We start by proving statement (ii). We now prove statement (iii). The last constraint is trivially satisfied. This can be easily shown by induction. 's constraint remains equal when Let's pick such a branching Moreover, observe that every edge in B is tight.

Other concurrent works address, e.g., learning from soft interventions with polynomial mixing [

It is essential to approach the interpretation of our algorithm's results with caution and subject them to critical evaluation. In this section, we provide the definition of partial ancestral graphs (P AGs). A P AG shares the same adjacencies as any MAG in the observational equivalence class of MAGs. Section 2. For any v W, let G In this section, we derive the causal effect for the SMCM in Figure 3(top), i.e., (6), as well as prove D.1 Proof of (6) First, using the law of total probability, we have P(y |do (t = t)) = null Rule 3a, (c) follows from Rule 1, and (g) follows from Rule 2. D.2 Proof of Theorem 3.1 Lemma 1. Suppose Assumptions 1 to 3 hold. Given this claim, Theorem 3.1 follows from Tian and Pearl [2002, Theorem 4].

Maximum mean discrepancy gradient flow.

(Bertsekas, 1999). Algorithm 1. Furthermore, we call ˆ f (), X We can show that | f () ˆ f () |, 8 2 [, ] . Besides, computing the upper bound claimed in Proposition 4.2 requires finding The second equality is from the fact that the objective function is affine w.r.t. Finally, we verify the rest two components. Finally, we verify the rest two components. This finishes the proof of our claim.

The deviated model can be motivated by many applications in science.