Challenges and Considerations in the Evaluation of Bayesian Causal Discovery

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03209v1
• Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:45:23 GMT
• Title: Challenges and Considerations in the Evaluation of Bayesian Causal Discovery
• Authors: Amir Mohammad Karimi Mamaghan, Panagiotis Tigas, Karl Henrik Johansson, Yarin Gal, Yashas Annadani, Stefan Bauer,
• Abstract summary: Representing uncertainty in causal discovery is a crucial component for experimental design, and more broadly, for safe and reliable causal decision making. Unlike non-Bayesian causal discovery, which relies on a single estimated causal graph and model parameters for assessment, causal discovery presents challenges due to the nature of its quantity. No consensus on the most suitable metric for evaluation.
• Score: 49.0053848090947
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Representing uncertainty in causal discovery is a crucial component for experimental design, and more broadly, for safe and reliable causal decision making. Bayesian Causal Discovery (BCD) offers a principled approach to encapsulating this uncertainty. Unlike non-Bayesian causal discovery, which relies on a single estimated causal graph and model parameters for assessment, evaluating BCD presents challenges due to the nature of its inferred quantity - the posterior distribution. As a result, the research community has proposed various metrics to assess the quality of the approximate posterior. However, there is, to date, no consensus on the most suitable metric(s) for evaluation. In this work, we reexamine this question by dissecting various metrics and understanding their limitations. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we find that many existing metrics fail to exhibit a strong correlation with the quality of approximation to the true posterior, especially in scenarios with low sample sizes where BCD is most desirable. We highlight the suitability (or lack thereof) of these metrics under two distinct factors: the identifiability of the underlying causal model and the quantity of available data. Both factors affect the entropy of the true posterior, indicating that the current metrics are less fitting in settings of higher entropy. Our findings underline the importance of a more nuanced evaluation of new methods by taking into account the nature of the true posterior, as well as guide and motivate the development of new evaluation procedures for this challenge.

Related papers

• Controlling Risk of Retrieval-augmented Generation: A Counterfactual Prompting Framework [77.45983464131977]
  We focus on how likely it is that a RAG model's prediction is incorrect, resulting in uncontrollable risks in real-world applications. Our research identifies two critical latent factors affecting RAG's confidence in its predictions. We develop a counterfactual prompting framework that induces the models to alter these factors and analyzes the effect on their answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T14:52:14Z)
• Probabilistic Precision and Recall Towards Reliable Evaluation of Generative Models [7.770029179741429]
  We propose P-precision and P-recall (PP&PR), based on a probabilistic approach that address the problems. We show that our PP&PR provide more reliable estimates for comparing fidelity and diversity than the existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-04T13:19:17Z)
• Mutual Wasserstein Discrepancy Minimization for Sequential Recommendation [82.0801585843835]
  We propose a novel self-supervised learning framework based on Mutual WasserStein discrepancy minimization MStein for the sequential recommendation. We also propose a novel contrastive learning loss based on Wasserstein Discrepancy Measurement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-28T13:38:48Z)
• Monotonicity and Double Descent in Uncertainty Estimation with Gaussian Processes [52.92110730286403]
  It is commonly believed that the marginal likelihood should be reminiscent of cross-validation metrics and that both should deteriorate with larger input dimensions. We prove that by tuning hyper parameters, the performance, as measured by the marginal likelihood, improves monotonically with the input dimension. We also prove that cross-validation metrics exhibit qualitatively different behavior that is characteristic of double descent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T08:09:33Z)
• Generalizing Off-Policy Evaluation From a Causal Perspective For Sequential Decision-Making [32.06576007608403]
  We argue that explicitly highlighting the association has important implications on our understanding of the fundamental limits of OPE. We demonstrate how this association motivates natural desiderata to consider a general set of causal estimands. We discuss each of these aspects as actionable desiderata for future OPE research at scale and in-line with practical utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-20T16:13:16Z)
• Deep Causal Reasoning for Recommendations [47.83224399498504]
  A new trend in recommender system research is to negate the influence of confounders from a causal perspective. We model the recommendation as a multi-cause multi-outcome (MCMO) inference problem. We show that MCMO modeling may lead to high variance due to scarce observations associated with the high-dimensional causal space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-06T15:00:01Z)
• Variational Causal Networks: Approximate Bayesian Inference over Causal Structures [132.74509389517203]
  We introduce a parametric variational family modelled by an autoregressive distribution over the space of discrete DAGs. In experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed variational posterior is able to provide a good approximation of the true posterior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T17:52:49Z)
• SAFEval: Summarization Asks for Fact-based Evaluation [40.02686002117778]
  We extend previous approaches and propose a unified framework, named SAFEval. In contrast to established metrics such as ROUGE or BERTScore, SAFEval does not require any ground-truth reference. We show that SAFEval substantially improves the correlation with human judgments over four evaluation dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-23T17:16:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.