A causal direction test for heterogeneous populations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A probabilistic expert system emulates the decision-making ability of a human expert through a directional graphical model. The first step in building such systems is to understand data generation mechanism. To this end, one may try to decompose a multivariate distribution into product of several conditionals, and evolving a blackbox machine learning predictive models towards transparent cause-and-effect discovery. Most causal models assume a single homogeneous population, an assumption that may fail to hold in many applications. We show that when the homogeneity assumption is violated, causal models developed based on such assumption can fail to identify the correct causal direction. We propose an adjustment to a commonly used causal direction test statistic by using a k-means type clustering algorithm where both the labels and the number of components are estimated from the collected data to adjust the test statistic. Our simulation result show that the proposed adjustment significantly improves the performance of the causal direction test statistic for heterogeneous data. We study large sample behaviour of our proposed test statistic and demonstrate the application of the proposed method using real data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it