Causal Discovery as Dialectical Aggregation: A Quantitative Argumentation Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23633v1
• Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2026 09:47:41 GMT
• Title: Causal Discovery as Dialectical Aggregation: A Quantitative Argumentation Framework
• Abstract summary: Constraint-based causal discovery is brittle in finite-sample regimes.<n>We propose Quantitative Argumentation for Causal Discovery (QACD)<n>QACD represents CI outcomes as graded, defeasible arguments rather than irreversible constraints.
• Score: 13.587507786613664
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Constraint-based causal discovery is brittle in finite-sample regimes because erroneous conditional-independence (CI) decisions can cascade into substantial structural errors. We propose Quantitative Argumentation for Causal Discovery (QACD), a semantics-driven framework that represents CI outcomes as graded, defeasible arguments rather than irreversible constraints. QACD maps statistical test outcomes to argument strengths and aggregates conflicting evidence through connectivity-mediated witness propagation, producing a fixed-point acceptability labeling over candidate adjacencies. Experiments on standard benchmark Bayesian networks suggest that QACD improves structural coherence and interventional reliability in several noisy or inconsistent CI regimes, while remaining competitive with classical constraint-based, hybrid, and prior argumentation-based baselines.

Related papers

• Position: Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research Needs Stronger Evidence [52.76826423649968]
  We show how conceptual ambiguity, non-robust datasets, experimental design, and insufficient causal interventions can lead to overinterpretation of model behaviors.<n>This position paper aims to offer guidance on evidentiary considerations that can help improve methodological rigor in AMR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T16:38:53Z)
• When Verification Fails: How Compositionally Infeasible Claims Escape Rejection [30.404615085122046]
  We show that existing verification benchmarks cannot distinguish between rigorous claim verification and simple salient-constraint reliance.<n>We construct compositionally infeasible claims where the salient constraint is supported but a non-salient constraint is contradicted.<n>We show that different models occupy distinct positions on a shared ROC curve, indicating that the gap between model families reflects differences in verification threshold rather than underlying reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T04:48:20Z)
• TRUE: A Trustworthy Unified Explanation Framework for Large Language Model Reasoning [0.2538209532048867]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in complex reasoning tasks, yet their decision-making processes remain difficult to interpret.<n>We propose the Trustworthy Unified Explanation Framework (TRUE), which integrates executable reasoning verification, feasible-region directed acyclic graph (DAG) modeling, and causal failure mode analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T17:00:54Z)
• Uncertainty in Federated Granger Causality: From Origins to Systemic Consequences [3.122408196953971]
  Granger Causality (GC) provides a rigorous framework for learning causal structures from time-series data.<n> Federated GC algorithms only yield deterministic point estimates of causality and neglect uncertainty.<n>This paper establishes the first methodology for rigorously quantifying uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T15:12:18Z)
• FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [62.452350134196934]
  FaithCoT-Bench is a unified benchmark for instance-level CoT unfaithfulness detection.<n>Our framework formulates unfaithfulness detection as a discriminative decision problem.<n>FaithCoT-Bench sets a solid basis for future research toward more interpretable and trustworthy reasoning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T05:16:54Z)
• CTRLS: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Latent State-Transition [57.51370433303236]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enables large language models to break down complex problems into interpretable intermediate steps.<n>We introduce groundingS, a framework that formulates CoT reasoning as a Markov decision process (MDP) with latent state transitions.<n>We show improvements in reasoning accuracy, diversity, and exploration efficiency across benchmark reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T21:32:18Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• The Curse of CoT: On the Limitations of Chain-of-Thought in In-Context Learning [56.574829311863446]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been widely recognized for its ability to enhance reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs)<n>We demonstrate that CoT and its reasoning variants consistently underperform direct answering across varying model scales and benchmark complexities.<n>Our analysis uncovers a fundamental hybrid mechanism of explicit-implicit reasoning driving CoT's performance in pattern-based ICL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T13:51:06Z)
• Answering Causal Queries at Layer 3 with DiscoSCMs-Embracing Heterogeneity [0.0]
  This paper advocates for the Distribution-consistency Structural Causal Models (DiscoSCM) framework as a pioneering approach to counterfactual inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-17T17:01:05Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.<n>Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)
• Does Misclassifying Non-confounding Covariates as Confounders Affect the Causal Inference within the Potential Outcomes Framework? [4.074237603319893]
  The Potential Outcome Framework (POF) plays a prominent role in the field of causal inference. We present a unified graphical framework for the CIMs-POF, which greatly enhances the comprehension of these models' underlying principles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T13:18:13Z)
• Advancing Counterfactual Inference through Nonlinear Quantile Regression [77.28323341329461]
  We propose a framework for efficient and effective counterfactual inference implemented with neural networks. The proposed approach enhances the capacity to generalize estimated counterfactual outcomes to unseen data. Empirical results conducted on multiple datasets offer compelling support for our theoretical assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T08:30:51Z)

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.