Expert-Aided Causal Discovery of Ancestral Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Causal discovery (CD) is an important component of many scientific applications, yet most techniques produce unreliable point estimates that often contradict expert knowledge. To mitigate this, recent research has focused on ex-ante incorporation of background knowledge into the CD process, typically under an unrealistic causal sufficiency assumption. When probing experts is costly (e.g., hidden behind expensive LLM APIs), however, ex-post model refinement that maximizes query utility is preferable. Also, when independent experts provide conflicting but better-than-random feedback, a principled aggregation method is required. In this context, we introduce the first CD algorithm that enables (i) distributional inference over ancestral graphs (AGs), which represent causal systems under latent confounding, and (ii) integration of both ex-ante and uncertain ex-post expert knowledge. Briefly, our method is a diversity-seeking reinforcement learning algorithm, termed Ancestral GFlowNet (AGFN), whose policy we iteratively refine based on a Bayesian model of the noisy expert feedback. Importantly, we prove convergence to the true AG given sufficiently accurate responses. Through validation on synthetic and realistic datasets using simulated humans and LLMs, we show AGFN is competitive with or superior to strong baselines in terms of structural Hamming distance and Bayesian Information Criterion.
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 | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".