Approaches to bivariate causal discovery based on the minimum description length (MDL) principle approximate the (uncomputable) Kolmogorov complexity of the models in each causal direction, selecting the one with the lower total complexity. The premise is that nature's mechanisms are simpler in their true causal order. Inherently, the description length (complexity) in each direction includes the description of the cause variable and that of the causal mechanism. In this work, we argue that current state-of-the-art MDL-based methods do not correctly address the problem of estimating the description length of the cause variable, effectively leaving the decision to the description length of the causal mechanism. Based on rate-distortion theory, we propose a new way to measure the description length of the cause, corresponding to the minimum rate required to achieve a distortion level representative of the underlying distribution. This distortion level is deduced using rules from histogram-based density estimation, while the rate is computed using the related concept of information dimension, based on an asymptotic approximation. Combining it with a traditional approach for the causal mechanism, we introduce a new bivariate causal discovery method, termed rate-distortion MDL (RDMDL). We show experimentally that RDMDL achieves competitive performance on the Tübingen dataset. All the code and experiments are publicly available at github.com/tiagobrogueira/Causal-Discovery-In-Exchangeable-Data.

Multivariate time series in domains such as finance, climate science, and healthcare often exhibit long-term trends, seasonal patterns, and short-term fluctuations, complicating causal inference under non-stationarity and autocorrelation. Existing causal discovery methods typically operate on raw observations, making them vulnerable to spurious edges and misattributed temporal dependencies. We introduce a decomposition-based causal discovery framework that separates each time series into trend, seasonal, and residual components and performs component-specific causal analysis. Trend components are assessed using stationarity tests, seasonal components using kernel-based dependence measures, and residual components using constraint-based causal discovery. The resulting component-level graphs are integrated into a unified multi-scale causal structure. This approach isolates long- and short-range causal effects, reduces spurious associations, and improves interpretability. Across extensive synthetic benchmarks and real-world climate data, our framework more accurately recovers ground-truth causal structure than state-of-the-art baselines, particularly under strong non-stationarity and temporal autocorrelation.

When domain knowledge is limited and experimentation is restricted by ethical, financial, or time constraints, practitioners turn to observational causal discovery methods to recover the causal structure, exploiting the statistical properties of their data. Because causal discovery without further assumptions is an ill-posed problem, each algorithm comes with its own set of usually untestable assumptions, some of which are hard to meet in real datasets. Motivated by these considerations, this paper extensively benchmarks the empirical performance of recent causal discovery methods on observational data generated under different background conditions, allowing for violations of the critical assumptions required by each selected approach. Our experimental findings show that score matching-based methods demonstrate surprising performance in the false positive and false negative rate of the inferred graph in these challenging scenarios, and we provide theoretical insights into their performance. This work is also the first effort to benchmark the stability of causal discovery algorithms with respect to the values of their hyperparameters. Finally, we hope this paper will set a new standard for the evaluation of causal discovery methods and can serve as an accessible entry point for practitioners interested in the field, highlighting the empirical implications of different algorithm choices.

Causal discovery methods have traditionally been developed under two distinct regimes: independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) and timeseries data, each governed by separate modelling assumptions. In this paper, we argue that the i.i.d. setting can and should be reframed in terms of exchangeability, a strictly more general symmetry principle. We present the implications of this reframing, alongside two core arguments: (1) a conceptual argument, based on extending the dependency of experimental causal inference on exchangeability to causal discovery; and (2) an empirical argument, showing that many existing i.i.d. causal-discovery methods are predicated on exchangeability assumptions, and that the sole extensive widely-used real-world "i.i.d." benchmark (the Tübingen dataset) consists mainly of exchangeable (and not i.i.d.) examples. Building on this insight, we introduce a novel synthetic dataset that enforces only the exchangeability assumption, without imposing the stronger i.i.d. assumption. We show that our exchangeable synthetic dataset mirrors the statistical structure of the real-world "i.i.d." dataset more closely than all other i.i.d. synthetic datasets. Furthermore, we demonstrate the predictive capability of this dataset by proposing a neural-network-based causal-discovery algorithm trained exclusively on our synthetic dataset, and which performs similarly to other state-of-the-art i.i.d. methods on the real-world benchmark.

Causal discovery aims to learn causal relationships between variables from targeted data, making it a fundamental task in machine learning. However, causal discovery algorithms often rely on unverifiable causal assumptions, which are usually difficult to satisfy in real-world data, thereby limiting the broad application of causal discovery in practical scenarios. Inspired by these considerations, this work extensively benchmarks the empirical performance of various mainstream causal discovery algorithms, which assume i.i.d. data, under eight model assumption violations. Our experimental results show that differentiable causal discovery methods exhibit robustness under the metrics of Structural Hamming Distance and Structural Intervention Distance of the inferred graphs in commonly used challenging scenarios, except for scale variation. We also provide the theoretical explanations for the performance of differentiable causal discovery methods. Finally, our work aims to comprehensively benchmark the performance of recent differentiable causal discovery methods under model assumption violations, and provide the standard for reasonable evaluation of causal discovery, as well as to further promote its application in real-world scenarios.

Practitioners making decisions based on causal effects typically ignore structural uncertainty. We analyze when this uncertainty is consequential enough to warrant methodological solutions (Bayesian model averaging over competing causal structures). Focusing on bivariate relationships ($X \rightarrow Y$ vs. $X \leftarrow Y$), we establish that model averaging is beneficial when: (1) structural uncertainty is moderate to high, (2) causal effects differ substantially between structures, and (3) loss functions are sufficiently sensitive to the size of the causal effect. We prove optimality results of our suggested methodological solution under regularity conditions and demonstrate through simulations that modern causal discovery methods can provide, within limits, the necessary quantification. Our framework complements existing robust causal inference approaches by addressing a distinct source of uncertainty typically overlooked in practice.