3.8 Proceedings Paper

Identification of Partially Observed Linear Causal Models: Graphical Conditions for the Non-Gaussian and Heterogeneous Cases

Publisher

NEURAL INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS (NIPS)

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Union [801199]
  2. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF20OC0062897]
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01HL159805]
  4. NSF-Convergence Accelerator Track-D award [2134901]
  5. United States Air Force [FA8650-17-C7715]
  6. Apple Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper explores the application of linear non-Gaussian acyclic models in partially observed linear models, introducing two graphical conditions necessary for identifying causal structure, closely related to the sparsity of causal edges. These new conditions can be met even when the number of latent variables is large.
In causal discovery, linear non-Gaussian acyclic models (LiNGAMs) have been studied extensively. While the causally sufficient case is well understood, in many real applications the observed variables are not causally related. Rather, they are generated by latent variables, such as confounders and mediators, which may themselves be causally related. Existing results on the identification of the causal structure among the latent variables often require very strong graphical assumptions. In this paper, we consider partially observed linear models with either non-Gaussian or heterogeneous errors. In that case we give two graphical conditions which are necessary for identification of the causal structure. These conditions are closely related to sparsity of the causal edges. Together with one additional condition on the coefficients, which holds generically for any graph, the two graphical conditions are also sufficient for identifiability. These new conditions can be satisfied even when the number of latent variables is very large. We demonstrate the validity of our results on synthetic data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available