Causal lifting and link prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing causal models for link prediction assume an underlying set of inherent node factors—an innate characteristic defined at the node’s birth—that governs the causal evolution of links in the graph. In some causal tasks, however, link formation is path-dependent : the outcome of link interventions depends on existing links. Unfortunately, these existing causal methods are not designed for path-dependent link formation, as the cascading functional dependencies between links (arising from path dependence ) are either unidentifiable or require an impractical number of control variables. To overcome this, we develop the first causal model capable of dealing with path dependencies in link prediction. In this work, we introduce the concept of causal lifting, an invariance in causal models of independent interest that, on graphs, allows the identification of causal link prediction queries using limited interventional data. Further, we show how structural pairwise embeddings exhibit lower bias and correctly represent the task’s causal structure, as opposed to existing node embeddings, e.g. graph neural network node embeddings and matrix factorization. Finally, we validate our theoretical findings on three scenarios for causal link prediction tasks: knowledge base completion, covariance matrix estimation and consumer-product recommendations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".