Organizations: Poznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland · AKCES NCBR, Warsaw, Poland · Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA · Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA
Data augmentation integrates domain knowledge into a dataset by making domain-informed modifications to existing data points. For example, image data can be augmented by duplicating images in different tints or orientations, thereby incorporating the knowledge that images may vary in these dimensions. Recent work by Teshima and Sugiyama has explored the integration of causal knowledge (e.g, A causes B causes C) up to conditional independence equivalence. We suggest a related approach for settings with additive noise that can incorporate information beyond a Markov equivalence class. The approach, built on the principle of independent mechanisms, permutes the residuals of models built on marginal probability distributions. Predictive models built on our augmented data demonstrate improved accuracy, for which we provide theoretical backing in linear Gaussian settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Empirical validation of MSE improvement rate. Left: Simple chain A→B→C . Right: Confounded structure A→B←D , B→C . Both configurations show MSE improvement following the predicted 1/N decay. In both cases B is the predicted value
Figure 2: Performance of the PC algorithm on datasets augmented by alternative methods. The plots show the average Structural Hamming Distance (SHD) between the true DAG and the estimated CPDAG returned by the PC algorithm as the number of augmented points increases; the shaded region indicates one standard deviation. Higher SHD indicates worse performance.
Figure 3: Performance of DirectLINGAM algorithm.
Figure 4: Mean MSE across all variables by augmentation method (Known Graph, n=100 ). Lower is better. CRB achieves the best performance, while non-causal augmenters often increase error relative to no augmentation.
Table 1: Best and worst per-variable performance relative to no augmentation. “Improv.” corresponds to MSE reduction (positive = better) on the best performing variable; “Worsen.” corresponds to MSE increase on the worst-performing variable.
Method
Boston
Sachs
Wine (red)
Wine (white)
Causal Chamber
ADMGTian
1.886 (1.45, 2.13)
0.596 (0.54, 0.67)
0.831 (0.79, 0.86)
0.874 (0.83, 0.93)
0.474 (0.47, 0.48)
ARF
0.625 (0.59, 0.70)
0.830 (0.81, 0.85)
0.981 (0.92, 1.02)
1.034 (1.03, 1.04)
0.738 (0.71, 0.76)
CTGAN
0.612 (0.58, 0.66)
0.876 (0.81, 0.95)
0.769 (0.73, 0.80)
0.912 (0.86, 1.02)
0.579 (0.55, 0.61)
CRB
0.457 (0.45, 0.47)
0.766 (0.55, 1.50)
0.635 (0.62, 0.65)
0.689 (0.67, 0.71)
0.383 (0.38, 0.38)
DDPM
0.371 (0.36, 0.39)
0.545 (0.48, 0.71)
0.586 (0.58, 0.60)
0.757 (0.73, 0.78)
0.483 (0.48, 0.49)
NFLOW
0.489 (0.48, 0.51)
0.783 (0.72, 0.85)
0.668 (0.63, 0.72)
0.799 (0.77, 0.84)
0.537 (0.50, 0.60)
Table 2: Mean MSE ( ↓ ) across datasets with learned causal graph (100 samples). 95% CI in parentheses. Full results in Ap. D .
Figure 6: Mean MSE across all variables as sample size increases (Known Graph). Lower is better. CRB maintains strong performance across sample sizes.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Augmenter
angle_1
angle_2
blue
current
green
ir_1
ir_2
ir_3
l_11
l_12
ADMGTian
0.007
0.008
0.193
0.563
0.503
0.134
0.134
0.151
1.209
1.227
ARF
0.895
0.613
0.555
0.530
0.794
0.306
0.291
0.300
1.026
1.021
CTGAN
0.420
0.415
0.451
0.596
0.862
0.299
0.290
0.282
1.134
1.139
CRB
0.003
0.007
0.064
0.489
0.184
0.100
0.106
0.129
1.023
1.020
DDPM
0.019
0.011
0.120
0.559
0.412
0.106
0.101
0.116
1.295
1.279
None
0.006
0.007
0.127
0.501
0.410
0.122
0.108
0.123
1.051
1.139
Appendix
Table 3: Per-variable MSE by Augmenter (Known Graph) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
1.886 (1.43, 2.12)
0.327 (0.24, 0.48)
0.014 (0.01, 0.03)
0.126 (0.10, 0.15)
0.999 (1.00, 1.00)
ARF
0.625 (0.59, 0.70)
0.855 (0.84, 0.87)
0.045 (0.03, 0.06)
0.394 (0.37, 0.42)
1.000
CTGAN
0.612 (0.58, 0.66)
0.873 (0.84, 0.90)
0.065 (0.04, 0.08)
0.287 (0.26, 0.33)
1.000
CRB
0.457 (0.45, 0.47)
0.724 (0.70, 0.78)
0.114 (0.10, 0.13)
0.249 (0.24, 0.26)
1.000
DDPM
0.371 (0.36, 0.39)
0.886 (0.86, 0.91)
0.304 (0.29, 0.32)
0.119 (0.11, 0.13)
0.996 (0.99, 1.00)
NFLOW
0.489 (0.48, 0.51)
0.833 (0.77, 0.87)
0.097 (0.08, 0.12)
0.285 (0.25, 0.33)
1.000
Appendix
Table 4: Performance metrics for Boston dataset (100 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.596 (0.54, 0.67)
0.925 (0.90, 0.94)
0.010 (0.01, 0.01)
0.020 (0.02, 0.03)
0.081 (0.06, 0.10)
ARF
0.830 (0.81, 0.85)
0.577 (0.52, 0.62)
0.010 (0.01, 0.01)
0.050 (0.04, 0.06)
0.515 (0.46, 0.57)
CTGAN
0.876 (0.81, 0.95)
0.870 (0.81, 0.91)
0.038 (0.03, 0.05)
0.016 (0.01, 0.02)
0.153 (0.10, 0.19)
CRB
0.766 (0.55, 1.58)
0.863 (0.80, 0.90)
0.027 (0.02, 0.03)
0.020 (0.02, 0.02)
0.153 (0.12, 0.20)
DDPM
0.545 (0.48, 0.72)
0.863 (0.81, 0.90)
0.057 (0.05, 0.06)
0.013 (0.01, 0.01)
0.244 (0.21, 0.30)
NFLOW
0.783 (0.72, 0.85)
0.816 (0.76, 0.86)
0.028 (0.02, 0.04)
0.022 (0.02, 0.02)
0.260 (0.22, 0.30)
Appendix
Table 5: Performance metrics for Sachs dataset (100 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.831 (0.79, 0.86)
0.780 (0.72, 0.82)
0.020 (0.02, 0.03)
0.211 (0.20, 0.23)
0.643 (0.58, 0.72)
ARF
0.981 (0.92, 1.02)
0.814 (0.80, 0.83)
0.027 (0.02, 0.03)
0.303 (0.29, 0.31)
1.000
CTGAN
0.769 (0.73, 0.80)
0.826 (0.70, 0.88)
0.104 (0.08, 0.12)
0.217 (0.20, 0.26)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CRB
0.635 (0.62, 0.65)
0.876 (0.85, 0.91)
0.141 (0.13, 0.15)
0.205 (0.20, 0.21)
1.000
DDPM
0.586 (0.58, 0.60)
0.846 (0.82, 0.87)
0.136 (0.13, 0.15)
0.160 (0.16, 0.16)
0.907 (0.89, 0.92)
NFLOW
0.668 (0.63, 0.72)
0.789 (0.68, 0.87)
0.096 (0.07, 0.11)
0.244 (0.23, 0.28)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
Appendix
Table 6: Performance metrics for Wine (red) dataset (100 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.874 (0.83, 0.93)
0.831 (0.76, 0.88)
0.009 (0.01, 0.01)
0.175 (0.16, 0.21)
0.627 (0.57, 0.69)
ARF
1.034 (1.03, 1.04)
0.880 (0.75, 0.93)
0.014 (0.01, 0.02)
0.211 (0.20, 0.24)
1.000
CTGAN
0.912 (0.86, 1.03)
0.754 (0.67, 0.84)
0.038 (0.03, 0.05)
0.169 (0.15, 0.20)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CRB
0.689 (0.67, 0.71)
0.878 (0.86, 0.90)
0.064 (0.06, 0.07)
0.147 (0.14, 0.16)
1.000
DDPM
0.757 (0.73, 0.78)
0.827 (0.79, 0.86)
0.047 (0.04, 0.05)
0.130 (0.12, 0.14)
0.884 (0.84, 0.93)
NFLOW
0.799 (0.77, 0.84)
0.848 (0.73, 0.92)
0.037 (0.03, 0.04)
0.180 (0.17, 0.20)
1.000
Appendix
Table 7: Performance metrics for Wine (white) dataset (100 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.474 (0.47, 0.48)
0.925 (0.90, 0.94)
0.009 (0.01, 0.01)
0.606 (0.60, 0.62)
1.000
ARF
0.738 (0.72, 0.76)
0.937 (0.90, 0.96)
0.002 (0.00, 0.00)
0.779 (0.77, 0.79)
1.000
CTGAN
0.579 (0.55, 0.61)
0.914 (0.89, 0.93)
0.018 (0.01, 0.02)
0.670 (0.65, 0.69)
1.000
CRB
0.383 (0.38, 0.38)
0.944 (0.91, 0.96)
0.090 (0.09, 0.09)
0.573 (0.57, 0.58)
1.000
DDPM
0.483 (0.48, 0.49)
0.758 (0.74, 0.78)
0.037 (0.03, 0.04)
0.606 (0.60, 0.61)
1.000
NFLOW
0.537 (0.50, 0.60)
0.615 (0.46, 0.75)
0.011 (0.01, 0.02)
0.751 (0.71, 0.82)
1.000
Appendix
Table 8: Performance metrics for Causal Chambers dataset (100 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.436 (0.39, 0.54)
0.869 (0.83, 0.90)
0.029 (0.02, 0.04)
0.016 (0.01, 0.02)
0.126 (0.11, 0.15)
ARF
0.628 (0.60, 0.69)
0.692 (0.56, 0.74)
0.102 (0.07, 0.11)
0.039 (0.03, 0.07)
0.371 (0.31, 0.55)
CTGAN
0.841 (0.71, 1.30)
0.812 (0.60, 0.89)
0.148 (0.10, 0.18)
0.025 (0.01, 0.07)
0.231 (0.15, 0.48)
CRB
0.372 (0.36, 0.38)
0.863 (0.84, 0.88)
0.141 (0.13, 0.15)
0.021 (0.02, 0.02)
0.166 (0.14, 0.20)
DDPM
0.400 (0.37, 0.43)
0.938 (0.93, 0.95)
0.341 (0.33, 0.35)
0.011 (0.01, 0.01)
0.121 (0.10, 0.14)
NFLOW
0.697 (0.65, 0.78)
0.910 (0.83, 0.94)
0.200 (0.17, 0.21)
0.018 (0.01, 0.03)
0.164 (0.12, 0.26)
Appendix
Table 9: Performance metrics for Sachs dataset (500 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
1.210 (1.14, 1.32)
0.283 (0.24, 0.32)
0.016 (0.01, 0.02)
0.205 (0.19, 0.23)
0.734 (0.69, 0.80)
ARF
0.597 (0.58, 0.62)
0.872 (0.86, 0.89)
0.278 (0.26, 0.29)
0.260 (0.25, 0.27)
1.000
CTGAN
0.624 (0.60, 0.64)
0.919 (0.89, 0.95)
0.375 (0.35, 0.40)
0.207 (0.20, 0.22)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CRB
0.494 (0.47, 0.53)
0.835 (0.81, 0.86)
0.438 (0.43, 0.45)
0.203 (0.20, 0.21)
1.000
DDPM
0.411 (0.40, 0.42)
0.912 (0.88, 0.94)
0.509 (0.50, 0.52)
0.168 (0.16, 0.18)
0.997 (0.99, 1.00)
NFLOW
0.578 (0.55, 0.64)
0.921 (0.89, 0.94)
0.391 (0.37, 0.41)
0.212 (0.20, 0.22)
1.000
Appendix
Table 10: Performance metrics for Wine (red) dataset (500 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.630 (0.55, 0.92)
0.908 (0.65, 0.98)
0.098 (0.06, 0.11)
0.126 (0.12, 0.13)
0.611 (0.60, 0.62)
ARF
0.688 (0.68, 0.69)
0.915 (0.89, 0.93)
0.128 (0.12, 0.14)
0.182 (0.17, 0.19)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CTGAN
0.736 (0.72, 0.76)
0.874 (0.81, 0.92)
0.153 (0.13, 0.17)
0.161 (0.15, 0.18)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CRB
0.557 (0.55, 0.56)
0.877 (0.85, 0.90)
0.214 (0.21, 0.22)
0.151 (0.15, 0.16)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
DDPM
0.552 (0.55, 0.56)
0.869 (0.83, 0.90)
0.238 (0.22, 0.25)
0.128 (0.12, 0.13)
0.986 (0.97, 0.99)
NFLOW
0.652 (0.64, 0.68)
0.865 (0.77, 0.91)
0.159 (0.13, 0.18)
0.167 (0.16, 0.18)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
Appendix
Table 11: Performance metrics for Wine (white) dataset (500 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.412 (0.41, 0.41)
0.967 (0.96, 0.97)
0.042 (0.04, 0.05)
0.584 (0.58, 0.59)
1.000
ARF
0.556 (0.55, 0.59)
0.961 (0.95, 0.97)
0.031 (0.03, 0.03)
0.727 (0.72, 0.73)
1.000
CTGAN
0.468 (0.46, 0.49)
0.897 (0.83, 0.94)
0.124 (0.10, 0.14)
0.647 (0.63, 0.67)
1.000
CRB
0.362 (0.36, 0.36)
0.976 (0.97, 0.98)
0.331 (0.33, 0.33)
0.583 (0.58, 0.59)
1.000
DDPM
0.443 (0.44, 0.45)
0.781 (0.74, 0.82)
0.249 (0.24, 0.26)
0.561 (0.55, 0.57)
1.000
NFLOW
0.421 (0.41, 0.43)
0.879 (0.80, 0.92)
0.137 (0.11, 0.17)
0.647 (0.63, 0.68)
1.000
Appendix
Table 12: Performance metrics for Causal chambers dataset (500 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.416 (0.38, 0.47)
0.753 (0.73, 0.77)
0.034 (0.03, 0.05)
0.018 (0.02, 0.02)
0.202 (0.19, 0.22)
ARF
0.570 (0.51, 0.70)
0.691 (0.56, 0.76)
0.180 (0.11, 0.22)
0.036 (0.03, 0.06)
0.392 (0.30, 0.60)
CTGAN
0.659 (0.62, 0.69)
0.941 (0.91, 0.96)
0.351 (0.32, 0.38)
0.013 (0.01, 0.02)
0.147 (0.14, 0.16)
CRB
0.349 (0.33, 0.41)
0.857 (0.84, 0.88)
0.238 (0.22, 0.25)
0.022 (0.02, 0.02)
0.176 (0.16, 0.19)
DDPM
0.341 (0.33, 0.36)
0.954 (0.94, 0.96)
0.564 (0.56, 0.57)
0.011 (0.01, 0.01)
0.081 (0.07, 0.09)
NFLOW
0.630 (0.59, 0.68)
0.893 (0.85, 0.92)
0.345 (0.32, 0.37)
0.016 (0.01, 0.02)
0.109 (0.08, 0.17)
Appendix
Table 13: Performance metrics for Sachs dataset (1000 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
1.639 (1.52, 1.90)
0.164 (0.14, 0.19)
0.016 (0.01, 0.02)
0.272 (0.25, 0.29)
0.815 (0.74, 0.88)
ARF
0.516 (0.50, 0.52)
0.898 (0.88, 0.91)
0.587 (0.57, 0.60)
0.266 (0.26, 0.27)
1.000
CTGAN
0.587 (0.55, 0.61)
0.924 (0.91, 0.93)
0.637 (0.62, 0.65)
0.213 (0.21, 0.22)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CRB
0.452 (0.44, 0.46)
0.807 (0.78, 0.83)
0.669 (0.66, 0.68)
0.216 (0.21, 0.22)
1.000
DDPM
0.344 (0.33, 0.36)
0.920 (0.88, 0.94)
0.736 (0.72, 0.75)
0.185 (0.18, 0.20)
0.999 (1.00, 1.00)
NFLOW
0.522 (0.49, 0.55)
0.923 (0.89, 0.94)
0.640 (0.62, 0.66)
0.232 (0.22, 0.24)
1.000
Appendix
Table 14: Performance metrics for Wine (red) dataset (1000 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.816 (0.48, 1.41)
0.816 (0.52, 0.97)
0.173 (0.10, 0.21)
0.125 (0.11, 0.14)
0.666 (0.61, 0.77)
ARF
0.641 (0.63, 0.65)
0.934 (0.92, 0.94)
0.229 (0.21, 0.24)
0.182 (0.17, 0.19)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CTGAN
0.683 (0.67, 0.70)
0.913 (0.87, 0.94)
0.257 (0.23, 0.27)
0.155 (0.15, 0.16)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CRB
0.534 (0.52, 0.55)
0.841 (0.82, 0.88)
0.321 (0.31, 0.33)
0.148 (0.14, 0.16)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
DDPM
0.494 (0.49, 0.50)
0.923 (0.89, 0.94)
0.352 (0.34, 0.36)
0.139 (0.13, 0.15)
0.998 (1.00, 1.00)
NFLOW
0.636 (0.61, 0.66)
0.919 (0.88, 0.95)
0.264 (0.25, 0.28)
0.166 (0.16, 0.18)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
Appendix
Table 15: Performance metrics for Wine (white) dataset (1000 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.401 (0.40, 0.41)
0.980 (0.97, 0.98)
0.081 (0.07, 0.09)
0.580 (0.58, 0.58)
1.000
ARF
0.511 (0.51, 0.52)
0.970 (0.97, 0.97)
0.084 (0.08, 0.09)
0.712 (0.71, 0.72)
1.000
CTGAN
0.449 (0.43, 0.49)
0.917 (0.89, 0.94)
0.263 (0.23, 0.29)
0.633 (0.62, 0.64)
1.000
CRB
0.358 (0.36, 0.36)
0.989 (0.98, 0.99)
0.505 (0.50, 0.51)
0.579 (0.58, 0.58)
1.000
DDPM
0.418 (0.40, 0.43)
0.859 (0.82, 0.90)
0.472 (0.46, 0.48)
0.568 (0.56, 0.58)
1.000
NFLOW
0.421 (0.41, 0.43)
0.844 (0.78, 0.90)
0.202 (0.17, 0.23)
0.666 (0.65, 0.68)
1.000
Appendix
Table 16: Performance metrics for Causal chambers dataset (1000 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.429 (0.38, 0.48)
0.533 (0.50, 0.57)
0.049 (0.03, 0.07)
0.039 (0.03, 0.05)
0.398 (0.37, 0.43)
ARF
0.490 (0.43, 0.62)
0.751 (0.64, 0.80)
0.363 (0.24, 0.42)
0.029 (0.02, 0.04)
0.342 (0.28, 0.49)
CTGAN
0.680 (0.63, 0.75)
0.884 (0.68, 0.94)
0.450 (0.31, 0.53)
0.019 (0.01, 0.03)
0.194 (0.15, 0.33)
CRB
0.317 (0.30, 0.35)
0.849 (0.83, 0.86)
0.367 (0.36, 0.38)
0.024 (0.02, 0.03)
0.214 (0.19, 0.24)
DDPM
0.316 (0.30, 0.35)
0.965 (0.96, 0.97)
0.757 (0.75, 0.76)
0.012 (0.01, 0.01)
0.071 (0.06, 0.08)
NFLOW
0.628 (0.55, 0.72)
0.901 (0.84, 0.94)
0.555 (0.53, 0.57)
0.015 (0.01, 0.02)
0.099 (0.07, 0.14)
Appendix
Table 17: Performance metrics for Sachs dataset (2000 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.952 (0.52, 1.70)
0.734 (0.47, 0.91)
0.311 (0.17, 0.40)
0.178 (0.15, 0.22)
0.787 (0.73, 0.88)
ARF
0.606 (0.60, 0.63)
0.942 (0.94, 0.95)
0.396 (0.38, 0.41)
0.198 (0.18, 0.22)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CTGAN
0.734 (0.66, 0.91)
0.847 (0.58, 0.93)
0.367 (0.24, 0.41)
0.202 (0.17, 0.30)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
CRB
0.504 (0.50, 0.51)
0.814 (0.80, 0.83)
0.464 (0.46, 0.47)
0.166 (0.15, 0.18)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
DDPM
0.449 (0.44, 0.46)
0.924 (0.91, 0.94)
0.519 (0.50, 0.53)
0.159 (0.15, 0.17)
0.999 (1.00, 1.00)
NFLOW
0.629 (0.60, 0.66)
0.925 (0.90, 0.94)
0.404 (0.38, 0.43)
0.186 (0.17, 0.21)
1.000 (1.00, 1.00)
Appendix
Table 18: Performance metrics for Wine (white) dataset (2000 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Augmenter
Mean MSE ↓
α -Precision ↑
β -Recall ↑
DCR ↑
δ -Presence ↑
ADMGTian
0.395 (0.39, 0.40)
0.983 (0.98, 0.99)
0.158 (0.14, 0.18)
0.580 (0.58, 0.58)
1.000
ARF
0.499 (0.48, 0.57)
0.970 (0.97, 0.97)
0.183 (0.13, 0.20)
0.704 (0.70, 0.73)
1.000
CTGAN
0.468 (0.43, 0.52)
0.917 (0.87, 0.95)
0.387 (0.32, 0.45)
0.630 (0.62, 0.64)
1.000
CRB
0.356 (0.36, 0.36)
0.988 (0.98, 0.99)
0.697 (0.69, 0.70)
0.582 (0.58, 0.59)
1.000
DDPM
0.379 (0.36, 0.39)
0.910 (0.87, 0.95)
0.696 (0.69, 0.70)
0.571 (0.56, 0.58)
1.000
NFLOW
0.415 (0.41, 0.42)
0.948 (0.94, 0.96)
0.376 (0.35, 0.40)
0.649 (0.64, 0.65)
1.000
Appendix
Table 19: Performance metrics for Causal chambers dataset (2000 samples) - Bold indicates best or statistically tied
Figure 7: Mean MSE across all variables as sample size increases (Known Graph). Lower is better. CRB maintains strong performance across sample sizes. Neural networks were used as predictors.
Figure 8: Results for chain with linear relations
Figure 9: Results for chain with non-linear relations
Data augmentation is one of the most widely used techniques to improve generalization in modern machine learning, often justified by its ability to promote invariance to label-irrelevant transformations. However, its theoretical role remains only partially understood. In this work, we propose an information-theoretic framework that systematically accounts for the effect of augmentation on generalization and invariance learning. Our approach builds upon mutual information-based bounds, which relate the generalization gap to the amount of information a learning algorithm retains about its training data. We extend this framework by modeling the augmented distribution as a composition of the original data distribution with a distribution over transformations, which naturally induces an orbit-averaged loss function. Under mild sub-Gaussian assumptions on the loss function and the augmentation process, we derive a new generalization bound that decompose the expected generalization gap into three interpretable terms: (1) a distributional divergence between the original and augmented data, (2) a stability term measuring the algorithm dependence on training data, and (3) a sensitivity term capturing the effect of augmentation variability. To connect our bounds to the geometry of the augmentation group, we introduce the notion of group diameter, defined as the maximal perturbation that augmentations can induce in the input space. The group diameter provides a unified control parameter that bounds all three terms and highlights an intrinsic trade-off: small diameters preserve data fidelity but offer limited regularization, while large diameters enhance stability at the cost of increased bias and sensitivity. We validate our theoretical bounds with numerical experiments, demonstrating that it reliably tracks and predicts the behavior of the true generalization gap.
Abdelali Bouyahia, Frédéric LeBlanc, Mario Marchand
Département d’informatique et génie logiciel Université Laval Québec, QC, Canada · Institut intelligence et données Université Laval Québec, G1V 0A6, Canada
Data augmentation is a simple and model-agnostic approach for exploiting known invariances in learning problems. Given a group acting on the input space, one augments the training set with transformed copies of each sample. Because it exploits symmetries without modifying the underlying learning algorithm, data augmentation can be applied broadly across learning methods. However, this universality comes at a computational cost: when the group is large, full group-sized augmentation quickly becomes computationally infeasible. This raises a fundamental question: Can partial data augmentation achieve the same statistical benefits as full augmentation in terms of generalization and sample complexity? We develop a general framework for investigating this question using Fourier analysis and the representation theory of finite groups. We show that, for a broad class of classical learning problems, partial data augmentation based on a randomly sampled subset of group elements achieves the same minimax rates as full augmentation, up to an approximation error that vanishes as the subset size increases. Our results provide a theoretical explanation for why partial augmentation can retain the statistical benefits of full augmentation despite enforcing symmetry only approximately, and shed light on a recently raised question in learning with symmetries: whether statistically optimal learning under general group invariances can be achieved using computationally scalable methods. Moreover, we prove a complementary impossibility result: enforcing exact invariance via data augmentation requires averaging over the entire group, and cannot be achieved by any strict subset when the hypothesis space is sufficiently expressive. Together, these results provide a unified perspective on full and partial data augmentation, as well as exact and approximate symmetry enforcement.
Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. · Technical University of Munich (CIT, MCML, MDSI) · MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL)
Data-driven modeling in real-world regression tasks often suffers from limited training samples, high collection costs, and noisy observations. Inspired by the impact of data augmentation in vision and language, we propose a novel Counterfactual Residual Data Augmentation (CRDA) technique for tabular regression. Our key insight is that once a regressor has modeled the systematic component of the data, the remaining noise can be viewed as an invariant residual that remains stable under small perturbations of carefully selected features. We exploit this residual invariance to generate new, yet realistic, training samples, effectively expanding the dataset without requiring additional real data. Our method is model-agnostic and readily applicable to various types of regressors. In experiments across datasets from a variety of benchmark repositories, on average, CRDA reduces an MLP Regressor's MSE by 22.9% and an XGBoost Regressor's MSE by 6.4%. When compared to existing state-of-the-art data generators and augmentation techniques, CRDA consistently outperforms in MSE reduction. By adding principled counterfactual variations to the training data, our method offers a simple and efficient remedy for noise-prone, small-sample regression settings.
Hossein Mohebbi, Oliver Schulte, Ke Li +1
University of Waterloo · Vector Institute · Simon Fraser University.