PAIR-CI: Calibrated Conditional Independence Testing for Causal Discovery with Incomplete Data

Thomas S. Robinson; Ranjit Lall

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2605.04838

PAIR-CI: Calibrated Conditional Independence Testing for Causal Discovery with Incomplete Data

Thomas S. Robinson·Ranjit Lall

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The standard constraint-based paradigm for causal discovery with incomplete data -- impute first, test second -- is frequently miscalibrated: any consistent conditional independence (CI) test rejects a true null with probability approaching 1 when imputation error induces spurious conditional dependence. We introduce PAIR-CI, a nonparametric CI test that restores calibration by integrating multiple imputation directly into the inferential procedure via a paired permutation design. PAIR-CI compares cross-validated models that include and exclude the candidate variable while receiving the same imputed conditioning set, forcing imputation error to cancel in their loss difference rather than contaminate the test statistic. A provably consistent variance estimator jointly accounts for uncertainty arising from cross-validation and multiple imputation -- to our knowledge, the first formal unification of these two inferential frameworks. In simulations, existing imputation-based CI tests exhibit false positive rates of 28--45% when data are missing not at random (MNAR), whereas PAIR-CI averages below the nominal 5% level across data-generating processes and missingness mechanisms. These gains are largest in nonlinear settings and grow with causal graph size: when integrated into the PC algorithm, PAIR-CI reduces structural Hamming distance by 8% on 10-variable nonlinear graphs, 15% on 30-variable equivalents, and up to 44% on the 56-variable HAILFINDER network, with stable performance in all settings.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME cs.LG stat.ML

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Thomas S. Robinson, Ranjit Lall. 2026-05-06. PAIR-CI: Calibrated Conditional Independence Testing for Causal Discovery with Incomplete Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04838

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗