Skip to content
← Back to explorer

On the Number of Conditional Independence Tests in Constraint-based Causal Discovery

Marc Franquesa Monés, Jiaqi Zhang, Caroline Uhler · Mar 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Learning causal relations from observational data is a fundamental problem with wide-ranging applications across many fields. Constraint-based methods infer the underlying causal structure by performing conditional independence tests. However, existing algorithms such as the prominent PC algorithm need to perform a large number of independence tests, which in the worst case is exponential in the maximum degree of the causal graph. Despite extensive research, it remains unclear if there exist algorithms with better complexity without additional assumptions. Here, we establish an algorithm that achieves a better complexity of $p^{\mathcal{O}(s)}$ tests, where $p$ is the number of nodes in the graph and $s$ denotes the maximum undirected clique size of the underlying essential graph. Complementing this result, we prove that any constraint-based algorithm must perform at least $2^{Ω(s)}$ conditional independence tests, establishing that our proposed algorithm achieves exponent-optimality up to a logarithmic factor in terms of the number of conditional independence tests needed. Finally, we validate our theoretical findings through simulations, on semi-synthetic gene-expression data, and real-world data, demonstrating the efficiency of our algorithm compared to existing methods in terms of number of conditional independence tests needed.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 30%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Learning causal relations from observational data is a fundamental problem with wide-ranging applications across many fields."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Simulation Env

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Learning causal relations from observational data is a fundamental problem with wide-ranging applications across many fields."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Learning causal relations from observational data is a fundamental problem with wide-ranging applications across many fields."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Learning causal relations from observational data is a fundamental problem with wide-ranging applications across many fields."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Learning causal relations from observational data is a fundamental problem with wide-ranging applications across many fields."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Math

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Simulation Env
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Learning causal relations from observational data is a fundamental problem with wide-ranging applications across many fields.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Learning causal relations from observational data is a fundamental problem with wide-ranging applications across many fields.
  • Constraint-based methods infer the underlying causal structure by performing conditional independence tests.
  • However, existing algorithms such as the prominent PC algorithm need to perform a large number of independence tests, which in the worst case is exponential in the maximum degree of the causal graph.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Learning causal relations from observational data is a fundamental problem with wide-ranging applications across many fields.
  • Constraint-based methods infer the underlying causal structure by performing conditional independence tests.
  • However, existing algorithms such as the prominent PC algorithm need to perform a large number of independence tests, which in the worst case is exponential in the maximum degree of the causal graph.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Simulation Env

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.