Causal Discovery as Dialectical Aggregation: A Quantitative Argumentation Framework

Causal discovery aims to uncover the underlying causal relationships given data generated from a system. The goal, however, is not merely to predict causal edges given data, but also to be able to interpret and explain either observed or hypothesized phenomena, such as a particularly large causal effect. We consider this task of conditional causal discovery and cast it as a Bayesian inference problem, in which we target the posterior over causal graphs and parameters conditional on an event such as a causal-effect constraint. Unfortunately, this poses a computational challenge: existing approaches to Bayesian causal discovery struggle when the event has small posterior mass. To address this, we adapt rare-event estimation techniques to perform inference the joint graph-parameter space. Our method gradually drives a particle population toward the constrained region while maintaining samples that approximate the conditional posterior. Empirical evaluation on synthetic graphs validates the accuracy of our approach at small and large scales, and we show in a case study on the Sachs protein dataset how our method can be used to aid scientific exploration by providing pathway-level summaries.

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.

Causal-discovery algorithms return a directed graph, yet provide no principled means of distinguishing edge directions identified by the data from those assigned without an identifying assumption. Under the standard Markov and faithfulness conditions, the observational distribution identifies only a Markov equivalence class; orientations within that class are not determined by the joint distribution and cannot be recovered from additional samples alone, but require either a functional restriction or an intervention. We introduce a protocol for observational causal discovery on continuous data that attaches to each candidate edge a discrete impossibility certificate: a RESOLVED code records the identifiability theorem under which the direction was committed, while an IMPOSSIBLE code records the failure mode together with the specific question a domain expert must answer to resolve it. The bivariate cascade is extended with five gated identifiability tiers LSNM, IGCI, Stein, MDL, and PEIT that abstain when their precondition test rejects. Two oracle primitives, the meta-hub query and the node-children query, jointly establish an upper bound of $1+K$ expert interactions sufficient to recover any DAG, where $K$ denotes the number of non-leaf vertices. Under an ideal-oracle assumption, the bound is met exactly on the asia, sachs, child, and alarm benchmarks.