arXiv subjects

David Kaltenpoth

Publications and source records attributed to David Kaltenpoth.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Identifying Structural Biases from Causal Mechanism Shifts

Causal discovery methods commonly assume that all data is independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and that there are no unmeasured variables affecting the system. In practice, these assumptions are often violated, leading to inaccurate inference. In this paper, we study how to identify hidden confounding and selection biases from causal mechanism shifts. In particular, we show that structural biases lead to dependent mechanism shifts. That is, by considering for which variables the mechanisms change given data from different environments, we can tell which variables are unbiased, which are subject to hidden confounding, and which are undergoing selection bias. We formalize this into an empirically testable criterion based on mutual information, and show under which conditions it identifies structural biases. To tell which nodes are subject to what kind of bias, we introduce the StruBI algorithm. Experiments on synthetic and real-world data show that StruBI works well in practice, accurately recovering affected variable sets and types of biases, outperforming the state-of-the-art by a wide margin.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Root Cause Analysis of Measurement and Mechanistic Anomalies

Root cause analysis of anomalies aims to identify how and why a sample deviates from the normal process. Existing methods primarily focus on telling which features are responsible, ignoring that anomalies can arise through two fundamentally different processes: measurement errors, where the sample is generated normally but one or more values is recorded incorrectly, and mechanism shifts, where the causal process that generated the sample was changed. While measurement errors can often be safely corrected, mechanistic anomalies require careful consideration. In this paper, we formally define a causal model that explicitly captures both types by treating outliers as latent interventions on latent ("true") and observed ("measured") variables and show under which conditions the distinction is possible. Based on this model, we develop an efficient inference procedure for localizing root causes and distinguishing anomaly types. Experiments on synthetic and real-world data show that our method provides state-of-the-art and highly robust performance in both root cause localization and classification of anomaly types.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2019

We Are Not Your Real Parents: Telling Causal from Confounded using MDL

Given data over variables $(X_1,...,X_m, Y)$ we consider the problem of finding out whether $X$ jointly causes $Y$ or whether they are all confounded by an unobserved latent variable $Z$. To do so, we take an information-theoretic approach based on Kolmogorov complexity. In a nutshell, we follow the postulate that first encoding the true cause, and then the effects given that cause, results in a shorter description than any other encoding of the observed variables. The ideal score is not computable, and hence we have to approximate it. We propose to do so using the Minimum Description Length (MDL) principle. We compare the MDL scores under the models where $X$ causes $Y$ and where there exists a latent variables $Z$ confounding both $X$ and $Y$ and show our scores are consistent. To find potential confounders we propose using latent factor modeling, in particular, probabilistic PCA (PPCA). Empirical evaluation on both synthetic and real-world data shows that our method, CoCa, performs very well -- even when the true generating process of the data is far from the assumptions made by the models we use. Moreover, it is robust as its accuracy goes hand in hand with its confidence.

cs.LG↗