assumptions is an ill-posed problem, each algorithm comes with its own set of usually untestable assumptions, some of which are hard to meet in real datasets. Motivated by these considerations, this paper extensively benchmarks the empirical performance of recent causal discovery methods on observational iid data generated under different background conditions, allowing for violations of the critical assumptions required by each selected approach. Our experimental findings show that score matching-based methods demonstrate surprising performance in the false positive and false negative rate of the inferred graph in these challenging scenarios, and we provide theoretical insights into their performance. This work is also the first effort to benchmark the stability of causal discovery algorithms with respect to the values of their hyperparameters. Finally, we hope this paper will set a new standard for the evaluation of causal discovery methods and can serve as an accessible entry point for practitioners interested in the field, highlighting the empirical implications of different algorithm choices.

PDF Details