Relaxing Faithfulness with Intervention-Only Causal Discovery

2026-07-13Machine Learning

Machine Learning
AI summary

The authors explain that current methods for figuring out cause-and-effect relationships rely on a key assumption called faithfulness, which means that if one variable causes another, they should show some connection in the data. However, in real systems, some effects can cancel out, breaking this assumption and causing mistakes. They propose using information from experiments (hard interventions) to better identify these relationships, even when cancellations occur. Their approach shifts focus away from just observing data connections to actively testing causes through interventions.

causal discoveryfaithfulness assumptionconditional independencehard interventionscausal structuresystemic robustnessintervention-immediacy faithfulnesscausal equivalence classes
Authors
Bijan Mazaheri, Jiaqi Zhang, Caroline Uhler
Abstract
Causal discovery algorithms learn a network that describes the causal dependencies among random variables. A common workflow involves first utilizing conditional independence properties on observational data to determine partially directed causal relationships, then applying interventions to orient the unknown causal directions. A critical assumption for the first step is faithfulness: a requirement that causally linked variables exhibit statistical dependence. Many natural systems include buffering and stabilizing pathways that cancel out to achieve systemic robustness. This cancellation of pathways violates faithfulness, leading causal discovery algorithms to incorrectly remove causal dependencies. In this paper, we argue that hard interventions contain information about the presence/absence of causal linkage that is overlooked in the first stage of structure discovery. We show that a mild assumption -- called intervention-immediacy faithfulness -- that allows cancellations, is sufficient to nonparametrically identify causal structures with hard interventions. These results position interventions as the primary carriers of information about causal structure, which should take precedence over conditional independence testing. To flip the paradigm, we also specify equivalence classes when the identification criteria are not met due to limitations in the scope of interventions.