The DeCAMFounder: nonlinear causal discovery in the presence of hidden variables
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Statistical Methodology, ISSN: 1467-9868, Vol: 85, Issue: 5, Page: 1639-1658
2023
- 2Citations
- 24Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Many real-world decision-making tasks require learning causal relationships between a set of variables. Traditional causal discovery methods, however, require that all variables are observed, which is often not feasible in practical scenarios. Without additional assumptions about the unobserved variables, it is not possible to recover any causal relationships from observational data. Fortunately, in many applied settings, additional structure among the confounders can be expected. In particular, pervasive confounding is commonly encountered and has been utilised for consistent causal estimation in linear causal models. In this article, we present a provably consistent method to estimate causal relationships in the nonlinear, pervasive confounding setting. The core of our procedure relies on the ability to estimate the confounding variation through a simple spectral decomposition of the observed data matrix. We derive a DAG score function based on this insight, prove its consistency in recovering a correct ordering of the DAG, and empirically compare it to previous approaches. We demonstrate improved performance on both simulated and real datasets by explicitly accounting for both confounders and nonlinear effects.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know